User talk:Ravenswing/Archive2

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. For a good time call (617) 555-1212.

Ninjaken and Good faith

Please assume good faith when making statements in public debates. Alan.ca 12:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It took me thirty seconds, using Google alone, to come up with six sound references for the existence of the weapon. As I said on the talk page, I won't even touch the "did this weapon really exist in period?" maelstrom, but there is overwhelming evidence that the weapon exists today (oh, like every single bloody movie with a "ninja" in it), and filing repeated prods and AfDs on various permutations of the article is misuse of process. The way to request sourcing for a blatantly notable subject is through the use of citation tags, not through prods and AfDs. As it happens, I stated explicitly that I was not accusing you of bad faith, but this isn't the first time you've advocated deletion over taking a few minutes to source a blatantly notable article (Brian Mulroney being a startling example}. The governing reasons given in the official deletion policy are" "Article information cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed;" "Because we don't see any sources and aren't looking for any either" isn't among them.  Ravenswing  14:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirtbags chime in

It's hyprocritical of you to denounce me for personal attacks when ccwaters has made many against me. What are you, his personal watchdog? It's also hypocritical of you to place a copyvio on the Coco the Bear page and not on the many other mascot pages that use the same info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JaMikePA (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Having reviewed your conversations, I'm completely satisfied both that the personal attacks have all gone one way and in my assessment of your behavior and demeanor. If I needed any supporting evidence of your tendency to go off on people unprovoked, you've just supplied it; in point of fact, I have never edited the Coco the Bear page, nor was the editor who placed a copyvio notice on it. (That being said, if you genuinely think it's possible for one person to monitor each and every one of the 1.7 million articles on Wikipedia for copyright violations, go right ahead.)  Ravenswing  19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, this is interesting. Another altercation over ccwaters. How interesting that Addhoc and I had a dispute because he was Muero's bodyguard (or was Muero himself, I'm not sure), and now you and I have one over ccwaters. Maybe I'll bring this to the attention of other Wikipedians, who can look over both of your edit history's, to see if this is indeed a trend. We can't have gangs on wikipedia, can we? (On an unrelated note, I also found your "WTF" box on your userpage hypocritical. Just thought I'd mention it under the appropriate heading) The strokes 20:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

(laughs) And you have the nerve to complain about being stalked and harassed? Do you have any legitimate purpose for posting on my talk page? Cease doing so at once.  Ravenswing  20:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, I'm not 100% sure on this, but checking out the talk page of a user who has is writing complaints about you doesn't constitute stalking. And I do have a legitimate reason for posting here - alterting you that I've realized your motive, and will follow up if need be. (Only replying on your talk page because you asked me a question. Hope this doesn't infuriate you) Cheers The strokes 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll humour you, but I'll be blunt, go right ahead. Just what is it do you honestly expect to achieve by making other Wikipedians aware that RG and Ccwaters *watch* each other's back? Even if that were true, do you really believe other do-well editors will sympathize with your behaviour and condemn RG and Ccwaters's given all of your histories? There is no Wikipedian guideline/policy prohibiting one editor from guarding another editor's page against vandalism. There is also no Wikipedian guideline/policy prohibiting editors from supporting each other's views... and gangs? Nope... no policy prohibiting that either. In fact, Wikipedia is all about gangs. I mean as far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia has 2 gangs. A gang of editors seeking to improve Wikipedia, and a gang of editors seeking to disrupt Wikipedia. You just happen to be on the disruptive side right now locked into a dispute with three well established editors (emphasis necessary).

I apologize, RG. I don't mean to undermine your ability to respond as I am aware that you are quite capable, but I simply felt compelled to chip in. — Dorvaq (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Good heavens, I don't mind at all. You just proved your own quite accurate point; that many editors watch talk pages and keep an eye out for vandals or other idjits. I've had vandalism on my page reverted by editors with whom I've never had any interactions. Myself, I watch ten other user pages, and it's been more in the past, but when I was approaching 600 pages on my watchlist I figured to trim back a bit. As it happens, CC and I've worked on many of the same articles over the last couple years, we're both long-time AHL fans, we agree on a bunch of things, I think he's a huge asset to the WikiProject, and if I'm ever again in his neck of the woods I'll find out if he wants to take in a game. Anyone who doesn't like that or finds something sinister in that can stick it in his ear.  Ravenswing  01:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

People "watching other people's backs", and subsequent "gangs" are absolutely NOT good for wikipedia. In fact, it undermines what wikipedia is all about. People are less likely to voice their own opinions if they feel they have to conform to a gang, and so you get polar thought processes forming on what should be a spectrum. That's the basis of political parties. You force people into certain cohorts, and whether they're 100% conservative or 51% conservative, they are only exposed to conservative POV in their political meetings. Those that are 51% eventually agree with the conservative POV (as that's all they're exposed to), and eventually become 100% conservative. Then they do things like fight against abortion, even though they may not really care either way. See Cohort effect for further reading. The strokes 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, you don't need to conform to a gang. We'd be pretty happy if you felt the need to conform to WP:VANDAL and WP:NPA.  Ravenswing  01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

question

hi, i was wondering if you can help me with image deletion. I have uploded some but do now know how to delete them now. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edgarszilde (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Richard Clune

The Richard Clune was magically recreated by User:HockeyPrincess who doesn't seem to grasp the concept of notability, but rather just wants to promote all of her favourite players. Should the Richard Clune article be put on {{afd}}, after already being deleted by an uncontested {{prod}} tag? Flibirigit 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not now it shouldn't be; he's playing for Iowa, and so passes WP:BIO under the "fully professional league" clause. What I would do is ruthlessly trim it to encyclopedic length.  Ravenswing  00:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Which I've just done. By the bye, has anyone sat down with her and discussed relative notability? I've seen some nitpicking on her talk page, but only that much.  Ravenswing  00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The strokes ccwaters 13:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:WesselHorst.jpg

After I see this image, I realize if we can use PD-Germany on it. Martin 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No doubt we could.  Ravenswing  15:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say that "A photograph that by the very nature of the subject's death 77 years ago has to be more than 75 years old is by that very fact public domain." ? Do you mean that the photographer died 77 years ago? Chanueting 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it seems you (Ravenswing) did mix up author and object of an image. Since the photographer isn't mentioned in any form, this image can't be tagged with {{PD-Germany}} at all. --32X 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

learning is fun!

i just wanted to let you know that in reading your responses, i was forced to look up 'maelstrom' AND 'polemic.' my project for this week is to use both in the same sentence. kudos! the_undertow ^talk 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hah! I've always said that any day in which I learn something new is a good one. Glad to know I'm not the only one; you've just made my night. Thank you kindly!  Ravenswing  03:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

all this and 'hagiography' as well? please remember, this is english wikipedia. dood, are you using a thesaurus!? tell me. i'm seriously getting out my 'word per square' toilet paper. the_undertow ^talk 04:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm just one of those wordy blokes who thought that flipping through dictionaries to see new words was fun when I was a kid. (grins)  Ravenswing  13:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

well, tonite im gonna have a few pints. while i imbibe, i will be making up some new words. that way, i appear smarter to those who don't look them up. dont feel bad if you cant understand them. they are going to be quite intellectual. thanks for being super-awesome <---- i just made that up. dont even try to comprehend it. the_undertow ^talk 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, go for it.  Ravenswing  01:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for that. Just like to make sure people are aware of whats going on. Hate to see things slip through the cracks cause someone didn't notice. --Djsasso 01:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Schools and notability

Namaste Ravenswing,

I went to the WP:NOTE talk pages and read the two old discussions regarding trying to set notability guidelines for schools, its not very encouraging. This seems to be a battleground for the Inclusionistas and Deletionieros and neither side seems willing to give any ground. I have to say that I would probably be considered a running-dog Deletionist. I think there are many things that are verifiable and sourcable, perhaps even notable, but are just not encyclopedic. There is the whole rest of the web out there, isn't there?

But...The greatest thing I learned in college was when I was arguing an obscure point on a test question I had gotten wrong on some minor point relating to the Kreb's cycle (relates to energy creation and use in cell metabolism). The instructor let me go on for a while and answered my points and then said, Bill, is this the hill you want to die on?"

Well, I looked at her for a moment and then felt rather stupid and said, "No," and she said, "Very well then, lets move on."

She meant it in a joking way and it wasn't at all a putdown. She was a great teacher and we became friends after the class was over, but I never forgot that question.

When my daughter was in her pre- and teens there were times when she wanted to dye her hair green or do her school shopping at Goodwill and wear polyester Marcia Brady shifts or three full-length black slips to school or make soup out of one of every vegetable from the Albertson's and I would think, "Is this the hill I want to die on?" and decide that no, it wasn't.

Really Bad News friends? Riding with people who have been drinking? Yeah, I'll die on those hills, but few others are worth the fight. I was a single parent and I credit that teacher with my sanity and Amelia's unique perfection.

I bring all this up because I see so much time and energy being wasted over this debate and whatever I think about it, this hill is not worth dying on. I also feel that the issue is hindering the advancement of civility here, and if I have any ulterior motive, for this or WP as a whole, the promotion of civility is it.

I am thinking about proposing that all schools be considered notable, subject only to verifiability and as far as I'm concerned, a phone book entry would be sufficient.

You've been around awhile, certainly longer than me, so I want to ask you if you think there is a snowball's chance of this being accepted. I think the inclusionists have an advantage in this battle and the fact that 85% of the school AfD's are resulting in keep seems to show a broad consensus in general, if not in every case.

If you feel this worth persuing or have any other thoughts on the matter, let me know. If I do persue it I would like to have a group of people from both sides onboard to launch the proposal. I'm not trying to stack the vote, I just don't want to fight old battles over again.

I'm posting this on some other talk pages to get a sense of the mood out there. Thanks!--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 08:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ... here's my answer. For one thing, the mood is changing. That "85%" you read about in an old essay is, explicitly, based on two-year old data. The number of school-related AfDs that succeed in deletion is well up over 50% now, and the ones that survive are the ones that come up with some serious sourcing, which is all to the good. There've even been two high school AfDs succeed in the last month, something that would have been inconceivable two years ago.

Now beyond that ... yes, to a degree, the hill is worth dying on, because Wikipedia's future is being fought out in a lot of these tiny ground actions. The degree to which the "who cares, it's all notable" attitude takes over is the one that will lead to "who cares, the facts are probably right" that you see a lot in AfD discussions, with "seems notable" answers that plainly just take the articles' assertions on faith. That's the problem I have with the inclusionist creed, because for every inclusionist who believes "Everything should stay in if the facts check out," there are two who believe "Everything should stay in," and we don't have a worthwhile encyclopedia: we have Myspace.  Ravenswing  20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize the data was 2 years old, I guess I should have noticed. I actually agree, as mentioned above, about setting a high bar for what is encyclopedic rather than notable. I've only been around a short time and felt that the acrimoniousness of the debates was more harmful than the inclusion, that was the reason I was sounding people out on this. I've since learned that it was much more acrimonious in the past. Hard to believe. Anyway, thanks for your input, based on it and the other responses I've received I'll probably drop it. Maybe it was just a late-night bee in my bonnet.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 22:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Freeholder AfDs

I see you've commented on the Sue Shilling AfD. There are also discussions regarding Freeholders Joe Kelly and Alisa Cooper.

I must warn you, however, that another editor has taken up a very dogged defense of these articles. He demands to see policy where none exist, then declares our position invalid when we try to cite a guideline. The Frank Finnerty AfD went on far longer than was truly necessary.

It's up to you if you want to take up these discussions. I just thought a fair warning of what may come of it would be in order. DarkAudit 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:Canvassing

As noted on DarkAudit's talk page, the above is almost certainly in violation of WP:Canvassing. I have asked DarkAudit to provide an acceptable explanation for his actions, before the violation is be noted on all of the relevant AfDs. Alansohn 03:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Beyond which I am more than a touch angry at mudslinging going on in defense of an article which was a clear copyvio and speedied as such. I strongly recommend, Alansohn, that you rein in your rhetoric and take a good hard look at WP:OWN before daring to do so again, because while I just had doubts about your objectivity before, your credibility just took a huge hit.  Ravenswing  13:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • You have been directly involved in a violation of Votestacking and refused to take the appropriate action and step away from the matter in question, instead choosing to dive into a series of AfDs you had studiously ignored for over five days. These seems to be a rather clear cause-and-effect relationship from the tainted solicitation and your decision to ignore the warning included above and participate in the AfDs you were pushed to participate in. If you have a specific claim about a copyright violation, you can address it as appropriate. Unfortunately, you have absolutely no credibility whatsoever. Alansohn 13:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • You cannot imagine that I am looking towards you for neutrality, credibility or approval in this matter; I'm quite astonished that someone with as massive a conflict of interest as yours and who has posted copyvios in clear violation of federal law, never mind merely of Wikipedia policy, would dare to levy any charges at all, never mind ringing defenses of his own tainted actions. You certainly gave me no "warning," explicit or otherwise, but I'll accord you an unambiguous one; should DarkAudit feel compelled, as he implied he might, to file a RfC, only some serious evidence that you felt Wikipedia policy applied to you just as much and as readily as you invoke it against others would deter me from lending my own observations on your conduct.  Ravenswing  14:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Alan gets quite unhinged at times. He has accused me of nefarious motives and poor faith. I am wondering if an RFC might be in order. I take that back - a suggestion that the user be more civil and WP:AGF is perhaps in order. I will so undertake. Eusebeus 23:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... I didn't like his style terribly much before the past few days, but there's no law requiring people to conform to my beliefs. This bad faith nonsense over copyvios, though, that was an eyeopener, and it really looks like this guy is obsessed with "winning" over other considerations. For a number of editors, "bad faith" nominations seems to mean "I really don't like this AfD!!" Even as caustic as I get, I'm very chary about slinging that accusation around, and I never have when an article I've created myself has come under fire -- it's a huge conflict of interest, and if there's genuine and obvious bad faith someone else will raise the subject anyway. Who knows, a soft approach might work. We can but hope.  Ravenswing  13:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Worth a shot, particularly since Alan is a committed participant, even if I personally dislike his tone and have been on the wrong end of several ill-conceived accusations from him. I left him a message and he has delivered an answer that could almost be seen as polite, in the dusk with the light behind her. If no change is forthcoming, I think an RFC might at some point be appropriate, if but to solicit a wider expression of concern (or potentially lack thereof I suppose) and to get him to understand that at times his actions towards other editors is wanting - particularly a failure to assume good faith. Eusebeus 19:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... he's a jerk, but I've no reason to doubt his desire to improve the project.  Ravenswing  19:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see (below) it just keeps getting better and better .... My sympathies. At least the E. Conference Final is shaping up to be a classic. Eusebeus 08:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and what you don't see below are several more posts, reversions of the same and reposts. I wound up having to file a report on the Admins' Noticeboard from which an admin punctuated my request, and even there Alansohn filed a countercomplaint that *I* was harassing *him*. I'm beginning to believe that he sees the world in two ways, his version and the "wrong" version, and possibly I was overhasty in telling the admins that he ought not to be blocked outright for harassment; that degree of blind self-righteousness doesn't bode well for the project.  Ravenswing  12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The rude outburst on your talk page is only one of a number of incidents. Alan has made accusations of canvassing, stalking, sockpuppetry, bad faith nominations, not to mention being extremely uncivil and truculent with anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. My suggestion that he cool things down a bit, noted above, was met with a thinly veiled attack. I think the time has come to launch an RFC, since this behaviour is beyond acceptable, particularly when aimed at newer editors. Eusebeus 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow ... and I know you're a very levelheaded guy even under extreme provocation. I am certainly willing to put my oar in on any RfC filed concerning him.  Ravenswing  04:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Insight.

I've recently filed a request for assistance on a sourcing dispute. The path is at the bottom of my post, but before you read the request, I would ask that you please not respond to Endroit's request for comment unless you agree with him, as I do not want to be accused of attempting to solicit support.

The reason I am approaching you is to obtain your insight on the issue. I basically would like to know if I'm reading into policy right, or if the source is in fact reliable enough without secondary sources. Thanks. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See: Request for assistance

This is a slam dunk, actually. WP:SPS, an official policy, holds that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." A personal website is generally held - and emphasis on the "generally" - to be suitable only for uncontroversial vitae curriculae such as birthdates, birthplaces, family info and other suchlike. Under no circumstances whatsoever would I consider an assertion that this hairdresser services specific, named top actresses reliable on nothing more than the hairdresser's naked word, and neither should you.  Ravenswing  22:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, but could you also comment on my external links concerns. They were:

• Points 3, 4, and 11 of Links normally to be avoided.
• The fact that the article is about Frédéric Fekkai, and not about his products/services, and
• Under EL guidelines, external links should add information about the subject at hand that can not be readily added to the article. As I have mentioned before, the website doesn't add anything about Frédéric Fekkai that the article doesn't have already, other than his date & place of birth — which can easily be added to article as opposed to linking the website.

Now I know point 1 of WP:EL#What should be linked is pretty explicit as it states, "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." (Emphasis added). But, does this mean official sites should be added regardless of what they offer? Perhaps I should bring this up for discussion on the WP:EL talk page to have this be made more clear within the guidelines.

Feel free to dispute/support my concerns on the Frédéric Fekkai discussion page for all those involved to see, as my points were listed there as well. Thanks again. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your input RG. However, as mentioned on the talk page, I am not fully convinced that there are no exceptions to the addition of official websites, but I will pursue clarification on the WP:EL discussion page where it would be more appropriate. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that was fruitful... I guess I shall stick with your interpretation plain common sense and allow any official website on the subject matter as long as there's no blatant reason for removing the link (ie. illegal material). On a side note, I hope everything settles down with Alansohn. I actually thought my father was the worst of his kind... — Dorvaq (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's my "interpretation" as much as plain common sense that the subject's official website should be linked in the article; I don't think there's overt policy requiring or regulating the same. That being said, thanks for the good wishes.  Ravenswing  13:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There ;-)

You're correct in that regulation is perhaps unnecessary, but at least I now have something to refer back to when arguing for the addition of an official website. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman AfD

Can't speak for the others, but I was deliberately not taking the bad faith element of the nomination into account; just because a nomination's been made for the wrong reasons doesn't necessarily mean that there's not a case for deletion. In this case there patently isn't, and the nominator seems unable to see the difference between an unnecessary content fork and a useful splitting of an over-long article — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you Ravenswing, for voting on my RfA. Although it failed, I will try to improve in the ways pointed out to me, and maybe I will become an admin next time. If you have any comments, questions, etc., you know where to go. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 22:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Baseless accusations of fraud in Blue Ribbon citations

There seem to be a few unresolved issues left festering from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberview Middle School in which you had repeatedly implied that claims regarding Blue Ribbon Schools Program awards added to school articles after AfDs had been initiated were manufactured. In the following snippet (followed by my response) you have the nerve to call me a liar, without basing your accusation on a single shred of evidence. It's time you put up or shut up. Alansohn 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what I persist in asserting, as I always have, that the evidence is that this award is not nearly as notable as you like to believe it is - as witness how very few school article creators know squat about it - that the "five percent" total seems to be BS, and that if it were it would be a part of the article well before a frantic scramble to prove notability under the gun of AfDs; you present, and persist in presenting, the same old straw man. In no instance have I alleged that a citation was fraudulently made, nor do I have any reason to believe that this has been the case. Is there some reason we ought to know about why you have been so persistent in asking about fraud?  Ravenswing  18:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ignorance and non-existence are not one and the the same. As you well know, many of these middle school articles being subject to AfD had been created by well-intentioned sixth graders who are more familiar with the burritos served by the hair-netted lunch lady, than the Wikipedia rules and policies that constitute notability for the Blue Ribbon Schools Program. I have provided five quotations above that show that you persist in believing that I have made false claims of notability for Blue Ribbon schools. Now, in a staggering violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, you have now explicitly called me a liar without even a shred of evidence to support your allegation, despite the fact that I have provided you with all of the sources required for you to make an appropriate judgment. My claim of notability for the award is not based on a 5% threshold (the actual percentage is a bit lower); the claim of notability is based on statements that the Blue Ribbon Schools program is "the highest honor the U.S. Education Department can bestow upon a school", a statement contained and sourced in the article for the program and the articles for nearly every single one of the schools were I have cited the award in response to an AfD. Alansohn 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, I refer you to the disclaimer at the top of this page regarding keeping AfD discussions on AfD, or the talk pages thereof. Secondly, I stand by my repeated statement that these awards seem to appear far more frequently than the oft-quoted 5% would support; that you keep insisting on reading more words into that terribly simple statement than exist is your problem, not mine. Thirdly, speaking of putting words into someone's mouth, this is the definition of explicitly calling someone a liar: "You are a liar." Seen those words from me? Hm, guess I didn't "explicitly" say anything of the sort, but from a person who conflated "You are mistaken" and/or "You are careless in fact checking" with lies, I shouldn't have expected differently. Fourthly, no matter how much the notion seems to drive you berserk with fury, we disagree about the innate notability of these awards (the US government likewise claimed that Iraq had WMDs, and 3000 dead American soldiers still hasn't made that anything other than bullshit), and the degree your haranguing is likely to change my mind is remote. Fifthly, I've neither the time (yet) or the inclination (yet) to go through DOE's records and give the true figure on how many schools, total, have been given these awards since the start of the program, and the inclusionists would regret provoking me to do so, because I think the total's far closer to 20% or better, which would blow holes in the notability defense.

Finally, this is the second time you've barged onto my talk page over your one-sided vendettas - you can't claim any other motive for this one than Having! It! Out! - and it is the last. I didn't respond to your latest diatribe on the AfD because it had already spun out far too long and far too off topic, and keeping within the bounds of WP:CIVIL over your numerous and ongoing direct insults wouldn't have gotten any easier. Cease posting to this page at once.  Ravenswing  07:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Coyotes

You kindly "reversed" my hard word on this site: "Corrected? Slashed, more like. I see no reason to slavishly follow the Yotes' website, and indeed several policy-based reasons for not doing so." "several policy-based reasons"? What the hell does THAT mean? What "policy-based reasons"? BTW, "Slashed, more like" is hardly grammatically-correct English, as you pride yourself on using. Worc63 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries seldom have room for complete, well-parsed sentences. That being said, "slashed" is accurate enough in describing hacking a half-dozen paragraphs of information from the previous version [1], for which no reason was given and which (come to that) represented the hard work of other editors. One of the project's fundamentals, represented on each edit page, is "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."  Ravenswing  03:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

National Hockey League

I wasn't sure what to do with the edits to notable players. Well, I really don't think that Federov is going to stand the test of time, but otherwise, one person's notable player is another person's "who is he?" I'm glad you reverted it, and it is really a POV to state who is notable these days and who isn't. Orangemarlin 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much. The way I figure it - and have applied the practice to other such lists - in order for another player to be added, he'd need to be clearly superior to one or more of those already listed. So ... any new forwards would have to have resumes surpassing Gretzky, Lemieux, Yzerman, Hull, Messier or Joe Sakic. Five of those names are in the top ten all-time leading scorers, and the one who isn't is third in all-time goals. Neither Shanahan nor Forsberg are close to cracking their resumes, and Fedorov isn't remotely close; about the only recent forward who would be is Ron Francis.  Ravenswing  06:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

List of the writings of William Monahan

Hey, this stupid list is up for deletion again. As someone who voted on this issue previously, please feel free to express your opinion again. Also, billdeancarter has taken the liberty of notifying those who voted to keep in the first debate, so I am doing this to be fair. WhiteKongMan 13:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Unspecified source for Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkbuster

The Boston Globe did a feature piece on them in 2000. I've linked to it on the AfD. Thanks, Darkspots 17:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

GSIV

Thanks for adding those three references to the article. If needed we could probably find more in various press articles, I've certainly read a number of the claims in articles before, though I don't recall where or when. If needed we could possibly ask Simu as I'm sure they kept a record of every article written about them or their games.--Caranorn 11:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It'd probably be a good idea.  Ravenswing  14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Murugesapillai Koneswary

Regarding your vote in the above mentioned AFD, can you take a look at the article now. Thanks Taprobanus 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Union Party

This page has been nominated for AfD before. However, nothing much has been done to improve it (I am not an expert on the topic so I cannot be bold and improve it) since it was kept. I have added a tag at the top and mentioned what needs doing on the talk page, but I doubt anything will be done- when it was first nominated for AfD, there was a rush of edits, but since being kept t, this has stopped again. Do you think it should go on AfD? During the last discussion, someone thought it should be a Speedy Delete. I am inclined to agree:

• It is a stub.
• It contains very little information.
• Despite the page existing for a few years, relatively few edits have been made, by only a few editors. This shows how the page's subject could possibly hinder the page's viability.

Please read the page and list it for AfD if you see fit, I do not want to do this in case I am "barking up the wrong tree."

Thank You for considering this. Dewarw 21:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Errr ... I can't imagine upon what grounds this article could be deleted. Being a stub or not being heavily edited are not among valid grounds. Let me get this straight: this is a valid, extant political party with (I just checked) current representation in a sovereign state's parliament? One that's part of the ruling coalition? And the article's sourced to boot? I'm glad your instinct led you to get more than one opinion, because there would be no way I'd support an AfD on this.  Ravenswing  06:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The British Isles and Ireland

Hey. Irish editors are stuck with using google.ie. While there may be a way to configure google to do a wider search, I haven't found it :-( As Goldheart has pointed out, google.ie is only returning 1.46 million hits for "British Isles". Any chance you could include a link on the AFD debate to the search results page you got with 35 million hits? Thanks, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure can. On my way.  Ravenswing  18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD: Ethnic English

• regarding "reining in the invective", yes, indeed you are right. i wouldn't normally have said it but i liked the irony and yes, i was a little frustrated by the progress of the discussion. sorry about that... i was originally planning on leaving the whole issue some 4 comments ago but i was irked by the accusations of POV-pushing and moving talk-page comments and felt i should defend myself. now i really am leaving it. the article realistically isn't going to survive with the level of defence it's getting, and as someone's grandfather once said, "never argue with a fool, for passers-by cannot tell the difference". thanks for yr advice. tomasz. 14:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• just a quick question, are we allowed to edit other people's signatures if we don't like the look of them? i'm asking in good faith as i genuinely dunno. cheers. tomasz. 07:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We sure as hell aren't, barring them violating a Wikipedia civility rule. I just sent a cease-and-desist to Sidway; he's completely out of line.  Ravenswing  12:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He's done that to me before [2] - indeed he has a habit of refactoring people's sigs, but probably best not to pick a fight over it. Walton^Assistance! 15:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've every intention of doing so. It's an obnoxious, uncivil act, and I doubt he'd care for it if I did it to him claiming that his all-boldface sig was distressing to the aesthetic sense of other users. Left unchallenged, he's just going to keep on his self-righteous gig.  Ravenswing  01:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI and your name

In an ANI, I have used a quote from you (see here) I hope you dont mind. Thanks Taprobanus 14:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. Mind you, I don't pretend to have made an earnest study as to whether Tamilnet is biased or not (and any such still wouldn't be anything more than my personal opinion), but by the same token such examinations shouldn't be made by a faction that feels it stands to gain by its discrediting.  Ravenswing  14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some reading material for you about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to be a little more civil!

Can I kindly ask that when you participate in future requests for adminship, that you try to remain civil and not bite the newcomers. I am specifically referring to this where I feel that your comments were innapropriate. There is nothing wrong with a simple oppose and an simple explanation. Please take this into consideration as RFA is often a treacherous place for newcomers who feel they are ready for adminship. Thanks again! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Err ... that's not a criticism of the nominee at all, which you should realize in reading the discussion. That's supporting the nominee's contention.  Ravenswing  19:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I apologaize, that was the wrong diff. this is what I was referring to. It is just a friendly suggestion so take it or leave it! Good luck editing. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Jonjonbt's RfA

OK, check through my recent admin logs and tell me approximately how old you think I am. This will be interesting... :-) Walton^Assistance! 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw, the point of the above exercise is to try and demonstrate that age in years has little to do with actual maturity. I don't disagree with you that maturity is important, and I also agree that Jonjonbt was not ready for adminship (hence why I only offered moral support, in the face of an obvious WP:SNOW). But there are undoubtedly many users on Wikipedia who are younger than people assume, and who don't reveal their age because of the danger of being judged on a basis of ageism. Maturity is demonstrated through actions, not numbers. Walton^Assistance! 19:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the inference in your user name is that you were born in 1989, but if accurate, you surely can't be asserting that there's little or no perceivable difference in the maturity of a twelve-year-old over an eighteen-year-old. Certainly our cultures don't think so either, given the legal ages for voting, soldiering, sexuality, alcohol and tobacco consumption, ability to give legal consent to contracts, marriage, attending certain movies and the many other aspects of life in which someone below a certain age either cannot participate or has his or her participation curtailed. It's a hell of a lot less silly a ground to judge someone's likely fitness as an admin than on which percentage of his or her edits are in mainspace.  Ravenswing  20:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, guess what, I'M ELEVEN! ROTFL!!

According to the page history, the above comment was left by Jonjonbt. Regarding my own age, it was perceptive of you to notice the clue in my username; I'd almost forgotten about that, but you are, of course, correct (I'm a couple of days short of my 18th birthday). But there are admins who are much younger than I am; I'm told that Ilyanep became an admin when he was twelve, and I can think of several who admit to being under 16. When it comes to judging candidates on editcount, I substantially agree with you - I dislike arbitrary standards such as "must have 1000 edits in mainspace" - but the justification for such standards is that mainspace edits demonstrate a commitment to building the encyclopedia and/or fighting vandals, while projectspace edits show experience that will be relevant to using the admin tools. Walton^Assistance! 14:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Nomination

Hi, I first ran into about a month ago during a debate over the List of Writings of William Monahan. You've made 6300 edits here on Wikipedia, and was wondering if you would accept a nomination for an Administrator's post. I realize that last April you were nominated, but that failed. Would you want to be nominated again? Black Harry 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Black Harry and would be happy to co-nominate you. Walton^Assistance! 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you both for your kind thoughts and confidence, there's a lot I'd do with admin tools, and heck, I was a senior admin on a major university system as far back as 25 years ago ... but truth be told, there's not a snowball's chance in hell I'd ever pass nomination. If you've seen me on AfD, I haven't gotten any less caustic this past year (in the wake of the civility hit squad on my previous nomination, I slipped harder than I feel comfy over now) or made fewer enemies. Beyond that, the new hobby horse of the antis is edit summaries, and I probably don't have more than 75%. About the only thing that's changed from my first go at it is that I wouldn't get caught canvassing again (which would, in my experience, neither stop Oppose voters from doing so themselves nor disqualify their votes in that eventuality), but no doubt there's some other rule it could be claimed I've violated or some turn of phrase I made in some AfD debate a year ago that would be seized upon as proof of my unfitness or "lack of admin knowledge." I wish I could say otherwise, but there's no need to start something doomed to failure. Please accept my thanks once more, nonetheless. Best regards,  Ravenswing  01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay that's no problem. I was just curious. Keep up the good work though Black Harry 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I disagree with many of your RfA comments, but I don't think you've ever been uncivil enough to kill your chances of adminship - if you look at my second (successful) RfA, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton_monarchist89 2, I got 10 opposes because I once called an MfD nomination "ludicrous and pedantic" and because I had controversial right-wing political userboxes, but that didn't cancel out the 68 supports. Walton^{alternate account} 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI: Page blanking on Archive3

Most likely the same person (88.108.*) has recently been blanking your User talk:Ravenswing/Archive3 page. If that's actually you, or if you simply don't care, please accept my apologies and I won't revert them in the future. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers =) --koder 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It never hurts to be a little more civil, pt II.

Frankly, I would have expected someone comfortable with handing out civility lessons to himself avoid characterizing other editors as "idiots" and "pompous asses" for citing a (demonstrated) lack of maturity, recent vandalism, very few edits, no demonstrated breadth of editing and refusal to answer questions about one's admin candidacy as reasons to oppose that candidacy. Without going into pointless discussion of why you feel such characteristics are desirable in admins, such behavior in an admin is both unseemly and discredits any admonishments he might feel emboldened to deliver.  Ravenswing  02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to characterise my behavior anyway you so desire. First off, I 100% respect your right to oppose any candiacy and for that manner anybodys right to oppose, however wish that you do so civilly. My comments left were not meant to describe any particular editor as I feel as a singularity none of us are idiots. However, when a group of people get together to do a common task, it is inevitable that we will all be idiots at some time. To the outside, this may be hard to understand. I assure you that careful thought went into my statement and that In my every day work here i make every effort to be 100% civil. However, being civil does not mean ignoring the facts. My comments were generalisations and not particular attacks on any individuals personality, there is a major difference. There is at no point where I will call somebody or single them oput based on age or experience. We all have room to grow and learn, and offering to help as opposed to puttting them down is ALWAYS the proper course of action. There is NO situation where I ever consider "Not a bloody chance. Middle schooler with 87 edits total, been an editor for all of three months" an appropriate tone. Again, you are welcome to charaterise my behavior however you so choose, but i strongly stand by my statments. Best of luck to ya! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is likewise NO situation where I would characterize editors as "idiots" and "pompous asses" for applying sound measures of experience and deportment an appropriate tone either, nor would I figure failure to single out any of the nine editors in question by name much of a mitigating factor. The difference is (1) admins should be, and are, held to a higher standard, (2) I'm boggled by the notion that such represents your take on "100% civil;' and (3) I don't make a habit of unprompted civility lectures while using such turns of phrase. If you're as concerned about tone as all of that, I recommend either amending your own first or sending such sentiments through e-mail so that no one can catch you at it.  Ravenswing  03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, I have nothing to hide in my behavior, why would I want to "send such sentuiments through e-mail so no one can catch me at it"? Again, there is a difference between me characterising and participating int he RFA of a fairly new individual who does not understand RFA yet as "not a bloody chance" and or "a middle schooler with 87 edits". Again, i dont give a damn that you opposed and would have opposed myself. What bothers me is the whole, kick him while hes down ideal. Lets pile on degrading votes telling this person how bad an editor they are when a simple Oppose - not enough experience yet would have worked perfectly. Again, my statement does not single out any particular editor. My statements were in reference to the RFA process itself, not the paritucular RFA he participated in, and there are currently many editors often disgusted with the way RFA is currently going. If you monitor the talk page about twice a week there is a thread on "how to reform rfa" with a laundrey list of issues. In short, my statement was making a strong generalisation (and I myself am not expemt from this generalisation because we are all human). If you saw me make such a statement at an RFA, specially of a new editor, i would EXPECT a warnining from you and several other people. Thank you for addressing your concerns, however I stand by my statment that the RFA process is often full of pompous asses. I have nothing to hide here. Thanks and good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think that a simple "Oppose - not enough experience yet" would have served at all? That would be a pile-on vote with no particular purpose. In Jonjonbt's case, he could see that line, pile on a thousand edits in the next six months on his pet article, nominate himself once more with the expectation that he'd addressed the concern, and feel baited and switched when the Oppose votes came in saying that he's still too young, still was a one-subject editor, hadn't answered any questions about his candidacy or addressed his vandalism of a user page in an edit conflict. He'd be right, too.  Ravenswing  13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Experience != edits. It was obvious that he a.) did not understand the RFA process due to his low edit count. We see a few of these a week that get snowballed after about 6 votes to prevent an editor breakdown. b.) Your statemnt "only has 87 edits" is more likley to cause the above situation than a simple "not enough experience". I also offered to help this editor get the required experience. XFD's, writing good articles and citing them, understanding WP:AIV. There are a large number of areas he lacked in but beiung a middle schooler and 87 edits should not have been the only objection. Again, the 87 edit statement is more likley to cause him to develop editcount-itis because he was opposed for too few edits, not lack of experience in AFD, or other areas. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, just as well I listed two other objections besides being a middle schooler and only having 87 edits. This is looking now like arguing for the sake of arguing; first you say that a terse, generic Oppose should have sufficed, now you're saying that two grounds to oppose aren't enough. I'd ask which is it, were I interested in prolonging this any further.  Ravenswing  13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious we have opposing views. I have been willing to engage in discourse over this difference however as you have stated above, it appears as though it is doing little good. If you desire to continue discussing appropriate demeanor in RFA, then I will kindly oblige otherwise, we can call it a day for this conversation. However, please understand that there is NO point where I will offer admonishment for simply opposing a RFA, that is everybodys right to do so and I have myself opposed candidates. What I will never stand for is biting newcomers and making personal attacks based on age. You are welcome to disagree with my statements that RFA is often full of pompous asses as well. All I kindly ask is that you do not bite the newcomers! Thanks again for discussing this with me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ravenswing, you almost made me quit. I wuld like to get this all overwith, so I am OK, so no more fighting. OK??? JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. For your information, I am in a gifted class and also know the longest word in the English dictionary. It is: pneumonoultramicroscoicsilicavolcanokiniosis n A lung disease caused by workng near silica mines.

Hmmm... a 11 year old lacks intelligence, huh? I am very disappointed. I am the smartest person in my grade as far as I know, and I hav an IQ of 140. That's one point over one over one of the kid mob members on 1 vs. 100 this season. Am I still lacking intelligence? I don't think so. So, here's amoral for you. You can't judge a book by its cover. JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 19:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument would be more, well, intelligent, were I ever to have said that my objection had to do with your intelligence. It had to do with your experience and maturity level, and dredging up an old argument six weeks dead doesn't do much to help your position. Even more so than in other forums, Wikipedia is a place where dropping the subject, moving on and doing your best to make people see things your way by hard work and common sense impresses many more people than rehashing the same debate over and over. Frankly, given your continuing reaction, my uneasiness about your qualifications looks more and more justified.  Ravenswing  20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hum..

check this edit. Now she could have asked him to do that - but how do we know that's not just him as well? Checkuser? --Fredrick day 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't. I suppose we could ask an admin to take a peek. Posting that edit to the AfD would be the next step, I think.  Ravenswing  23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Summers complained about our personal attacks on him over at AN/I

It's been resolved, but in case you missed it...

I did miss it; thanks for the heads-up. Y'know, it's strange how so many people operate under delusions that not agreeing with them = attacking them ...  Ravenswing  20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Quincy MA

Thanks for clarifying on the "covenant" issue! I hadn't checked back 'til now.
-- Alain

Hey, since you seem to be a pretty insightful fellow, I was wondering if you could offer some advice on getting a new Quincy seal in the Quincy wikipedia page. I uploaded this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quincy_seal.gif but I'm not sure if I have a valid excuse for its use. Would "logo" qualify? It's from the commonwealth's website so it sure isn't my own work. I'd welcome the advice. I'd say I have fairly noble intentions and a desire to learn more, but at this point am fairly inexperienced in all things wikipedia. Thank in advance!

-- Alain

It's always the case that an image representing or generated by a governmental entity is in the public domain, hence perfectly permissible.  Ravenswing  19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remember that for future reference.

--Alain

Userspace Vandalism by 80.44.64.21

Just to say that a few minutes ago 80.44.64.21 (talk • contribs • Info • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) went through all of your archives one by one and blanked them (me following reverting) and then blanked your userpage. I've reported them to AIV. — Taggard (Complain) 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist!  Ravenswing  06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WHA video site links

I have the only known video of the WHA on a non-commercial site ... That's not research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilland (talk • contribs)

reviewing my web log I see that you never bothered to even glance at the WHA video page (via your UMASS account) of the myhockeyTV.com web site -- where you'd find videos of all subjects we've posted to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilland (talk • contribs)

• They were rightfully removed per the guidelines and policies RG provided. I'll add this one as well: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. ccwaters 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Beyond that, I'd suggest looking over your weblog again; I took a look at the front page video of the Aeros 1974 win. That being said, I encourage you to review the relevant policies.  Ravenswing  17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead.

disinterested or uninterested

"If you are disinterested in something you are impartial and do not take sides: A disinterested observer of the scene would have wondered what all the fuss was about. If you are uninterested you have no interest at all: The player was uninterested in the public reaction to his remark. Disinterested is often used instead of uninterested to mean lacking interest. This use is widely regarded as incorrect and should be avoided, especially in formal writing. "

I'm surprised at the concept that disinterest in receiving hate mail could be conflated into disinterest in everything. No doubt there's some discussion board or forum somewhere which would welcome your literary analysis; feel free to indulge over there instead of spamming my talk page.  Ravenswing  18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that you used the term "disinterested" improperly -- you meant to say "uninterested." I'm just trying to help clean up your grammar. You are "uninterested" in receiving hate mail. That's not spam -- that's helpful feedback.

No, that's being pompous, an unsolicited misuse of my talk page and oh, wrong. The use of "disinterested" in that fashion has been in common use for decades. Now if you have direct project-related business, that is a pertinent and legal use of this talk page. Anything else was not asked for and is not wanted. Cease spamming this page at once.  Ravenswing  23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clayton HS

Of course you're right that the article cant stay, but let up, the 2 of you are escalating. The other guy will learn; If he inserts the same non-article, we'll delete it and then he'll learn, no need to threaten in advance. DGG 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Which would be an acceptable way of handling things for a new editor, but Alansohn isn't one. There comes a point by which respect for the rules - and not just those rules which can be used to bludgeon the other guys, while ignoring those which inconveniently get in your way - had better be ingrained. As it happens, I didn't threaten him (I'm no admin; what with, exactly?), but it seems that someone with a soupcon of authority should.  Ravenswing  12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

Thanks for the honour, I gladly accept the badge. PS- I hope pro-diacritics editors continue to respect the understanding at the NHL team pages. GoodDay 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hello, an article in which you took part in the AFD discussion has undergone more than 20 reverts. We are trying to get truely neutral opinion about removal of some information. [here Your esteemed opinion will be welcome. Thanks Taprobanus 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD for First World Problems

In addition to the SPAs that have all noted Keep comments, I did a little looking around and it appears these may all be sockpuppets, your thoughts? Wildthing61476 17:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not an admin and lack access to the checkuser facilities. It may be worth mentioning.  Ravenswing  17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi RGT, BTW, I am sorry to read above that you don't feel you would pass an RfA. I understand that you are likely to attract some fervent opposition, but I suspect that many editors would gladly offer you support given your solid contributions and consistent common sense. If editors like you don't deserve the mop, the project is in trouble. Anyway, I really posted here to say that, after the most recent outburst at Wikipedia_talk:Schoolcruft & AN/I involving our old friend Alan, an RfC seems at this point the best remedy. Given your previous experience, I was wondering if you would contribute a thought or two when it materialises. (Seriously, reconsider admin!) Eusebeus 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm convinced I wouldn't pass an RfA. The Incivility Police has a year's worth more ammunition (or at least statements they can twist to their ends), this new faction that suddenly things 100% edit summaries is a prerequisite for adminship would zap me, the inclusionists would total up my Delete vs. Keep ratio on AfD, and while I can't canvass for myself, I saw last time out that it's okay to canvass against me. I've seen editors with better resumes than mine get shot down on single issues or incidents. Why put myself through that when the best possible outcome is, after all, a position that would require more work and time from me? That being said, I'd be quite willing to participate in a RfC over him. It's a shame, because he's a capable editor, but he's a chronic AGF violator and his sheer urge to !Win! makes any debate he's in near-automatically contentious and fraught.  Ravenswing  13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent comments on page concerning new "IHL".

I did go overboard with a recent comment, RG, and I apologize for it. There is a writer at the Peoria, IL newspaper who continues to print and report incorrect information in an effort to slander the efforts of the group that has just purchased the rights to the old "International Hockey League" name and is trying to put it back together.

I've had to edit the page several times today, as he keeps coming in here with incorrect statements, mis-truths, and utter lies about the league.

I will watch my temper in the future, I'm guessing this page will be edited often in the coming days. The most recent edit I made is factual, and doesn't simply "cheerlead" for the new league, rather it tells the truth about what is going on and what has gone on.

Thank you.

Peoria4440 06:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Waiver Edits

Hello RG, I need your advise. The Blues today, placed their captain Dallas Drake on waivers. Does this mean he's no longer a Blue (and thus appropiate edits should be made at the Blues, NHL captains and other related pages)? GoodDay 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead with the edits. If I'm in error, feel free to reverse them. GoodDay 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. He's no longer on the team when he's either released, traded or reassigned, but placing on waivers doesn't thereby remove him from the roster outright unless he's claimed.  Ravenswing  19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure. GoodDay 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello RG, I'm having difficulties at the Blues page, concerning Dallas Drakes status as a Blue (and Blues captain). Editors, are declaring him a 'free agent'. I need your help, I'm in over my head. GoodDay 00:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed, Blues official website has removed Drake from their 'roster'. GoodDay 00:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One cannot call the IHL "low level" minor leagues anymore than one can call the ECHL "mid-level". The players from both leagues, as well as the old ECHL and IHL, have played just about everywhere, even European Leagues, and the parts are interchangable. "Low Level" is just a clever way of saying "Class A", which we've been told is not a designation that hockey uses. Peoria4440 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

One can do exactly that. That some leagues are superior to others in talent level is evident, and isn't discredited simply because a sport doesn't use a particular classification system. The "parts" are by no means interchangeable; ECHL teams maintain affiliations with NHL teams (as the UHL/IHL clubs generally have not), and the measure of their respective talent bases is that in the entire UHL last year, I could only find two regulars (Jason Muzzatti, Daniel Goneau) with as much as 50 games NHL experience.  Ravenswing  05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

RG, if you'll check the ECHL stats, you will find similar numbers of players have actually appeared in the NHL than to that of the UHL. I will readily admit that the UHL is more "veterans on the way down" laden, while the ECHL is "youngsters on the way up".

But in baseball, many teams use their AA and AAA franchises to hang on to vets for depth, and others use them for prospects. So, if you must INSIST that the IHL is a "low-level" minor league, then we must say the EXACT same thing for the ECHL.

I did last night, actually, team by team for the 2007 season, with both squads; I spent about an hour on it. The numbers are nowhere remotely comparable. Beyond that, anyone must concede that while the ECHL has a number of AHL and NHL prospects, the UHL/CHL teams are generally comprised of second- and third-line college and major junior players who never were prospects.  Ravenswing  18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Hi, RGT Just to let you know, an RfC has been posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn should you have a comment. Cheers, Eusebeus 00:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloomington has just signed, as player/assistant, Jarod Skalde, a vet with 115 NHL games in his career, and nearly 200 AHL goals over several AHL seasons. As a developmental league, I don't think there's anyone in the ECHL with that kind of experience. I could be wrong, I don't follow the ECHL as closely as I once did. Look, it's obvious we're going to go round and round on this issue, but I'm willing to put UHL negatives in their entry (which I have) and you've got to agree to quit sugar coating the ECHL entries.

Peoria4440 18:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Douglas (footballer)

As for your contribution about notability of sportspeople, I would like to see your opinion about this article. I know that may be you will not support delete, I just want to know why this article must be kept. He has never played in senior's national team and plays in a weak amature league.--KRBN 10:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoa

Have you ever seen anything along these lines? User:Alansohn/Deletion tracking? Yes, it's all me :) Eusebeus 21:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh my freaking god. Well, I wonder what the "gee this RfC is so unnecessary" crowd will react to this?  Ravenswing  03:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Very creepy, init? -- But|seriously|folks  08:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. "Collecting 'evidence' against my enemy" is the only possible interpretation. My notion that an ArbCom intervention shouldn't have blocking on the table just took a big hit.  Ravenswing  12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! -- But|seriously|folks  08:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, it doesn't need to be pretty. Congratulations!  Ravenswing  12:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Corey Bryant

Just a lil note letting you know that our old friend User:Corey Bryant is back editing the season articles from the 60s-and-70's and even being a little sneaky about it as well, using IPs and the like. I've reverted him a few times in the last week, but just giving you a heads up... very few things entertain me more on Wikipedia then when you start ranting against IPs and sockpuppets :) CroCan "Short answer 'yes' with an 'if'...long answer 'no' with a 'but'" 19:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Charming. I'll keep a weather eye out. Thanks for the heads up.  Ravenswing  19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Your edit to Al Arbour did not have a citation. It was not an "assumption", it was a fact. Had I said "untrue" rather than "unsourced", that would have been an incorrect assumption, but I did not say that. Now that you actually provided a citation, the content is fine. There was no need for anger directed at me in your edit summary. Croctotheface 06:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that saying that the source was already in the article, or that (correctly) pointing out that adding a citation tag or making an inquiry on the talk page is the more civil way of handling things, constitutes "anger," I won't argue with you. I will say that unless you have reason to believe a fact is wrong (that's where the "assumption" comes) or controversial, or the article's getting a serious FA push, it's smarmy at best and incivil and disruptive at worst to blow off statements of fact with no warning. That being said, I'd want a cleaner history of edit summaries before I openly read insult into those of others.  Ravenswing  13:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

I was looking at the AfD for Country Tonite Theater... thanks for saying that. It really means a lot to me, and I'm sorry that I was going around saying that you were completely uncivil, and here's my apology.

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I am so sorry, and I want you to have this as an apologetic gift. JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 18:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you very much. That's a handsome gesture, and I'm quite appreciative. (Quite aside from that it's been a miserable day, and the lift is very welcome.)  Ravenswing  18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you deserve to be an admin better than me. I think I was just being crankyish due to the fact I was keeping one of my deepest secrets from my friends and sometimes that kind of stuff makes me cranky, but I told them and they were OK with it. Anyway, no prob for the barnstar! I was working on creating one called the Civility Barnstar however my computer crashed the second I opened my image editor to create it...darn it! Well, that's all I have to say, so bye! jonjonbt talk•contribs 03:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey, diacritics on NHL roster 'birthplaces'

Ya know RG, if I would've calmed down earlier and did some more research, I would have noticed that the 30 Official NHL team websites (the NHL team pages, main 'reliable sources') did not show diacritics (at player birthplaces). It would've saved a lot of debate, not to mention 'discussion page' space. I hope the 'Official NHL team websites', puts an end to the dispute. GoodDay 20:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the Official NHL team websites aren't reliable sources afterall. It's Djsasso's way, no exceptions. GoodDay 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

		My RFA
		User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Goatse

I have changed the nomination on the AFD, and have made it so it looks more like a nomination for deletion. Have a read, and see if your opinion reflects it. The sunder king 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't changed; that the site is highly notable in Internet culture, that damn near everything is sourceable to Wayback Machine screenshots, if need be, and that the AFD was provoked much more out of the subject matter than its inherent notability. Thank you for asking, though.  Ravenswing  19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hate rant (uh oh!)

I hate you Ravenswing, and I'm just too damn lazy to go to a gym. That is all. Croat Canuck talk 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(smirks) Gosh darn. We'll just have to cut off your Doritos supply, is all.  Ravenswing  02:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, wow a Wikipedian AND a dietician, a regular jack of all trades you are. Croat Canuck talk 17:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrm. I had donuts for lunch. Dietician would be stretching the limit ...  Ravenswing  18:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Taro Tsujimoto

Thanks for cleaning up some of the random thoughts at Taro Tsujimoto. I am in Buffalo reasearching the Sabres of the 70s this week. I managed to get The French Connection (hockey) up to WP:GA status this week and am working on Gilbert Perreault as well. I am hoping to find some more on Taro this week. I hope you don't mind the part I added back. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 04:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you care to meet me on the talk page?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 04:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Queens the Musical deletion

Hi! I live in Belfast where Queens the Musical was performed. It wasnt just a school play, it became a production put on several times, and included in the cities' Gay Pride events in July 2007. With full backing from the Belfast Pride Committee it is expected to tour and was the talk of many in the city during the last few weeks. I would like the article to remain as it is important that plays important to Belfast are included in Wikipedia as we lack articles on many aspects of Northern irish life, aspects that if they were that of a smaller US or Canadian community would probably have large articles on this site. Thanks for taking the time to hear me out Damo

Not a problem. Here's the rub. Wikipedia isn't a community bulletin board like Myspace. It's an encyclopedia with certain policies and guidelines governing what merits inclusion. I recommend you take a look at WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:NN and WP:RS for openers. Under those policies, it isn't enough for you to assert that a certain play is important to Belfast. You must demonstrate that the play has been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable, third-party, published sources ... such as major newspaper articles, a piece on the BBC or the like. The odds that a student play performed for the first time five months ago has received that level of notoriety (or, to be honest, achieved any widely acknowledged importance to Belfast) are remote. If you do have such sources, please feel free to add them to the article and let us know.  Ravenswing  20:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello WikiProject Ice Hockey/Participant

I am an advisor to the National Hockey League. With your help over the next few months I plan to review and correct any information on wikipedia relating to the National Hockey League, its franchises, players, executives and partership organisations. I am here to provide you with information. Your work is appreciated. --NHLsource 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault GA

Thanks for your help with the early stages of this article. You may want to add

This user helped promote Gilbert Perreault to good article status.

to your user page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response on my talk page--NHLsource 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured topic Drive

Hi, as you may or may not know, some of us at WP:HOCKEY have banded together and are trying to get the various NHL Trophy pages to FT status. It is a big job and if you would be willing to offer any assistance, it would be most appreciated. You can find out more here. Thanks for the time, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation

You've violated the 3RR on Chris Tancill. Levelhlp 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Go back and read WP:3RR; the key text is "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." My reversions have taken place over a week. Beyond that, when you and User:Mainmre are SPAs whose sole activity on Wikipedia has been to change instances of UW to UW-Madison, without bothering to discuss the matter, and that your first edits took place only after Mainmre's ... well, even an actual 3RR violation (which this is not) is justifiable when reverting vandalism.  Ravenswing  05:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault

I appreciate your interest in Gilbert Perreault. I spent a lot of time last month returning to Buffalo to research his article as well as The French Connection (hockey) to get them both cited well enough to be WP:GAs. I am glad someone else cares about these articles. However, removing sources that support facts that are not commonly known to wikipedia readers is not appropriate in my mind. I have reverted many of your changes and this ist the net result of our joint efforts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It may not be appropriate in your mind, but it's appropriate per policy. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (emphasis in the original, from WP:V). Items of readily provable fact, such as that Perreault is a Hall of Famer or the years during which he was named an All-Star, are already cited in the general references and the external link and do not require a cloud of jarring inline citations. Furthermore, the extensive references to the Fog Game are inappropriate, given that the game is not itself about Perreault and he had no particularly overwhelming impact in it. Finally, I worry that you might be crossing the WP:OWN line. I likewise appreciate the interest of other editors in this article, am glad other editors care about it and have spent time researching the edits I myself have made in it. I hope other editors are similarly invested in the articles about which they themselves care. Nonetheless, no single one of us has any more authority or influence over an article than another ... which is just as well, since my first edits to this article happened a year and a half before yours.  Ravenswing  03:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I find your style of I am so sure I am right I am going to revert in whole instead of going item by item and analyzing deeply each thing that I replaced. Your haphazard total revert even delete an incredibly useful template. Taking the I'm right and I am going to threaten you with an WP:OWN challenge is the completely wrong approach to take. Please reconsider each single item you removed especially valuable templates you carelessly removed. I took a lot of time with a thoughtful compromise edit and your approach is not thought of very highly. Since this was a newly minted WP:GA you should seriously reconsider your reversion. It is common to cite a source for unlikely to be challenged statistics because it is helpful to the reader. You should keep in mind that at one point the article said he was a six time All-star. Some sources have it wrong. Even though you should not challenge that he is a 9-time All-star you should not remove such a citation. Please respond at my talk page. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I was unable to complete my thoughts because the library closed at 9PM central (2AM UTC) last night. It also appears that I was in a huffy mood at the end of the day yesterday. Citations are not reserved for things likely to be challenged by experts. Basically, they are used to provide references for most interesting facts in an article. If I told you someone scored over 500 goals you might find that to be an incredible claim if you are not a sports fan. An article should be written with main page exposure in mind. Suppose this becomes a FA some day. If you look at most sports FACs they are chock full of citations for things that we all know are true. An article will have a citation for the fact that a team won the Stanley cup in a given year and one for the fact that it moved to another arena in a given year. This is the way proper citation works. The challenge rule you are cited does not mean that you only cite something if you think it might belong in Ripley's Believe it or Not. Please respond since I know you are online. I will begin reverting this after noon if there is no response.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my statements. Your argument relies on vague speculation such as whether someone might challenge that Perreault scored 500 goals or that he was a nine-time All-Star. Quite aside from the obvious fact that no one here has ever done either, such speculation doesn't override the policy governing the use of inline citations. Beyond that, of course I believe that I'm right -- it would be quite incorrect for me to make changes I felt were wrong -- and that believing you're crossing the line into WP:OWN is a very long way from "threatening" a "challenge" on those grounds, for which I'd be interested in you pointing out where I said anything of the sort.  Ravenswing  18:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree with RG on this: his career stats are included in the article. They're backed up by a link to hockeydb and others stats websites could easily be added as well (I've always preferred hockeydb because it includes minor, junior and college stats). Data like that is mundane, qualitative and easily accessible. I'd be more worried about citing statements such as he also plays on occasion with the Buffalo Sabres Alumni Hockey Team for charity events. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it is true, yet I don't see anything that would prove it. ccwaters 18:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unlike his stats, that's a fact that is not to be found in a hundred hockey books or fifty websites, each and every time invariably.  Ravenswing  19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to revert item by item with comment. Give me about a half hour. The point is that facts at WP are highly suspect by the general populous and thus notable fact citations are being reverted. I will attempt to do so minimally. Hopefully places that had redundant citations will have fewer, but facts that are worth boasting about must be cited, for the sake of the reader who should not just trust us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. in case you think I lie about the 6 time AS source, see http://www.sabresalumni.com/2001/perreault.php3 .--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to need more than a half hour.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Take your time; any inline citations of non-controversial statistical fact will just be reverted right back. Uncontroversial items of readily-provable statistical fact don't uniquely become needful of inline citations just because they're "boast" worthy. I'll be happy to raise this to the Wikiproject for a consensus.  Ravenswing  20:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the fog game to The French Connection (hockey) and explained each additional reference readded. Which WP do you want to go to? Ice Hockey or Biography?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The hockey project. Err ... that fog game reference isn't any more appropriate in the French Connection article. A large chunk like that must be in an article to which it directly pertains. The only possible articles would be the main Sabres article, an article on the arena, or the applicable NHL season article.  Ravenswing  01:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you honestly feel that the line that was responsible for the game-tying and overtime game-winning goals is not a proper place for a short paragraph on the game of that level of importance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If we continue to get no response, we can go to Biography.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Whalerpedia?

I would like to know if there is any interest out there to create a separate web page using the Wiki technology based solely on the Hartford Whalers. This page can have in depth articles on related subjects just as the Carolina Hurricanes, Whaler players and Whaler draft picks, Whaler trades, the NHL, the WHA, the Binghamton Whalers, Springfield Indians, Howard Baldwin, and so on. Let me know if anyone else is interested in starting this web page. Thanks. Whalerguy1 17:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Ravenswing,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 83 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutrals. No matter if you voted (I mean, "!voted") support or oppose, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm new, remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them, and if I do anything wrong, feel free to add to the permanent chorus of disapproval on my talk page. Special thanks to Walton^One and Dihydrogen Monoxide for nominating me.

iridescent (talk to me!) 21:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Credits

This design was brazenly stolen from inspired by Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's RFA Thanks, which in turn was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

New York Rangers

Hello RG, the user 'Payne2thamax' (remember him?) was banned months ago for threatning to murder someone on Wikipedia (he was obnoxious about full inclusion of Hall of famers). Just curious, now that's he's gone and having seen your comments at List of family relations in the National Hockey League, would you be interested in re-opening that discussion. Afterall, didn't Bobby Orr suit up as a North Star in an old-timers game? GoodDay 20:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Orr? I doubt it, actually; he played in very few oldtimers games, and I attended the first and maybe the only one he did. Then again, I don't know for certain. As far as reopening the Hull fiasco, let's see how this one goes. I have no objection to Rheaume being on that list as long as the Keith Gretzkys and Marguerite Norrises of the world are included, but also have no objection to the list being strictly for those playing in a regular season or playoff NHL game.  Ravenswing  20:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Judging Djasso's reaction at New York Rangers, removing Bobby Hull may be a futile attempt. Gee-wheez, I gotta say it again - I should've listen to you back then. GoodDay 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

PS- have you noticed the inconsistancies? At Bobby Hull, the Rangers aren't listed in the Infobox (as one of his teams). GoodDay 17:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault at GA/R

I should have mentioned I put Gilbert Perreault at WP:GA/R.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is support for citation restoration at GA/R. If you do not reply at my talk page or at GA/R within the next 48 hours I will restore some citations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

Could you please review me? Thanks! Jonathan ^talk \ _{contribs — er} 02:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:JC_Tremblay_-_WHA.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:JC_Tremblay_-_WHA.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hello RG, months ago you awarded me with a badge, for my cleaning up of diacritics. In my failed attempts to archive my pages, I resorted to deleting my pages (with a directory noted in the Edit summaries), in the process I accidently 'deleted' my badge. Thought I'd let you know, it was accidental. GoodDay 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Quincy, Massachusetts

Thanks, again, for the numerous lesson in... life, haha. I just saw a bunch of edits were made. Good call. Aepoutre 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion please?

Am I guilty of over-kill? That is what Noroton seems to be implying.

Can I ask if your follow-up comment was meant to tell Noroton that they should take their own advice? Your comment is open to that interpretation. Or it could be interpreted as support for them in their assessment that I am a "sore winner".

I don't accept the excuse, "he/she started it first." That is not why my last comment was so detailed. FWIW, however, Noroton's continued insistence that the only possible reason anyone would be interested in the the article was "prurience" already opened the door to speculating about reader's motives.

I went into detail for two reasons:

1. Noroton's insistence that other respondents weren't offering substantive objections
2. Noroton is not the only regular patroller who has adopted this very strange interpretation of {{blp}}. IMO, this kind of interrpetation of {{blp}} is irredeemably vulnerable to POV. I really do believe this interpretation of {{blp}} puts the wikipedia at risk of irrelevancy.

It wasn't my intention to be offensive. Noroton seems to be implying I was. I was hoping you could clarify whether you agreed with them. Don't worry, you can agree with them without worrying I will trouble you with a long defense.

Cheers! Geo Swan 13:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely think that Noroton should take his own advice, and would have said so more pointedly if I'd wanted to escalate the hostility level further, which I didn't. Let's leave completely aside the merits of the arguments, which we've already discussed to death. No matter how right I think I am on an issue, a large, unanimous consensus against me always brings me up short. Even if I can't bring myself to concede defeat openly, it's a long-held aphorism of mine that in an effort like Wikipedia, it's inevitable that there will be a consensus against you at times, and when that happens, it's incumbent on you to shut up and get out of the way. Noroton passed that point days ago, and if I hadn't been involved myself, this would be a great candidate for a non-admin closure under WP:SNOW.  Ravenswing  13:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Cheers! Geo Swan 20:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dearest Ravenswing,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 137 supports, 22 opposes, and 5 neutrals. Your kind words of support are very much appreciated and I look forward to proving you right. I would like to give special thanks to The_undertow and Phoenix-wiki for their co-nominations. Thank you again and best regards.

Lara❤Love 20:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Credits: This RFA thanks was inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks which was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolt Risk

Following [3] saying that there was a race condition on my closing the debate while someone was preparing some valid new information, I've reversed my closure and relisted on today's AfD list. Thought I'd let you know in case you had already un-watchlisted the page. Splash - tk 21:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Seattle Totems (NPHL)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Seattle Totems (NPHL), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Seattle Totems. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa senators retired number 18 "Smitty"

Number 18 is indeed retired at the Scotia bank place. 'Smitty' was a nickname of a broadcastor who was attacked and murdered. I cant get his full name for you yet. But this number indeed hangs in the rafters at the scotiabank place in ottawa and is a fact. Please do not remove it this time. If youd like to help with this you could help by finding his exact name. Thank you for your time and please take care Sayswho (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. First off, the section isn't for "numbers hanging from the rafter of a building"; it's for player numbers retired by the Ottawa Senators. Secondly, any fact posted to Wikipedia must be able to be sourced; it isn't for me to prove that this fellow existed, the date of any such retirement or that there's a banner in Scotiabank Place, it's for you to do so with reliable sources. As it happens, neither the Sens' website nor the NHL Official Guide and Record Book mention anything of the sort.  Ravenswing  23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

By looking up smitty on the ottawa senators webpage youll see that the broadcastors name was Brian Smith and he was a sports reporter for a local ottawa tv station who was killed. Number 18 hangs from the rafters but since youd like some solid evidence of this matter ill be sure to take a photo at the next game I go to. As well 46 isn't a foundation or rather camp that sends children to was set up in his honour. Retired hockey numbers dont have to be players who played with the team (wayne gretzky) they can be anyone associated to the team.Brian smith also played for the los angeloas kings so by this definition the number should be included. For the time being id suggest as a good measure we put a section about brian smith in the article which would be source until there is a bit stronger textual documentation. Would this appease you, or do you think he shouldnt be honoured?

If you would like to read a bit up on this take a read of this http://www.flagstick.com/pastissues/2004_pastissues/august04_fullmagazine.pdf . Ill be out of town going sking with my fiance this week but i look forward to chatting with you about this further I think we can set something up very nicely Sayswho (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Players that wore 18 after Smith's death: Patrick Traverse and Marian Hossa. I don't see any evidence of players changing their numbers in honour of this post-Hossa (3 B-sens have worn 18, but none have gotten the callup). What you need to provide is an article or press release stating the purpose/nature of the banner. The number 46 is up in the rafters of the Wachovia Center, but it's not retired. ccwaters (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "retired numbers" is that of numbers officially retired by the team, and there are four cases in NHL history of numbers being officially retired for players never actually playing for the team in question (Tremblay, McKenzie, Finnigan, Gretzky). The Senators have not officially retired this number. Now if you want to write an article about this fellow, and you think he passes encyclopedic muster, go for it.  Ravenswing  05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Smith (ice hockey). ccwaters (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to Montreal Maroons site

Hi I noticed that you reverted to an unsourced claim on the montreal maroons site and also after visiting this page seen that you are very keen on 'sources' I am wondering if you have a source to claim that the montreal marroons were predominately a anglophone supported team in montreal. I dont feel this needs to be reverted right away or at all providing some source is present but am i missing something????? Ive never seen this claim also outside wikipedia and ive read a few books about the nhl from the early 20s. Did i miss this?, Perhaps its on the hockey hall of fame site? or is this just hear say? let me know Jgale061 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be astonished that any book about NHL history would omit it; it's a universally mentioned fact. I'll have some sources up, if you wish.  Ravenswing  09:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jgale061 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers

I've spent all night harpooning the Hartford Whalers. Does it look any better? Flibirigit (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Busy fellow! But it certainly looks good.  Ravenswing  17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

I'm currently trying to get the page to GA status, would you be willing to help? So far, I've rewritten the induction and criticism sections, although the later still needs some sourcing. I'm still yet to start work on the history and exhibits secion and the biggest problem is the "Operations and organization" which doesn't have many sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

John Leach

The object of an AfD nomination is to test the notability, etc. of the subject and not to embark on some quest to make the article "perfect" as if it is to become a feature.

You made a justifiable complaint about terms like "significant", "major contribution" and the like and those were addressed. But, clearly, nothing is ever going to be enough for you because now you allege that there is original research in the article! That, frankly, is rubbish. Lets look at the sentence.

Besides the references, arranged chronologically like those in Buckley, Leach has expanded his own theories about cricket's early history.

How is that original research? In the book in question, the author has arranged everything chronologically and he has expanded his own theories. Those are facts; they are what he has done and the person who wrote the article has recorded it as such.

Original research occurs when some new theory is included in a WP article and cannot be verified elsewhere.

As for your insistence on citation tags several times per sentence, you need to get a grip. What is the article going to look like to a general reader when every single word has got a citation tag appended to it?

In the first paragraph, the information is summarised from the other article mentioned. If you need a citation then it is the original article that provides it and there is no need to duplicate that in this article.

In the second paragraph of the Sports History section, the two citations already there cover everything in that paragraph. The whole of the first sentence sums up matters that are discussed in the sources given (tag 2). The same sources record what happened in the AGM meeting referred to in the next sentence.

You want a citation about the fact he quotes Cardus? Have you not read the previous sentence and can you really not see that this sentence is merely an illustrative comment following on from the other? Do you know how to write English? Do you ever think about the general readers that these articles are written for?

Furthermore, you have willfully replaced your "peacock" tag even though there is no longer any such POV word in the article.

You are obviously pursuing your own agenda and you are deliberately hindering the process. Frankly, people like you should read Wikipedia's goals and purposes articles to learn that the site exists for the benefit of readers and not for pedants who inhabit deletion discussion pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am, indeed, pursuing an agenda. Unlike yours, it is not to defend to the death any article involving cricket. Now possibly you have not yet reviewed the various Wikipedia rules, policies and Manual of Style (which, given that you have fewer than 300 edits, almost all of them -- and startlingly coincidentally -- focused on cricket and philately, is not surprising), so I'll review a few basic concepts for your benefit.

• First and foremost, Wikipedia articles can contain no statements of opinion that are not attributable to a reliable source. You cannot state "Leach has used a historical approach in his studies of cricket rather than the traditional statistical approach of many earlier cricket writers." You must link to a reliable source that does state it. You cannot assert "As described in Pre-1850s in sports, his In the Mists of Time [1] has helped to clarify understanding of first-class cricket's origins and so contributes to the study of general sports history." You must link to a reliable source that does assert it.

• Secondly, WP:OR and WP:SYN prohibit the drawing of conclusions, however well the postulates are sourced. You can state that Leach quotes Cardus on several occasions. You cannot infer, however, that "Leach is clearly influenced by Cardus." Who says, and how come?

• Thirdly, that all the references are weblinks is a serious problem. To quote from relevant policy: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable" Is, in fact, this Association of Cricket Statisticians generally and publically accepted as the authorities on cricket history? I'm a member of the Society for International Hockey Research, as it happens, but it wouldn't occur to me for a moment to link to SIHR monographs.

• Fourthly, to quote from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged (emphasis in the original) should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

• Finally, I commend you to WP:CIVIL. Exhortations to "get a grip" or asking if I know how to write English (with over a dozen publications to my name, I'd say that the publishers who've paid me thought so at the time) are at best unproductive, and suggest that you're more interested in picking a fight than in seeing the article you defend passes policy muster.  Ravenswing  09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to apologise for being less than civil. It was just that I found it frustrating when I had addressed your initial complaint and you came up with more. I realise you mean well and are doing your best for the site. All the best. --AlbertMW (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your inputs to this which have been useful. I'm sorry to see that a ruckus has developed between you and AlbertMW. As I started the AfD, I feel a bit responsible. I'd like this to be finished amicably and without further confusion to other readers so I've arranged for someone to pare the article down to its essentials and, though I've never actually wanted the article, it looks okay to me as it goes.

Just to answer a couple of points you raised and to ask one of my own. The ACS and the Cricket Society are different groups. They are both fairly well known in the cricket world but don't have any official sanction. They are generally acknowledged as reputable sources which are often quoted and for WP purposes they are verifiable as sources. So I would always go with anything they say unless someone else has an equally verifiable alternative view, as I have explained at length in Variations in first-class cricket statistics. Hope you don't have these problems in ice hockey!

The question I have, out of interest, is why you don't recognise anything produced by the Society for International Hockey Research?

Best wishes for 2008. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple enough. It is because while SIHR has a number of respected hockey historians amongst its number, and it has been called upon increasingly for its views (by the Hockey News, among others), as an organization, it holds no widespread and acknowledged place in the hockey world. I contrast with, for example, the Journal of New England Medicine, which while no more official than SIHR is the widely recognized gold standard of medical scholarship. So here are the questions I have regarding ACS: if, as you assert, they are generally acknowledged in the cricket world as reputable sources, to the point that they should be exempted from WP:RS's publication requirements, are there any reliable sources stating so?  Ravenswing  23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ACS

I suppose the best way to answer is by reference to the International Cricket Council (ICC), which is the sport's world governing body; and to Wisden, publishers of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, which is the most reputable and authoritative cricket publication. The ICC recognises the ACS to the point that it adopted the ACS List A cricket classification as an official level of limited overs cricket (i.e., for domestic limited overs cricket involving teams officially adjudged "first-class", which are the equivalent of NHL teams). Wisden has always recognised both the ACS and the Cricket Society in its publications and will often quote them as sources, although Wisden once famously fell out with the ACS over what its editor called "rewriting of history".

The ACS is primarily a statistics group that does historical research too. The Cricket Society, whilst primarily a charitable organisation, is noted for historical research.

Reading Society for International Hockey Research I'd say it is probably on a par with the ACS except that the ACS has got the ICC recognition for one of its statistical classifications. I can't tell from the SIHR article but it seems to me that the ACS has probably been more prolific as a publisher; the ACS has been going since 1973 and the Cricket Society since before World War II.

Hope this is useful but let me know if you have any other questions. Always glad to help. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been having further thoughts about this and I've decided you are right. The ACS is like the SIHR and I believe it fails WP:RS because it self-publishes on behalf of its members. So does the Cricket Society. They don't publish anything except what their own members have researched, so they fail the self-publish test and are not verifiable sources. As a result, the article fails WP:RS for the reasons you have put forward. I've entered a delete vote and persuaded AlbertMW to do likewise, especially as his Gibbons reference for philately has funnily enough turned out to be the wrong magazine and so has been withdrawn (shame, that). So it looks as if it will be deleted after all. Thanks very much for your help and I do mean that. My very best wishes to the SIHR. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Sin

That just made my day! Alaney2k (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... I was fishing for something clever to put in the edit summary, but when all was said and done, I was just plain bloody baffled that anyone would draw the parallel!  Ravenswing  03:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, could've been just a silly prank. Funny anyway! Alaney2k (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to laugh at that as well. But I think its not that there is a parallel to be drawn but more likely because it is a reasonable typo. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Language

I'm not sure the antipathy towards Canadian English. As far as I'm concerned, players like Mario Lemieux who were born in Canada should have an article in Canadian English. Really, if the intial article was done in one or the other we have a duty to respect their choice of style not change it because a player is 'playing for a primary american team'. As far as I'm concerned that's irrelevant to the issue. What about Brett Hull who played for the US national team and had dual citizenship? Mario played for Canada in the Olympics, he may like it in Pittsburgh, but he's not an American, not the way that Mike Modano and other American players are. The Americans do have good hockey players, and we shouldn't insult their reckoning by adding players on the list, because then statistics like the best 'American' hockey player become distorted. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an antipathy towards Commonwealth English. What I do think is that there is a preference for following WP:ENGVAR. There is no case in which I've reverted someone changing an article to match en-ca where, as WP:ENGVAR requires, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used." If you would like to lobby to change WP:ENGVAR to read that an article must be written in the language of the subject's birth nationality, go for it.  Ravenswing  07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Goliath crane redirect

Although the crane "scarcely" deserves an independent entry, the story of the shipyard and Quincy's skyline are in the news this week. As the formerly second largest crane in the world, it's deconstruction and relocation are significant. I had planned to follow the story with images throughout the process, and that is why I created a new entry for "Goliath". Since there is not much to say other than we know Daniel Quirk will sell the crane and it will be moved to the Black Sea, I am inclined to leave the redirect for now. However, I would like your opinion regarding a more substantial entry later once the entire process has played out later this year. Goliath is and will be remembered as a rather significant landmark along Weymouth Fore River and the southern Boston Harbor skyline. Sswonk —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's a verifiable tale here, but there's at most no more than a paragraph's worth. That much can be handled in the main shipyard article, which is long on ship lists but short on actual text. I'll absolutely miss the crane - I live in Quincy Point myself and occasionally ride the harbor ferries - but the article would never survive an AfD challenge.  Ravenswing  07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points abound here in the Point. I had you pegged as being from somewhere far removed from Quincy, as a matter of fact, and was really thinking you didn't "know" the shipyard. The edit you made is correct. I am glad you are seeing the same things I am about the Fore River Shipyard entry, it really is where a lot of work needs to be done, yet also where the Goliath news should stay. The shipyard story has more to it than a list of ships or even a paragraph about its big latter day crane. I hope you continue to help edit the entry. Sswonk 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Springfield Indians logos

Based on the recent discussions to delete logos used in galleries, such as what happened on the Moncton Hawks article (IFD:January 2), would you be able to incorporate some of the Springfield Indians logos into the main text of the article? You seem to know alot about the team's history. Flibirigit (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article discussion

The article that was deleted about one year ago was titled Alicia Miguel, not Alicia Miguel Schüll. MonicaCabaski (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country

Is ONIH serious? Belfast has been a part of the UK since 1801. Indeed, the whole island of Ireland was a part of the UK from 1801 to the 1920's. Thankfully he hasn't spotted the article Calgary Flames where we correctly have Owen Nolan born in Belfast, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in the vote. Grsz11 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, gentlefolk.  Ravenswing  12:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

After one more failed attempt to straigten things out, I've chosen to leave the article alone. I'd rather two sections: United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland for simplicity's sake. Applying simplicity to UK & RoI related subjects is impossible though. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration for article

If you know how to request arbitration, I think it is time we need it at List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country. Grsz11 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blues captains

We're having trouble at the St. Louis Blues (hockey) article, again. Yep, it's the captains list again. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hartford Whalers

I removed the Arena banners image from the article, as it contradicted the 'retired numbers' section. Was that a correct move on my part? GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Boston Garden edit

The trivia was in the article, in the Flaws section [4], the link I have was before I elaborated further on the part. Whammies Were Here 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it. The info is there in the article, and I even fixed it up so there would be no question about it, and it could eliminate the trivia section to boot. Get back to me on this if you can, thanks. Whammies Were Here 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would really like it if you got back to me on this, I want to know how I can be able to edit the one piece of info around so the trivia section could be eliminated, thanks :) Whammies Were Here 11:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Ravenswing, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant rollback rights to your account? Just remember it's for reverting vandalism, and not for reverting good-faith edits or for revert-warring. Acalamari 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please; I do it a fair bit. Thanks for the consideration.  Ravenswing  06:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) For more information on rollback, you may want to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Just remember that if you think an edit may need an explanation for reversion, don't use rollback to revert it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They've broken me

Hello RG. IMHO, you've got more Ice Hockey knowledge, then anybody I've ever came across. I just wanted to say, keep up the good work. The pro-diacritics editors have broken me, I no longer find hockey aritcles fun. Elrith refuses to abide by the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey compromise & Djssaso, Krm500 refuse to let me hide the diacritics from the NHL team articles 'current rosters (birth section)'. I've grown tired of their 'group ownership'. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Elrith being the asshole he usually was

Your own Wikiproject consensus, right on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, says:

"All Player pages: Should have diacritics applied (where required)."

So kindly don't remove them from NHL player pages, and try to learn to read. Elrith (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy to hear that your maturity level hasn't particularly changed much. Of course, I meant pages about the players in question, but that would require reading what I wrote, as opposed to paraphrasing Humpty Dumpty. You go on off and do whatever it is you do, there.  Ravenswing  04:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"All North American hockey pages: Should have player names without diacritics. Wiki-linked words should have diacritics hidden." Just wanted to put that out there. Therefore, your including them on articles such as Marc-Andre Fleury are inappropriate, and were reverted. Grsz11 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's less a question of maturity than of tone. You set that the first time we started talking on this issue, so I see no reason to be polite to you. Since the two of you are so smart, why does Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format say that "Diacritics shall be applied to all the player pages (that require them)"? I understand that as meaning that every NHL player page will use diacritics, and so do some of your co-editors. If it doesn't, then maybe you should set your project pages straight? The way I see it, either you (=the anti-"foreign squiggles" crowd) are incapable of writing coherent project guidelines, or you twist them to suit your personal POV.

Quite simply, if when it says "All player pages" on your Wikiproject page, it doesn't in fact mean all player pages, then I plead guilty to not being able to read in your inimitable way. Elrith (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, it's simply the fact that this is English Wikipedia. I fail to see how this has anything to do with anybody's POV. It's solely the fact the the English language (the language in use here) does not use diacritics, thus neither should the pages, other than the title. Grsz11 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You can attempt to be civil because that is one of the rules on Wikipedia. I realize that there is ample evidence (your open and oft-repeated contempt for the consensus rule, for one) that you don't give a tinker's damn for rules when they get in the way of your POV, but that ceased to surprise me a year or more ago. Kindly cease to spam my talk page.  Ravenswing  23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Factoid

I removed you edit to USS Simpson (FFG-56). We've been over it before on that article and haven't found a source for the assertion. If you have one then that'd be great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WHA teams

I see the POV you took out of the Vancouver articles, but you took a whole bunch of info with it! Their first game... their first win... as well as the playoff series that they won by forfeit and then played against a completely different team. This kind of stuff is not POV and should be documented. DMighton (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It should? Think about it; the articles for NHL teams don't have blow-by-blow descriptions of the scores of their first several games or the teams they played. This wasn't a pro team. This was an ephemeral club from an outlaw Tier II loop which played precisely 43 regular season games before folding. From what a casual Web search turns up for attendance figures for this league, many high schools in hockey playing areas have better turnouts. The article might survive an AfD, but we're talking unsourced bits and trivialities here.  Ravenswing  21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, what's with the attitude? All that I ask is for their first game, their first win, a little about their championship victory and their national championship loss to Bradford. I don't see what your problem is. I have always had great dealings with you in the past, I am little disgusted that you are throwing this stuff around and as well throwing the threat of AfD in my face to get your way. Thanks. DMighton (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Err ... ? Where's all this coming from? First off, I have no intention of filing an AfD, but that you consider the thought threatening says a couple things, including that you're not yourself completely sold on the team's notability. Secondly, this "Alliance Cup" is a "national championship" the same way that every two-bit local pro wrestling loop has a "world championship" belt; the Memorial Cup this isn't. If you think this information belongs as you presented it, though, why not take it to the project talk page and see what other folks' take on the team's notability might be?  Ravenswing  07:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If there is no intention of filing an AfD... then don't bother bringing the process up in the first place. I am trying to say this as kindly as possible, but I find it undermines the conversation, especially when put up in the same paragraph as notability.

I believe that the WHA is crap. I've never been shy about that. But, I do believe that the GMHL is a great league and is going to change the shape of Junior Hockey in Ontario. Their agreement, the NJHA, is a two year agreement that has already almost been broken once. If it was between the GMHL and a reputable Western league, then I WOULD call it a national championship and would argue that it is legitimate. I never thought the WHA was viable, but I felt that since the team pages were there that they should get the same treatment any fledging team page should get -- especially marking their milestones.

My intentions: Once the NJHA is broken, which I suspect soon it will be... it will be merged into the GMHL article and become a footnote in their history. Once the WHA has folded... which I pray will be soon, because I think they and their owner give all hockey a bad name... I plan to merge all team article into the WHA page. Get rid of all logos except the league one. I plan to list their first game, their last game, their competition with the GMHL, both years worth of standings, their champions, and hopefully never look at the thing again. DMighton (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD business is pertinent to mention as illustration that if an article's notability is shaky, then layering on trivial details worsens it in the eyes of many. That being said, the GMHL does strike me as a more solid, reputable loop (not, by contrast with the "WHA," that that's saying much), and you may have noticed that I didn't touch its article.  Ravenswing  13:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, really all I am saying is... the dog is going to die anyways... no point forking out $200 for the vet to put it down early... it will happen soon enough. Then I'll gladly bury it. I personally wish that the WHA team articles hadn't been built in the first place. I would say that the only thing that makes this league notable is that it is renegade. But, once we start trivializing the notability of leagues below the semi-pro level, I've always been fearful that some jerk is going to try to bring the whole house of cards down. At that point, my interest in Wikipedia will be over... because Junior is all I care about... and I will be a little disappointed. DMighton (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

Actually, the page hasn't been nearly as busy as I thought. Most of the other TFAs I've had on watch have been plagued with non-stop vandalism, dozens of legit changes and usually at least one talk page post about the lack of quality of the page. This time however there have been no complaints, very small changes, and not as many vandals as I had expected. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

quick question

I noticed on your vote for deletion on Frontline Israel that you had checked the ghits for the article...I was wondering if you could show me how to find this info. Seems like it could be useful. Thanks in advance Iamblessed (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing more complicated than the Google Advanced Search option [5]. Unlike many editors who use Google for hits, I almost always use the "exact wording or phrase" option, which gives a much more accurate result; certainly Googling "Frontline Israel" is a better indication of notability than "Frontline" & "Israel", which too many do.

A few caveats. Don't rely on the first page of your returns. Go to the last page, which gives you the total "unique" hits and is much less soft a result than the total listed on the first page. Especially when gauging the notability of websites or Web-related subjects, don't be impressed by a large hit count, which is often inflated by blog entries. Always scan through several pages to see if reliable sources crop up. Finally, when judging foreign subjects, it's always a good idea to peek at their own national Googles. You can use Google itself to search; the national Google is always the first hit listed for (for instance) "Google" + "Israel." Good luck.  Ravenswing  23:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Lightning

Hello Ravenswing. When exactly did the Lightning strip Taylor of the captaincy? At the start of the season, they said he would be the captain all season (despite his long-term injury). Can you give me the 'exact date', the Lightning removed his C; so I can add this info to his & the team articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, I need such a date to add to the article 2007-08 Tampa Bay Lightning season article. Was he stripped in December or February etc. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not good at making external-links. There's a story at the Tampa Bay Lightning official website dated March 28, 2008 - it's called Lightning captain Tim Taylor To Sign For Charity (note it doesn't say former captain). GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Beats the heck out of me; a hard and fast date likely doesn't exist. What is plain is that Taylor has announced he will not return, which certainly vacates the captaincy, even if he remains on the official roster pending his formal retirement or release.  Ravenswing  19:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait until Taylor officially announces his retirement (or at least until the Lightning's season is over); before we declare their captaincy 'vacant'. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept your edit (begrudgingly) and make the other required changes (at this articles' captains list section, Tim Taylor & 2007-08 Tampa Bay Lightning season. PS- There's rumblings that Lecavalier will be the next captain; Tortorella must be gonna get fired (coach Tortorella & captain Lecavalier again? I'd be surprised). GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious of one thing though; in the past, we've always waited for the actual retirement, before declaring vacancies; Why does Taylor get treated differently? GoodDay (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What we've waited for is definitive word. Taylor saying "I'm done" is certainly that.  Ravenswing  21:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've made the numerous changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My removal of Taylor at List of current NHL captains and alternate captains? was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears I'm running into a couple of stubborn anons; they keep reinserting Tim Taylor. Ya wanna send them a message or add some links? GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The Alternates

Would you happen to know who replaced Richards as an alternate captain? GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no idea ... is it on the Lightning page?  Ravenswing  14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No; also some of those NHL official websites aren't known for updating accuracies. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band)

Hi Ravenswing: You have misunderstood and over-reacted to my "NOTE" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subconscious (band) and I have responded to your observations and concerns over there. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I understood what you said just fine. If, by contrast, you chose your language poorly for the meaning you wished to convey, you're more than welcome to correct your statements.  Ravenswing  02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Montclair

Hey there! Good to run into each other while editing again. Re: Montclair, the City of Quincy webpage has a list of the neighborhoods in quincy: [6], which doesn't list Montclair. I know, it's somewhat odd, but it's a source, and I'm a big fan of those ;-). I removed the link because it didn't actually link to Montclair in Quincy, but a disambiguation page. I thought that, between its lack of inclusion in the City of Quincy list of neighborhoods and the fact that it didn't link to anything about the Montclair to which it is intended to refer, it should be removed. I'll remove it again, if you don't mind, but I'd love to chat about it more. Feel free to let me know if my reasoning is faulty, as I still consider you to be a far more experienced and knowledgeable wiki user than myself. --Aepoutre (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do mind, for the simple reason that Montclair is a well-known neighborhood with a neighborhood identity. It's found on maps, it has a definitive entry on Google Maps, "Montclair" + "Quincy" + "MA" generates 296,000 G-hits, and the name's reflected in businesses, buildings, the elementary school, the neighborhood association and the park. That there isn't a Wikipedia article on it (nor are for several other neighborhoods) shouldn't disqualify it from the city's article. And come to that, my eyebrows are raised looking at the neighborhood citation on the city's website under Quincy Point: "However, with the expected return of shipbuilding to the area, the focus could soon return to servicing industry-related operations." For my money, relying on the city's webmaster for accuracy doesn't make a lot of sense. Although ... come to that, there are 22 hits for Montclair on the city's website.  Ravenswing  19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure; I live in Wollaston and am not too familiar with Montclair, but I'm not out and about Quincy too often and haven't been here more than a couple of years (not including anything before the age of 7). Not to patronise, but do you feel like writing an article on Montclair and linking to it? That would be quite cool. I would myself, except that I don't know it too well. Thanks for the input, as always! --Aepoutre (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a Montclair resident myself (grew up in North Quincy, live now in Quincy Point) but I could do up a stub, anyway.  Ravenswing  20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

hey

I didn't change it back buddy someone else did I just saw that someone put Tim Taylor back so I put the IR on him, and as I'm lesd to belive he is on the IR because Tampa is still playing, season is not over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.11.79.249 (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Vacation woes

I apologise for any problems I may have caused over the last few days. I have been on vacation, suffering from jet-lag and personal issues, which have seriously affected my editing of the encyclopaedia - clearly I have came off as being somewhat irate and violating WP:BITE. I can do nothing but to apologise to all affected users and give my most sincere apologies. I did not realise what I had done until it was brought to my attention, and I thank the persons responsible for doing so.

I realise that my admin ambitions may be somewhat tarnished by this problem, but I ask anyone reading this to judge me on my edits before I went on vacation, and not during. Once again, sorry for generally being annoying and violating WP:BITE. asenine ^t/_c 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you violated WP:BITE, per se, and I didn't note you to be overtly uncivil. It's that I feel quite strongly that any nominator of an AfD, no matter the circumstances, has the responsibility to research before filing in each and every case. In repeatedly filing sometimes mere seconds after an article's creation, it was plain that you made a five second glance at a new article and proclaimed it irredeemable, without the slightest effort at either improvement or finding out whether the subject was in fact notable or not. If you're prone to doing so when you're overtired or stressed, that likewise is a bad sign; admin work is not notably unstressful. Obviously people will be watching to see how well you improve this.  Ravenswing  04:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OVerus and lawyers?

The author of the article said he needed to get in touch with his legal team before he could proceed. He did not respond to my questioning of that need. As a paralegal, do you have any idea why he would see a need to do that? DarkAudit (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

None whatsoever. This isn't a matter of trade or service marking. It's a matter of reliable sources, and either they exist or they do not. Whether this outfit's been in a magazine or a newspaper has nothing to do with attorneys, and proper sourcing takes much less fuss than racking up billable hours. This is almost certainly complete bullshit, either a smoke screen or just blowing off steam.  Ravenswing  17:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why I Took Offense

Please assume good faith on my relist. When you introduce comments like "At the best, this is process abuse" it can create a bias not only about my motives (in general) but also toward the afd discussion. Do you see where I'm coming from?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Maurice Richard

Sorry about that edit, I was attempting to revert a bunch of irrelevant stuff added by an editor, and well, I made a mistake. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hey, it happens.  Ravenswing  08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Nazarene College

Hey, thanks. Do me a favour and let me know what you think of the quoted material, updated from current sources. I've added a lot that I don't see as terribly necessary, and you still won't find in articles about even more conservative evangelical institutions, but if it must be said it might as well be sourced, right? As always, I value your opinions, so I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Aepoutre (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If those are from the current versions of the documents, that's fine by me. As far as more conservative institutions go, the people who contribute to those articles can tend to their own knitting; I'm pushing five hundred articles on my watchlist as it is! That being said, I seriously doubt they have articles as well sourced as this one. Ever think of seeking GA status for it?  Ravenswing  16:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your input. I've tried to make it well-written and well-sourced, and you've certainly helped with regards to both. There is a small amount of information, unavailable in print, that I've added from my experience, but I'd rather have sources for everything. I've thought about GA status, but I'll admit that I'm a bit nervous that it's not good enough or that people would see any personal connexion to the college as affecting its NPOV. Do you think it's ready? I'm willing to wait, haha. Aepoutre (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? For one thing, the GA process involves a review that will clue us in to problems people see with the article, if any. As far as COI issues go, while you working for the college isn't a plus, most people care a lot about articles they push to GA or FA, and you've demonstrably sought to include up to date, balanced information even on subjects many might consider embarassing, such as the Covenant (Come to that, I have no connection with the college myself, except for using its library once or twice and having attended a few of the theater club's plays). At the absolute worst, it fails ... but when it comes down to it, the determining factors for GAs are the depth and quality of the article, not whether the subject is monumentally important. Go for it.  Ravenswing  19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous Accusation

I removed no template from the AfD Duke Status page. You signed an IP-identified user's comments twice and I removed the second one. If this is not what you are referring to, please send me a link for the edit to which you are referring. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Two templates were appropriate for that comment; the first one, {{Unsigned}}, to replace the missing signature, the second, the {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}} template to identify the anon IP address as one which had made no edits to Wikipedia outside that AfD debate, something that is frequently a sign of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, since vanishingly few Wikipedia users just happen to stumble into a deletion debate as their first Wikipedia activity. You inappropriately removed the SPA citation template, which was restored.  Ravenswing  16:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Restore the time stamp, not your commentary. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you will agree with my removal of the original research tag placed on the second part of Duke Status. For each unreferenced statement there is a 'citation needed' tag, including one that I placed regarding Bradley's use of the term. Thank you for your recent contribution to the article, notably regarding the fact that Urban dictionary only includes one source. --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's relatively moot, given that consensus is overwhelmingly against inclusion, and that I expect the article will be deleted anyway in a couple of days.  Ravenswing  14:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It was you who gave the reminder that it isn't a vote, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've been amazed by how many article there are on Wikipedia without a single reference, yet Duke Status comes under such heavy fire simply because 4 or 5 editors haven't heard of it before. Thanks for your help nonetheless.--Mr.Fantastique (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Who used the word "vote?" Not I. First off, if you find articles on Wikipedia that are unreferenced, like any other editor, you're encouraged to use various tags (or the appropriate talk pages) to ask for proper sources, or file a PROD or an AfD if you think it is unsourceable. Secondly, your neologism was AfDed because no one had heard of it before. You've made claims about sourcing that proved untrue. You could change people's minds by producing valid, real reliable sources, but I imagine if they existed at all you would have done so already.  Ravenswing  14:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that you "used" the word reminder, I said that you "reminded us". It was you, after all, who placed the "afdanons" tag at the top of the page, included in which was said reminder. In the legal profession, one must pay close attention to the exact meaning of the words people use. I think this principle can be easily transposed to Wikipedia. Nothing I said has been proven untrue. You were unable to find an article in a newspaper that I may or may not have cited in error. You, however, have been wrong about several offhand statements you made. Why the need to make this into a feud ? --Mr.Fantastique (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a feud at all. In a couple days, this article about an unsourced neologism will be deleted, and that's that. Anything beyond that, you can't imagine that you have any credibility here. You've made several statements of fact, in the article and in the AfD debate. Almost without exception, they've been exposed as fraudulent or easily faked. Instead, you've chosen badgering over doing what you would need to do to save your article; the conclusion I draw from this is obvious, if not pertinent. In any event, the concept of consensus includes that sometimes you are going to be on the losing side of debate, and that when you are, you need to accept the fact graciously and move on. Good luck with your future articles.  Ravenswing  18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

YAH!!!!... Just kidding. Congrats on the 9,000th and I know that most of them are appreciated ;-)

...and, feel free to re-remove what I re-added including my entry. I won't take it personal. — Dorvaq (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(smirks) Eh, I shan't take offense! Thankew kindly. Gods, I need a life!  Ravenswing  20:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Quincy College

Hey, I there are three things on which I'd like to check before making further edits to Quincy College. I'd love to hear your thoughts and reasoning :)!

• 1) You recently doubled the Quincy University links and moved them. Yes, I believe one would belong at the top, but not two, as far as I'm aware (seems non-standard, and a bit much besides). In addition, Wikiproject Universities dictates that the disambiguation note shouldn't be used unless a naming conflict exists. If I interpret that correctly, there would need to be two Quincy Colleges to merit its use. For example: Gordon College (Massachusetts vs. Georgia), or Wheaton College (Massachusetts vs. Illinois).
• 2) The source referenced for Quincy using the College's classroom space does not say that the city "took it over" but simply that classes were being held there, so I tried to make the article text reflect the same neutral fact of use. Since I have no "inside info.," I can't infer from the source that there was any force, and it seems more likely from the article that the College was doing the City a favour. Where did you get this information? Is it just hearsay or can it be referenced? Am I missing something/on crack?
• 3) You removed the External links section. I know that the link is in the infobox, but the infobox is meant to summarise and standardise, not to eclipse information from the article. "External links" is fairly standard, and I don't think the fact that it's also in the infobox warrants its removal.

Aepoutre (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the third count, there's no need to have a links section that has nothing more than what's already in the infobox. On the second, the city owns Coddington Hall (and always did; it's the original site for QHS), the lease was up, and wanted the space; it's been extensively reported in the Patriot Ledger. Doubling the Quincy University link was not my intention; it belongs at the top, as per current usage, but I can't see any reason to have it anywhere else.  Ravenswing  16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quick. I love it. Sure, I get the reason for removing the External link section, but how standard is it to just not have one (since Wikipedia guidelines don't seem to value conciseness over standardisation)? Does it hurt to keep it? Or, more to the point, does it improve Wikipedia more to remove it, or to keep it? Interesting about Coddington Hall.... I am obviously not too up to date on that. It sure could use more cited information to that effect. As for Quincy University, how would you interpret "naming conflict?" I can doublecheck Wikiproject Universities, but I'm almost certain that's the standard we're going for. I really need to finally add myself as a participant there. Aepoutre (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmm ... would I think there was need for a disambiguation tag? I wouldn't myself, but plainly the IP who added the link thought otherwise. If you'd rather delete it, I won't argue. (grins)  Ravenswing  16:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Iron City Beer Case?

In the AFD for LarsonObrien, you offered Delete under an empty case of Iron City Beer. There's a joke there, and I wanna get it. What's that mean? :) Rockhound (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh, nothing complex. Iron City Beer is a longstanding local brand in Pittsburgh, with something of a blue collar, get-plastered-on-a-half-case rep. My first wife is from Pittsburgh, and I've spent a good bit of time in the area. (grins)  Ravenswing  15:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Heh heh. It seemed to irritate the pompous jerk who made that article, so I figured I'd get the story behind it. Funny stuff. Rockhound (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough so that he seems to have recreated the page.  Ravenswing  16:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

People don't seem to get it, do they... Rockhound (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

They don't know. The public perception of Wikipedia is that it's (1) a really popular website a lot of people look at, (2) one of the top sites that come up with Google search engines and (3) anyone can pretty much put up whatever the hell they want. As long as it's easy for them to do -- and in this instant gratification age heaven forbid that you get anyone to read even the Five Pillars before being able to make edits -- this sort of thing will persist.  Ravenswing  21:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What's sad is that I've got an instructor in college who didn't know that Wikipedia information requires citations. I did a report, sourced some Wikipedia-linked citations, and nearly got an F on the paper... until I showed him the real deal with Wikipedia. Rockhound (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, because the "Academics don't accept Wikipedia" deal snowballs through the media, and since people are basically lazy (AfD as Exhibit A, on both sides of the line), they don't stop to question whether or not Wikipedia is reliable, so they just presume absent evidence that it isn't.  Ravenswing  21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ottawa's Pizza Line

Really..because there is a source? Where is the source? Can you verify that the source is valid? Can you click the link to get the context of the source? When is a source not a source? If I cite an article, recent, that mentions the Sabre's famous French Connection line, can I then put a line in that article that refers to the line as current...simply because the source is current? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccrashh (talk • contribs) 19:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you want it more than one way. First it's that you don't care for the author of the article, now it's that you claim the article is unverifiable. May I ask what your intent is, come to that? Do you deny that the CASH Line existed? That's all the source verifies, although if you really want to see an online-verifiable one that badly, why not this one from the Globe and Mail, only a week old [7] ? Now that being said, I refer you to WP:V and WP:RS, which quite explicitly states that newspapers are valid sources, and that sources are not required to be online to be verifiable. THN is held in many public libraries, and you're more than welcome to look up the citation and challenge it if it is in fact misrepresented. (Just FYI, I'm also posting this to the Sens talk page).  Ravenswing  19:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the globesports.com citation. I suppose the others are unnecessary. Alaney2k (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, no reason not to keep them.  Ravenswing  19:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved them to the body of the article, how's that. Alaney2k (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Works for me.  Ravenswing  19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Larson O'brien AfD Discussion

Hello again. I put this on a new line for the sake of it being a new discussion. I recently posted a comment to that AfD, and I wanted to ask you, an experienced Wikipedian, if the comment was out of line or not. Should I have phrased it different? Rockhound (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What, the one where you urged the LO folks to read WP policies and guidelines so as to know what our requirements for articles are? What would be out of line about that?  Ravenswing  18:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if the tone was proper. Rockhound (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bio: Athlete

Hihi, Thanks for the clarification...the back alleys of WP are difficult to navigate...so the way I read that (now) is that anyone that competes in even just one NFL game, or drives in one Indy 500 automatically qualifies as notable, but if they are amateur they have to have stuff written about them as well as having competed? Thanks for helping me learn :) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that playing in just one NFL game or driving in a single Indy 500 is deemed automatically notable; the records of the various leagues are considered evidence enough. The amateur bar is slightly different: the sport must be at the highest level of play and there can be no corresponding professional league. Given that, though, the same procedures apply. If I can demonstrate that you competed on the Canadian Olympic curling team, you're notable, even if there's never been anything written about you. However, playing football for Boston College doesn't cut it, since that is not the highest level of competition; I'd have to demonstrate you were otherwise notable ... for instance, you might be an All-American. In any case, WP:V trumps WP:BIO; if there are multiple articles about you in reliable sources, you pass.

I believe, by the bye, that the WP:ATHLETE notability standards are ridiculously low. A footballer with a single cap for the Montserrat national team (such as it is), a scrub who played a single period for the NHL Montreal Maroons in 1927, they qualify, and that's silly.  Ravenswing  18:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, I stumbled on an article about a driver who raced in a single Indy 500, and didn't even finish! The entire article was one line with his "stats" in the race...but there it stands....thanks for the clarification, I guess I was getting it mixed up with just highest level amateur LegoTech·(t)·(c)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scuffleball (2nd nomination)

The article got deleted in 2005 and then undeleted in 2007 by an admin who overturned the AfD, so G4 doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for the tip.  Ravenswing  13:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Everest Catholic High School

reply on my talk page. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

You do great work on hockey articles, I don't think people hear enough when they do stuff people like so, umm, well, umm, thanks!Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(chuckles) Well, that's extremely kind of you. Thank you.  Ravenswing  02:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:DATE for correct formatting instructions

Hi. Per Wikipedia:DATE#Dates of birth and death, locations of birth and death are not to be entangled within the lifespan brackets. Cheers, CP 22:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Blues Metal

Hey you didn't read the deep purple story very well look up metal blues on google books you'll see where I got my reference--Crasherisntmydogsname (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the exact page you cited. If you'd like to try a different page instead, the book is still in the library.  Ravenswing  03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Schoolboy band?

This was quite funny. I realise you were being sarcastic (well, I hope you were), and you were right that the information was all already in the author article, but you did lose a useful external link when you redirected that article. I've now added the external link to the author article - that link should eventually be used as a reference, but hopefully those who later review the external links will see that and not just remove it. Without wanting to cause offence, could I ask that you be a little more careful when redirecting in future? Carcharoth (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Flags

Please take into consideration that the federal parliament of Canada has recognized that the Quebecers forms a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.224.188 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And when Quebec becomes an independent, internationally-recognized nation-state ... well, the players listed will still be listed under the Canadian flag as long as they were born in "Canada," which is the standard per WP:MOS. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.  Ravenswing  20:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's correct anon, the House of Commons recognized Quebecers (Quebecois) as a nation; not Quebec itself, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Supreme Gladiator

A tag has been placed on Supreme Gladiator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Gladiator

Errr ... actually, that was a new article on which I was filing an AfD, and even there it was only the extreme unnotability of it that had me doing so that fast. Speeding an article moments after creation gives the creator zero time to respond, let alone improve it or provide proper sources, and for anything other than blatant vandalism or an attack page is obnoxious. May I inquire as to the extreme haste involved?  Ravenswing  18:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article was speedy deleted before you even placed the AFD tag, which created a new article instead. It was that new article that i tagged for removal because the AFD template was the only content in the article. I cannot say why the article was deleted so quickly before (Most likely because it met WP:CSD guidelines) as i have never seen the first article that was speedied. Maybe the deleting admin (User:NawlinWiki) can explain, because he deleted both versions of the article.

Kind regards,

Excirial ^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Blackhawks v Black Hawks

Hi, I can see why you're making the changes, unfortunately you're causing redirects. You should be using [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] instead of just [[Chicago Black Hawks]]. --JD554 (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Which just makes it ten times harder to identify which articles require changing in the first place. There are thousands of articles to change here, and no bot can make the distinctions necessary. Beyond that, I don't think redirects are appropriate here. Your casual user -- much in the same way all these pre-1986 "Blackhawks" got into articles in the first place, will assume without one that there's an error and go back and edit the name, causing the whole ball all over again.  Ravenswing  19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you: What ever you are using to replace [[Chicago Blackhawks]] with [[Chicago Black Hawks]] can surely be used to use [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] instead? Using a the proper piped redirect takes more load off of the wiki servers and should be used. I'm not sure how a piped link will confuse a casual reader. --JD554 (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, I'm tracking these by going over lists with "Chicago Blackhawks" and looking for obvious pre-1986 articles. Do it your way, and that doesn't happen. The total load on the servers is certainly no more than I'm exerting writing this response.  Ravenswing  20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you say these are manual edits? If so, I must be missing something obvious, because all you have to do is type [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] instead of [[Chicago Black Hawks]]. --JD554 (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing I'll reiterate is what I said above. I need to search out these pages, and leaving hundreds of pages with unnecessary "Blackhawks" attached just kicks those pages back again as unaltered.  Ravenswing  21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Except it wouldn't because if you use "Chicago Blackhawks" as your search term it won't return [[Chicago Blackhawks|Chicago Black Hawks]] as that simply shows on the page as Chicago Black Hawks. --JD554 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Except the precise way I'm doing it isn't with Google searches; it's with What Links Here.  Ravenswing  12:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rich dickerson

Please review my actions at the above and let me know whether it is okay. If it isn't please let me know what I need to do differently in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I wouldn't have done that. Non-admin closures are only when there is an unambiguous Keep result, not a whiff of controversy and no judgment calls involved. It's plainly a busted nomination, but that's for an admin to decide ... and the nom could have always put together sound deletion grounds.  Ravenswing  15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your delete request RE David Codr

Im writing about the page I created today on David Codr. Admittedly I am not a very experienced Wiki poster, but I created this page as I have been contacted about 3 dozen times in the last few months from people looking for info on David as I worked with him 12 years ago.

Im not trying to be difficult or pick a fight, but if the subject is found on multiple search engine pages and there is a demand for information on this person, why shouldnt there be a page listed on Wiki?

Please do not delete the pages based on my ignorance to the nuances of wikipedia. I am confident if the page remains active, people more experienced in wiki will add links, footnotes, etc.

Here are a few additional links not included on the page as i didnt want it to appear as if it was created for promotional purposes.

http://www.musicians.com/blog/independent-artist-registry-take-your-music-to-the-next-level http://www.performer.com/the_best/judges.htm

I am guessing many people build pages about themselves for ego reasons or to get their a 15 minutes of fame and applaud your dedication. But David has impacted the lives of thousands of musicians through his Guerilla Promotion workshops, and effected the music industry by publishing the Music Phone Book for 10 years.

You may not be aware of how difficult it is to locate music industry contacts with all the turnover in the music business. His publication and teaching has had an enormous impact. Ive seen articles where unknown bands and national acts reference him and his contributions to the music industry.

If you have any suggestions on how to "fix" the page, any advice would be greatly appreciated. Again, im new to this and would like an opportunity to rectify my errors - I just dont know what they are.

Thank you for your time.

Jeb Hall Mamallama (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, you're certainly not trying to pick a fight; you want an explanation, which is quite reasonable. It is simply this: people tend to think that because Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, pretty much any content can be included. In truth, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that, like any other encyclopedia, has standards for inclusion: verifiability and notability, in this case. For the former, I'd look through WP:V and WP:RS; for the latter, WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. To quote from WP:V,

  "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis in the original)

As far as reliable sources go,

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

That this shuts out people for whom reliable sources do not exist is true; it is also Wikipedia policy. How to fix the page (quite aside from the numerous stylistic problems with redirects) is simple: find reliable sources about Codr (not simply mentioning him in passing) that are newspapers, books or industry magazines. Good luck.  Ravenswing  03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Diamond (lawyer)

With great respect RG, I think you didn't read the article. It's far from blatant advertising. This barrister has acted in almost all the leading cases on religious discrimination, for Christians. He's notable, and I'm taking down the tag. Please discuss on the talk page if you want to.Wikidea 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

travis parrott for deletion

I just wanted to know why you wanted to delete the Travis Parrott article that I wrote. If thats the case, then why not delete Tim Tebows page? he is the quarterback for the University of Florida. He does not compete in the NFL yet he has a big page. Or how about Matt Grothe, QB for the University of South Florida. He competes at the college level as well.

I just want to make sure because I see a ton of pages that have been up for quite some time. Yet the first big article that I wrote, which took about 5 hours for Parrott, and its going for deletion. I hope you can understand where im coming from here. I just want to know more information so I can not have my articles deleted, thank you.

(321Baseball (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

Simply put, I saw the Parrott page and not the other pages. Obviously there are many thousands of pages that might run afoul of various deletion grounds that no one's seen yet, and they're just as liable to go as any other. For sports people in particular, WP:ATHLETE discusses the specific criteria applying to them. As a general rule, an athlete who has not competed professionally, or at the highest possible amateur level in a sport without professional athletes, will not qualify unless he or she's won particular honors such as NCAA All-American status, conference MVP or the like or has been a high draft choice. Parrott hasn't done these things, and it looks like he's run through his eligibility; is he playing pro ball anywhere?

Now that being said, the article does look like you put a good bit of work into it, and the right bit of work; Parrott just doesn't pass notability muster. I'd recommend looking over WP:BIO for a handle on notability criteria in the future, and I do hope you stick with writing articles, because you certainly have the skills down. Good luck.  Ravenswing  21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hot tubbing

The one I'm talking about wasn't on University drive. It was at the mall using an external entrance. - Denimadept (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese Nobility

Ensure you and your partners go through all of my works and put them up for deletion. I am not going to fight them nor will I be bothered adding anymore data to Wikipedia. I hope you and your partners have that erection of satisfaction. (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2008 (EST)

We are certainly going to evaluate whether the various articles pass muster for Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. That is our responsibility to do. You have been raising furious and often uncivil objections for years - and in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN and WP:COI - and you would be far better off improving the articles to Wikipedia standard (as you said you would, and have failed to do) and providing reliable sources which we stand a chance of verifying. In my long experience, shrill declarations that anyone who opposes your articles can only be doing so through malice or ignorance is the hallmark of an editor who doesn't really have a policy leg or independent, third-party sources to stand on. Which angle would you prefer?  Ravenswing  00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Tancarville

I've been thinking about filing an WP:ANI on this user because of his flat out refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding all those Maltese nobility pages. What say you? (Note also that in this AfD, a possible sock with the name User:Count Gauci popped up. Note also that Tancarville has been using sources from a C. Gauci...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, I went ahead and filed an ANI him; see here if you want to add any comments, since you're an involved party. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. Obviously this guy's agenda is to puff up his family's threadbare claims to being nobility, and just as obviously his grasp of the MOS and various policies is shaky, there are a few other considerations. First off, there's no hard evidence to assume he's acted in bad faith. Secondly, there's no hard evidence that his sources are all bogus; yes, they're suspicious, yes, he's only brought in the print sources when challenged, and yes, he has a propensity for quoting obscure centuries-old documents in sealed European archives, but we can't conclusively disprove them either. Thirdly, all these were up for deletion before and passed overwhelmingly; that the Keep voters were astonishingly careless about fact checking, just swallowed Tancarville's assertions at face value and were dazzled by how scholarly it all appeared superficially doesn't cancel out that at one point he was given a green flag to do what he's been doing all along. Slow as this incremental process is, my goal is to bounce all the articles that fail WP:V / WP:RS / WP:OR / WP:COI, and I'm pretty confident that'll happen. Making it personal doesn't have an upside, as far as I see. I'd withdraw the ANI, in your shoes.  Ravenswing  16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still the issues of civility and article ownership, which I think are concerning. Plus the fact that he's had the same M.O. for two or three years. Plus the CoI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All of which are matters better handled by RfC. AN/I's for violations of blocks, bans and restrictions, or for immediate issues that must be handled quickly.  Ravenswing  17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Job

Thanks for the good editing job. When I went back to the hockey Summit Series article, I saw that you reverted a sloppy edit I had made, but kept my other good edit that I had made the same day on the same page. The article is the better for it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.165.178 (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well, the one I didn't revert was good sourcing for a quote; I would have been damn sloppy myself if I'd just mindlessly reverted it all. Thanks for your kind words.  Ravenswing  08:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your de-proddings of Maria Ho and Dee Luong

Just informing you that there is a wide consensus that poker players do not fall under WP:ATHLETE and as such playing professionally is not an indicator of notability. As per WP:BIO Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So bring them to AfD. For my money, someone who makes $300,000 on the poker pro tour is a heck of a lot more notable than a scrub guard who played a single game for the Providence Steamrollers in 1947, but who is entitled to an article.  Ravenswing  23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In poker, money earned of less than a million dollars is not considered notable. The huge amount of money involved in poker is a little difficult to comprehend in regards to notability, but a one off cash of $300000 which was neither a win or a final table is really pushing it. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Money of less than a million is unnotable in the poker world? Mind sourcing that assertion?  Ravenswing  10:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Luong. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maltese nobility prods

Just to let you know I de-prodded quite a few of them as they have survived a prior AfD, the only way to get them deleted now is via another AfD. RMHED (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is another way. DS (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They survived a prior AfD on a crocked, discredited premise, and in almost every case have gone four years without improvement or reliable sourcing, and all the similar articles I've taken to AfD this week have each and every one of them been deleted, with near unanimous consensus. I won't speculate on what your intent was in deprodding them, what elements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR (or in several cases WP:COI) you believe they meet, but you can't imagine they're going to survive AfD. It'll just take a bit longer now.  Ravenswing  04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Care to weigh in on this? DS (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am already composing my reply; I saw the thing when I surfed back to your talk page looking to see if there was a reply to my thank you note to you. I'm not happy that RMHED asks "Why the reluctance to AfD?" and citing me by name without bothering to inform me of this action.  Ravenswing  13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI I've given him a level 4 warning for abusive attacks. Have a nice day. andy (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I just went back and actually looked at his comments. Just as well, too, because this isn't simply a WP:CIVIL matter, this is a WP:NLT violation. I'm taking this to AN/I at once.  Ravenswing  14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there was a thinly veiled legal threat in that post to me as well, "I also will advise you to clean your act as a few people are considering taking you to court.". _{1 != 2} 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be on the up and up I would notify him on his talk page that you brought it to ANI. But yeah that was quite the rant, I can understand being upset that you are killing so many articles of his, but to go that far is not good at all. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that had slipped my mind. Thanks for reminding me; I'll notify him at once.  Ravenswing  15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And ... I'm behind the curve; he's already been indef blocked. (sighs) 'Tis a pity.  Ravenswing  15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad... I should have picked up on WP:NLT and taken this to AN/I myself. Glad the situation got sorted out, though. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not to worry about it. Let's just say it doesn't trouble me to know that there are folks who keep an eye out.  Ravenswing  16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello, Ravenswing, and thank you for your recent participation in my RfA, which was closed per WP:NOTNOW after reaching a vote tally of 5/15/2. While I am disappointed in the outcome, I understand that it - as well as the comments left by yourself and others - was in the best interests of Wikipedia at this time. I plan to take everything that was written to heart and improve myself here on Wikipedia with a goal of perhaps accepting a nomination again in the future, should someone choose to nominate me. As a way of gathering further feedback, I have created a page in my user space for other editors to leave comments about things that they might have observed during my RfA and to continue my "education process," as it may be considered. If you would like to contribute to that page, it may be found here. Again, thank you for participating and I appreciate your comments! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert only when necessary

Hi,

You seem quick to revert good faith edits. Consider the idea WP:Revert only when necessary and give good faith contibutions a second thought (and perhaps further research) before reverting them. You could even consider trying the Zero-revert rule temporarily.

Your positive contributions to the Ice Hockey project are much appreciated. Keep up the great work!--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly revert a bunch of unsourced edits, especially ones that aren't reflected in common hockey literature such as that one, and will continue to do so as I think best. That being said, with several thousand hockey-related edits under my belt, including fourteen FAs and seven GAs, I'm certainly proud of my accomplishments.  Ravenswing  12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because a contribution is unsourced doesn't mean it should be reverted. For good faith edits consider requesting a citation, looking for a source or discussing the issue on the talk page.

Overzealous reverting discourages valuable contributors.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, yes. And lack of gumption to revert when called for discourages the making of a good encyclopedia. No doubt you have your way of seeing things; I have mine.  Ravenswing  01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the above methods for dealing with good faith contributions, rather than immediately reverting, won't detract from the quality of Wikipedia. The quality of the edit will be addressed and you won't err by reverting positive contributions.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

DRV

It was one of my less easy decisions! But I think it was the right one, and I've explained why. Process is great, but forcing process when there's no chance that process will save these articles is pointless. For future reference, send them all to AfD! :) There were some issues with the legitimacy of some deletions; they were deleted at AfD so some were deleted before the PROD expiry. The nominator removed the PRODs, though, which should have been an immediate sign that AfD was the place to take them. Therefore I agree that that process was broken unnecessarily, but having said that, overturning a decision to prove a point that process was broken (try saying that when you're drunk..! :)) is also unhelpful. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

And I would have taken them to AfD at that point, however grumblingly, if the admin hadn't deleted the articles out. That being said, though, I started prodding them just to keep from clogging AfD with over forty related deletion debates, the more so in the sheer unanimity of consensus to delete. That they were deprodded in the first placed seemed of a piece with RHMED's objection at review ... but since prods should only be used for completely uncontroversial deletions ... well, as you say, forcing process for no other reason than to have some process is pointless. Anyway, all's well that ends well.  Ravenswing  00:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)