User talk:Ravenswing/Archive8

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, take it out to dinner. Maybe it will put out. (I recommend showering and brushing your teeth first, though)

THOMAS WHITLEGG

Hi Ravenswing - I noticed you have deleted this article with the following comment, "Unsourced article, recreated apparently out of process after being AfDed". I had at some point, in line with a lot of other Wikipedia things I watch, been hoping to source some reference material for this article so would hope you would be happy of we can restore this article and I'll move it up my list. Can you also tell me what AfDed means - its a new term to me. Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm somewhat startled that an editor of your longevity hasn't encountered it before. "AfD" is short for Articles for deletion, the process where people seek to remove articles for various violations or deficiencies in policies and guidelines. By far, the most common ground for deletion is lack of notability, where an article lacks reliable sources which qualify under WP:GNG. The GNG holds that subjects must receive "significant coverage" (which is about the subject, as opposed to entities with which it might be associated) in multiple "reliable sources" with a proven reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I recommend you review it if you're unfamiliar with it. The Whitelegg article was deleted for lack of sources in 2007, subsequently restored with an exhortation to add sources, and there it's stood for nine years, still sourceless.
While I'm disinclined to reverse my edit, given that it's already sat on Wikipedia for a freaking decade without sourcing, I've taken the liberty to copy it to your userspace at User:Davidvaughanwells/Thomas Whitelegg. When you have the time to properly source the article, you can restore it to mainspace at your convenience. Ravenswing 08:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I work in the rail industry so there are so many acronyms I can't keep up! I also tend to just write articles rather than get sucked into the Wikipeda machine! Cheers--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCOLLATH

I made a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposed replacement for WP:NCOLLATH and based on the earlier discussion we were all having I wanted to put it on your radar.RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-created article

The recently deleted and salted article 2017 WGC-Dell Match Play has re-appeared as 2017 WGC Dell Match Play. 40.138.97.1 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at MilborneOne's talk page.
Message added 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Johnsmith fulfilled his promise at AFD ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Getting a pass"

Regarding this edit: the top-ten goal scorers get passes; the top-ten points leaders give passes :-). isaacl (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PpPpPpPpPppppptttt ... (smirks) Ravenswing 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1967 NHL expansion: Revision history

Regarding - Really doesn't have anything to do with the 1967 expansion, and is covered in the appropriate team articles.

Well it has at least as much to do with the 1967 expansion as the note about the St Louis Eagles (and the other previous franchises). It included owners of the 67 teams, one of the teams and two of the areas involved.

Kevinskogg (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a serial vandal?

I created the infobox on every hockey player on Wikipedia, genius (username the strokes, I'm not bothering to login). And then I moved on with my life, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.217.7 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. Presuming that you're actually The strokes, yep: you were a serial vandal. No need to use my own words for it: Dorvaq was perfectly eloquent about it on your talk page, with statements such as:
you can't deny that you have been disruptive. I mean, you've even admitted to being disruptive in your own edit summaries. One particular instance states: "don't stop agitating me, I'll keep vandalizing your page Addhoc. This is my new username, and it's this for a reason". In addition, most, if not all, of your last 50 edits consists of vandalism on your part and/or feuding with Ccwaters, Addhoc, and RG to push your point across.
Lastly, you may accuse RG of being immature for his comments, but making comments such as "I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********"; insinuating that RG is a hypocrite, labelling the three as Wikinazis; and resorting to vandalism when other editors disagree with you under the victimization ruse, neither reflects positively on *your* maturity level, nor does it lend credibility to your claim of endeavouring to reach amicable solutions.
You may be comfortable with how your disruption reflects on your maturity level, but I can tell you that if you continue at your current maturity level, you will not gain the support of those who have the power to impose such actions.
Or, perhaps, JaMikePA, who was even someone on your side in those disputes:
Your incivility and rampant vandalism doesn't prove anything you wish to get across or that they are incorrect. It actually proves to them that they are.
And sure, you created that template. Here's the warning DJSasso sent you for vandalizing it: [1]. (Which you did several times, by the bye, with charming edit summaries such as "eff off" and "little fag needs something to do in his spare time ie: the rest of his life while the welfare cheques roll on in." It's a bit of a surprise that DJ didn't indef you for that one.
In any event, so what? A broken clock is right twice a day. The strokes made 1600 edits over a few years. Many users permanently banned for being jerks, like BetaCommand and MickMacNee, made tens of thousands of productive edits, none of which immunized them against following the civility and conduct policies of Wikipedia. We didn't need their antics, and we didn't need The strokes. By the bye? All that nonsense went down nine years ago. Whining about it now is how you define "moving on with your life?" Oooookay, sport. Ravenswing 19:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was a month to the day before I was an admin so I wouldn't have been able to. But I might also have not noticed. I get a kick out of how he always comes around and mentions he was the guy who created the infobox and how it hasn't really changed since then. When if you actually look at the diff between his last constructive edit and now you see that it has been completely rewritten since he did it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was curious myself, and took a peek. I also took a stroll through some of those disputes he seemed awfully eager to provoke. He sure did seem to love the "I wrote the hockey template so that means you're not allowed to disagree with me!!!" premise, didn't he? Ravenswing 20:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haha totally vandalized my talk page saying to learn how to code....if only he knew what I spend all day looking at for my job. Looks like he is mad that his contribution to hockey on Wikipedia has been completely replaced. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, what can we say? Petulant whiny types like Strokes who refuse to grow up will always be with us, world without end, amen. About all there is to do is point and laugh, and indef them. Ravenswing 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing about being a braggart on Wikipedia - nobody actually cares who you are. I've been here a decade, and that guy's handle doesn't even ring a bell. Reso lute 20:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Any number of busy, valued hockey editors a decade ago who few if any would recognize today: Masterhatch, CC, Croat Canuck, EarlAndrew ... we don't have headspace for the ephemeral twinkies. Ravenswing 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1967 Expansion Change

Why did you not even reply to my comment? That is a legitimate question. The Bay Area to Cleveland to Minnesota back to the Bay Area is at least as relevant as the Philadelphia Quakers. Kevinskogg (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: immediately following the Background section, those bits mention previous NHL franchises, if any, as well as the move history of those six teams. They're not intended to be general histories of hockey in those listed cities -- if they were, one ought to mention the superseded teams in Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and San Francisco at the least. Ravenswing 03:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The move of the Minnesota to Dallas is noted. This note is specific to the owners of the franchise and the franchises involved in the expansion. The awarding of a new expansion team to Gunds after they expressed their desire to move to the Bay Area was directly related to the merged 1967 franchise both in ownership and franchise location. It is not a "general history of hockey in those listed cities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject. If you'd like to seek consensus to your POV, feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Ravenswing 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Taubman Technique

Hi Ravenswing,

I think you are mistakenly removing the material on the page about Dorothy Taubman.

1- The material is properly sourced. See the notes in the reference section. 2- I've left a lengthy discussion on that article's talk page about why the material is necessary to understanding the subject's life, and why it made her famous. 3- I don't appreciate the fact that you just deleted it ad libitum and didn't move it to the talk page for discussion and review.

I'll be waiting to hear your thoughts! Laguna greg 19:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

I've responded on the article talk page. Ravenswing 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I can see your point(s). However, there IS an inline citation...right in the first line of that section just to be clear. That source, an exhaustive one, is independently published and exists in libraries all over the country. Please don't say this material isn't supported, because it sure looks like it is to me. If you're trying to say that there aren't enough, I can probably fix that. But you could have sent me a note, or left a message on the talk page, or put up a banner or something.

-Another thing- what you left in the article IS A MESS. The end of the article doesn't make any sense any more and will need some serious revision. Will you let me do that? Please comment before I do more work.

-And I really do want to know- why didn't you just move the offending material off the article and on to the talk page? I myself do that all that time! I know that 1- I'm a new, inexperienced editor, and 2-that work submitted here may be challenged (I happen to agree with this method very much). But there was some serious work done on that material just gathering the sources. To have it deleted unilaterally wasted more than 6 weeks of my time. Why should I work on a wiki when the work I do, some of it very good, will be deleted without discussion or review? I thought that was why there was a talk page.

-I did not write these sections to "defend Taubman's work". If you think that is the tone being struck, I'll gladly rewrite it but no one has said that to me yet. All I was trying to do was describe what she had discovered, as best I could, with as much documentation as I could find. If you think this material belongs in a separate article, I can do that as well.

-Waiting for your reply! Laguna greg 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)

None of the material I removed, in any of those subsections, had an inline citation in it. An inline cite properly is placed at the end of a sentence it's referencing.
That being said, I disagree that anything was left a "mess" ... except, perhaps, some of the jargon-riddled verbiage I hadn't touched. "Taubman adduced that the seemingly discrete technical elements coalesce into a synergistic whole, minimizing the need for each, potentiating their separate, individual effect, yet blending into a seamless unity that only a trained observer can discern separately." Material like that really blows holes through the Manual of Style, which holds that "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
Beyond that, you may be missing the point. I didn't remove that material because I thought there might be a better place for it, or that I felt it was poorly written and needed a rewrite. I removed it because it was badly superfluous to the article, and hence didn't belong at all. Spending time writing a section (although I'm flabbergasted at the notion of taking six whole weeks to write 1500 words) doesn't immunize any of us from having our work removed if it violates Wikipedia guidelines or is otherwise found unsuitable. I didn't need to secure anyone's permission in advance to do so, any more than you asked on the talk page in advance whether it was alright to add that material. Having material deleted happens to us all — out of my own edits, I've had more than 1,600 deleted. Ravenswing 03:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss USA winner discussions

Since you have made previous comments related to articles on this subject, I thought you might be interested in the deletion discussions for Laci Scott and several others currently in process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taubman redux

hi, just wanted to thank you for creating the page on Dorothy Taubman, which is amazingly accurate and complete. i'm curious -- are you a pianist? were you a student of hers? how did you come by all this knowledge? thanks so much for putting the page up. i refer to it over and over, and send my students to study it. thanks again! robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvomonte (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my piano playing was strictly high school stuff, and I never (knowingly) met Taubman. The genesis of the article was really an Article for Deletion filing on Taubman's Institute, which editors felt didn't meet the standard necessary to sustain a Wikipedia article. I was among them, but after doing a little digging, felt that Taubman herself met that standard, and created the article. Most of the work on the article, visible in its present form, is not mine, however much I like to bask in credit. In any event, on behalf of those other editors, I thank you for your kind words. Ravenswing 11:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help

Can you please help in this TFD nomination? The author of the template keeps reverting the nomination. The editor in question do not answer talk pages or WikiProject discussions. --Osplace 02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes hockey team's origins...

I guess it's all a matter of semantics, but I still don't understand how you can say the Hurricanes were formed in 1971?!! The New England Whalers were formed in 1971, the Carolina Hurricanes were not even conceived at that time, much less existed. The Hurricanes came into existance only when the Whalers team basically folded, and the team relocated to Raleigh, and at that point in time took on the name Hurricanes.

I still believe your phrasing is semantically awkward, the Hurricanes team was not formed in 1971, the Whalers were. Regarding my edit, I wanted to go as far as saying that the team then became the Hurricanes when it moved to Raleigh in 1997. It is a matter of existing, at different points in time, as differently named teams.

Perhaps putting it as such will help... In 1971 a team called the New Englad Whalers was formed (which is true). In 1979, the team merged into the NHL, and was renamed the Hartford Whalers (again true). In 1997 the team relocated to Raleigh NC, and then became the Hurricanes(true).

Or, perhaps explained in this way, why would the Hurricanes be formed in 1971, but be called the Whalers? You prefer this way of phrasing this, but how can the team be formed in one instance of time, but have two names as you imply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Pilot16 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the same franchise, that's how. It's really rather a simple thing. Ravenswing 19:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree, but it's a free world out there. Your meaning is ambiguos at best, same franchise - isn't that wonderful!! You base your argument on a technicality. The Hurricanes were formed as a piece of that franchise, in 1997, and not anytime before that. Why you can't accept presenting this more clearly helps to establish why Wikipedia can be so challenging. A heads up, you have alot of work to do on the Wikipedia Hartford Whalers page, based on your sense of logic. AA Pilot16 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about I give you a head's up? No doubt you feel your 57 edits over the course of a decade (a total that's been exceeded by many an active editor in a single day) gives you unique insight into the workings of Wikipedia, but the fact of the matter is that -- as a wise editor once said -- Wikipedia isn't written to please you. It's written to reflect real world fact, whether or not it suits your amour propre. Deciding how we present those facts is a matter of consensus, and sometimes consensus stands against you. In this particular case, sports franchises don't have "pieces." They're unitary entities, and we take franchise foundation dates from the NHL itself, not plucked from thin air because we have a hard time accepting facts we don't like, or that the vast majority of readers seem to have no trouble processing. (Not that this phenomenon is restricted to sports. The PPG Industries article states that the company was founded in 1883, even though its name changed over the years; the Walmart article states that the company was founded in 1962, even though its name changed over the years; the Verizon article states that the company was founded in 1983, even though its name changed over the years.)
That being said, you stated your case. I disagreed with you. The bit at the top of the page about me being disinterested in rants is accurate. Good day. Ravenswing 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Ravenswing. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis

Apparently he no longer responds to people and I can't edit his userpage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dolovis "This user is ranked 43rd on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created." "This user is one of the 1,000 most active English Wikipedians of all time." are not even close to being accurate 96.232.177.125 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but it's not something I'm particularly exercised about, nor given our oft-confrontational dealings over the years should I be editing his userpage at all. For my part, the time I'd spend doing that I could be doing something to genuinely help the encyclopedia, like knocking off another article from the New Page Review backlog. Ravenswing 19:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of tier III teams

Regarding this edit: you said you doubted it would be hard to establish notability; did you mean to say that you thought it would be hard to establish notability? (Otherwise, I'm not sure why you regret it.) isaacl (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McShane

Over at Ian McShane, I noticed that Game of Thrones had reappeared in the lead after remembering that you had removed it before; an extremely valid edit. AffeL, however, managed to sneak it back in a few weeks later, so I removed it yet again. One episode in a 55 year career? Really, no. I'm going to keep an eye on it, thought you might want to as well. Cheers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Plager's honored number

I removed it because No. 5 is officially retired so there is no reason why it should be under honored numbers anymore. Caleb Woods (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)CalebWoods[reply]

Luxembourg Sandstone Formation

It's real, see [2] page 20. Abyssal (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spiffy. Now how about multiple reliable sources which discuss it in significant detail, as the GNG requires? Ravenswing 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just thinking about your comment about article creation at the other user's page and didn't want to go off track there. I did want to clear up a potential misunderstanding. I was saddened about the AGF remark, as I had done so for weeks-- but 600+ articles caught my attention particularly the uniformly low quality of the recent ones I looked at. In contrast, Your work is nicely done and shows the time and thought you put into what you do. I also create new articles. I try to have DYK quality on most, though in practice that's uneven. And then we both know of editors in a class all by themselves, for whom I can only sit in awe -- and not a crappy stub in the bunch. oh, and by the way, I'm a "she", not a "he." Montanabw^(talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transit

I think the SEE ALSO guidelines are completely moronicy but ok. I don't want to edit war with someone, so sorry for reverting you.★Trekker (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, they're the rules of the road. A suitable controversy for linking there would be one where a similarly inexperienced wrestler (or one who badly overstated his credentials) was likewise badly injured, or another safety-related incident in ECW leading to serious injuries. But just any old controversy? Chris Benoit murdering his wife? The WWF steroids scandal? Hell in a Cell? Owen Hart's death? I don't see the relation. Ravenswing 08:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeNe League

In regards to the League Assessment, the Eredivisie (ice hockey) appears to have merged with the Belgian Hockey League to become the BeNe League (ice hockey). It seems at some point the Eredivsie was added to the assessment, so I am guessing you did some research into its player notability. Any idea if the would be BeNe is the same? Or should it be left off? Yosemiter (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ravenswing, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
- User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
- User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City National Arena

Where is the correct place on Wikipedia to list City National Arena? 2600:1011:B05B:BF90:C8B8:4D3C:A6DB:F364 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

That would be, I fancy, "nowhere." Ravenswing 03:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are other NHL Practice Facilities "notable" enough to be on Wikipedia and not City National Arena?NetWitz (talk) 03:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

Well, let's run down the list, shall we? The Ducks' practice arena is not cited in their article. The Coyotes' practice arena is not cited in their article. The Flames' practice arena is not cited in their article. The Oilers' practice arena is not cited in their article. The Kings' practice arena is not cited in their article. The Sharks' practice arena is not cited in their article. The Canucks' practice arena is not cited in their article. There. That's the entire Pacific Division. Do you sense a pattern there? Where do you get from there that these practice arenas are not only notable, but already all have Wikipedia articles? (Certainly the Ristuccia Ice Arena, the practice rink for the Bruins for decades, doesn't have an article.) Ravenswing 04:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:National_Hockey_League_practice_facilities&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop 2600:8801:2D01:64D0:F196:2322:9094:948F (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

What's your point? That some facilities are notable enough to have articles? That list is less than half the number the NHL uses (and thank you for posting it, because I could identify a couple that weren't notable, and suitable for redirects). See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ravenswing 17:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Incident notice board discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Incidents. NetWitz (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)NetWitz[reply]

Happy to see that you've notified me of your violations of Wikipedia policy, but I already knew that ... Ravenswing 09:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One Jersey Network vs. The One Jersey Sports and Entertainment Network

Can you provide rock solid proof i.e. a reference or website that officially refers to it as the One Jersey Network that falls under the WP:COMMONNAME? I honestly cannot find anything that calls it One Jersey Network, most news reports and website refer to it as TOJSaEN. YborCityJohn (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm really curious as to where exactly (or how, exactly) you've been searching, because a very simple Google search turns up heaps: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] ... Ravenswing 22:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Ravenswing, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

AfD check

If you have second, do mind you checking Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Phillips (ice hockey)? If you say the sources are good enough for a keep, I will withdraw the nom and save people some time. Yosemiter (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Ravenswing 05:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was just looking for a sanity check on those sources as they appeared poor. Sometimes a second analysis helps. Not sure how to better explain local but significant coverage and whether that means routine. Yosemiter (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

I am only just contributing to pages. All of you are just not okay with them. I haven't even seen you contributed to any of those pages. So I am going to tell you to back off. I'm leaving this garbage community. I don't need to put if with editors that will be stubborn who don't even put any damn effort of pages. SHAME on you for reverting when you haven't even contributed. I don't need this. People go to the gym for for muscles Gains, not to blow off steam. Indeffed Tertiary Syphilis Victim (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is that right, sport? For my part, I've made nearly twenty times the number of edits you have. I've created nearly a hundred pages; you've never created one. But what you do have are a lot of warnings and more than one block for battleground behavior, making personal attacks, disruptive editing and edit warring, so I'm at a loss for what you actually contributed to the encyclopedia in your time here above and beyond the disruption you've caused. That being said, you've said several times over that you're leaving. When can we actually take you at your word? Ravenswing 23:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to comment on your talk page, but I just wanted to comment. I didn't take the "so long jerks" as a personal attack, but I could see how some might and won't revert your removal of it. I see the comment as a sign of frustration with us editors. While I understand why Bluhaze777 might be frustrated, I think a voluntary disappearance is a better choice than name-calling. For the record, your user page lists you as one of the 1000 top editors. You're down to 1506 as of this moment, so yes, you have contributed, and I have seen you edit North American soccer articles a lot in the past, but not so much recently. You did contribute to the discussion on the talk page though. Also for the record, I don't see that the other editors involved as trying to put him down or ignore his ideas. His addition of superfluous histories to already long articles was seriously problematic. His insistence that "FC" meant "Football Club" in a club's full name was the other. I'm not sure if you saw all that, but that caused the most recent flair-up. I didn't see if you were involved in reverting Bluhaze777's additions, but I don't feel like scrolling back that far in your edit history. As I wrote, I'm reading Bluhaze777's comments as taking voluntary disappearance. If that's not the case, and we see more flair-ups, it will require some work at ANI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The bit where I agreed with you at ANI was when you opined that Bluhaze wasn't here for vandalism and believed he was making productive contributions. But that being said, many thousands of editors handle disputes without edit warring, battleground behavior and personal attacks, and the warnings on Bluhaze's talk page for the same go back more than a year; he's demonstrably not learning and not caring to learn. Every time someone like that walks away from the encyclopedia is a positive win. Ravenswing 16:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and, unfortunately, not true. I saw the last thing you posted to his talk page, and it seems he's made over 200 edits stretched across a month and a half after he swore repeatedly he was leaving. Seems like just bullshit bluster from someone who expected us to wring our hands and plead with him not to go through with it, because he plainly never meant it. Ravenswing 12:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Culpo

Two different editors have reverted your WP:BLP edit at Olivia Culpo. Per WP:BRD, and in order to prevent edit-warring, protocol now is to take your concerns to the talk page to try to reach consensus with other editors. Thank you for understanding. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo of Alpha Chi

Wikimedia received an email query ticket:2017091710019473 regarding the article: Cleo of Alpha Chi

I see that you converted it to a redirect, but I'm not seeing what led to it. Can you explain the rationale?--S Philbrick (Talk) 16:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being paid to play

Obviously I am good with the outcome since I am the one who nominated it. But to be fair WP:ATHLETE did used to say that being paid to play was enough. Anyway I am just buggin. It has been awhile since my attention was on deletions because we had people going through them so much lately, but even with them deleting so many I am easily finding so many more of these old crappy ones. I have a feeling I will be on a prodding spree for awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bourdeau Page

Hello Ravenswing. Thanks for your edit to this page. You make a good point - especially since all of the Bourdeau brothers survived the war and only 2 were injured. Many other families of that great generation were not so lucky. Thanks also for adding Bob to the Turners Falls page. He would be honored to see his name there. Were you by chance in the high school auditorium this week? Bob's daughter, Michele MickieB (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't, no ... but obviously I'm an active Wikipedian, I live on Fourth St, and read the article about your father and the other honorees in the Reporter this week. I knew that the list of "Notable residents" on the Turners page was scanty, figured it was worth a shot to find out if your father had an article, and you know the rest. Truth be told, when I lived in Quincy, my barber was the youngest of seven brothers who all served in WWII, most of whom doubled up in Korea as well, and he proudly hung the seven-starred family service flag in the door of his barber shop. He was very proud of his family's service to our country, and I'm sure you must be proud of your own family's honorable service. Ravenswing 14:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jarmo Kekäläinen

Hi, why did you change Jarmo Kekäläinen's name for a false one? --Dogah (talk) 09:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "false" one; it is how the name is rendered in English, and this as it happens is the English Wikipedia. There is a longstanding convention in hockey articles that names are subject to WP:COMMONNAME for all public articles as per WP:HOCKEY/PPF, and that the use of diacritics is restricted to individual player pages and those articles for leagues where rendering players' names with diacritics is commonplace (such as with European leagues, international play and the LNAH). The NHL is not one of those leagues. Ravenswing 10:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no diacritics in Jarmo Kekäläinen's name. The Finnish letter ä is an independent letter. --Dogah (talk) 10:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - And on the Finnish Wikipedia, no doubt you're right. It is, of course, not an independent letter in English. That being said, if you don't care for the rule, you can always raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, but it's a longstanding consensus that was heavily discussed at the time. Ravenswing 10:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - But isn't it stupid to use ä in his article's name but not in some other articles? --Dogah (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - As may be, but again, if you'd like to debate the guideline, I'd recommend doing so on the linked talk page. Ravenswing 11:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your consistent and excellent work at AfD with regards to NHOCKEY. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why thankew! Ravenswing 16:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated AfD DELETE on Presidential Village

That is my first nomination for AfD, and I ran into a major editor who takes pride in rescuing articles from deletion. I worked on staying factual and polite and this looks to be successful. Thanks. Still waiting to see if the author of the article weighs in, as that person takes pride in forking existing history articles into bunches of baby articles. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you're doing fine; AfD requires a bit of a thick skin, after all. I do admit that I'm driven tolerably crazy by the people who think that Saving! Articles! is some manner of Great Crusade justifying all manner of misapplication, misinterpretation and outright lies where the guidelines are concerned, and I applaud your composure. Cheers, Ravenswing 19:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not = sources exist

No, that is how verifiability is defined. An article on Wikipedia must have both notability and verifiability, but they are not defining each other. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right from the very first sentence of WP:N. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." (emphasis mine). -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]