User talk:Ravenswing/Archive6

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. Also do not edit that alien. You don't know where it's been.

Don't get too worked up...

That is part of what he wants...he clearly goes looking for reactions. He is just pissed because we are closing off a loop hole that allowed him to say that Joe Smith who won academic player of the week in Junior D hockey is notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Swear to God, he's got an ear of solid tin. It's not that I always disagree with him - we see eye-to-eye on the diacritics issue - but someone who is constitutionally unable to (a) understand what a consensus is; and (b) respect it when you're on the wrong side of it is a liability to the encyclopedia and doesn't belong here. I ought not be looking forward to going back after all those AfDs that closed on major awards as much as I am, but eh.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  15:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• I did wonder if people would just let those afds lie or if they would go after them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Answer Book" ELs on MA towns

I have reverted a few of these that you put back, but I noticed there were a lot more than I thought, so I'll discuss it first with you before continuing on.

The EL added is not to the main newspaper in the area in any of those instances. The Enterprise is a local paper, not a regional. The link was added initially by User:PatriotLedger, which is another site the links are hosted on, and the name of a paper (in fact the one that competes with the Enterprise, but is owned by the same company). The Patriot Ledger is the local big paper, and the Enterprise is the local rag, as is the "wickedlocal" domain.

There is a definite COI there, and IIRC, the Patriotledger user was blocked. After those were removed, User:Jm1106, a new user, came right back and put them in again, getting those links right on the first shot. I do not believe that a new user would know to go there, and also to get linking right the first time. So, AFAICT, that's material put in by a sock.

Additionally, (and this is from info digging), said user made the initial edits running alphabetically through towns within county of coverage for the paper, which means he or she was working off a list and was adding these links with intent to generate hits to the newspaper for which he or she worked. That's where the revenue is in media now, not in print. Moreover, I don't believe we put in the media outlets for towns in the articles in EL in the first place.

Therefore, those links are not appropriate content for what I see to be the several reasons enumerated above. Now, I don't use tools, so I'd prefer not to have to go through by hand and take them all out again, but I am willing to listen to your reasons for keeping the information. MSJapan (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, first off, you have a great many inferences there, not facts. Your assumption that Jm1106 is a sock doesn't make it so, nor does your opinion constitute prima facie proof of "material put in by a sock." It's not only not completely unreasonable that a new user might choose to review the documentation before performing edits, I rather wish they all would. One would also think that it was not a violation under Wikipedia policies to not screw up one's first edits.

  For a second, User:PatriotLedger added links to just one article, not to many; claiming multiple spamming from that account is just plain sloppy.

  For a third, the Enterprise has regional circulation; I've seen boxes for the same all the way down to Plymouth. You don't need to educate me on these papers and their impact. I have lived on the South Shore and in Quincy most of my life, often read the Ledger, and am well aware of the sites they run and the company that owns them.

  For a fourth, there is nothing illicit about working from a list, and nothing wrong with that list being alphabetical. I do so myself, and indeed have used AWB to execute hundreds of edits in one rush, all in a row.

  For a fifth, you should have looked over Jm1106's talk page - she identifies herself as female there, so there's no "he or she" involved - where you'll see protests from more than one editor that the blocking admin was out of line in a badly overzealous blocking, an action that another admin quickly overturned. That second admin gave Jm1106 the benefit of the doubt, something WP:BITE enjoins us to do.

  Finally, Jm1106 is not responsible for putting those links back in. I am. I believe them to be valid, informational links which summarize useful information for the towns in question. In the discussions about these links, several other editors felt likewise and that the links were acceptable under WP:EL. With over 30,000 edits to my tally, I believe that takes the notion of these links being supported by a spammer SPA out of question.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

  • N.B.: there's an open discussion here: Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Quincy, Massachsetts, Patriot Ledger Answer Book. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

afd/frank scaglione

"to the left of farcical"? that's funny: i would have said "to the right of farcical." i suppose it's all the same in the end. thanks for handing over the references! (this is meant to fall under the "...just dropping in a cheerful note" clause, in case it's not clear) — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Steven Michael Woods, Jr.

Hello there. Which referenced did you consider poorly sourced in the Steven Michael Woods, Jr. article? References included a summary from the Texas Attorney General, local newspapers and when referring to the subject's personal views, cited his personal website where those views can be found. And, if not all were what you consider poorly cited, why were all removed?

Gratitude,

Peacer8181 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Anthony Stewart (ice hockey)/GA1

Hello, I have made changes to the article based on your initial review. The lead has been reworked which contained most of the "sportswriterese" writing as I tried to summarize the various sections on the page. I often have problems writing a good lead. The quotes have been removes. I was wondering if there is anything else in the article that you came across that needs to be changed. Thanks,--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I do. Just for openers, I'm seeing a number of grammatical and typographical errors. Take this paragraph for an example:

Stewart played minor hockey for the North York Canadians. He played so well that the cost of his hockey was subsidized personally by the head of the organization. With Stewart on the team the Canadians won three All-Ontario championships After finishing his minor hockey career Stewart was selected in the first round of the Ontario Hockey League (OHL) draft by the Kingston Frontenacs. In his fist season in the OHL Stewart scored 19 goals and 43 points. In the 2002–03 season Stewart increased his production, recording 38 goals and 70 points and added seven more points in five playoff games. In the off season Stewart became captain of the Frontenacs and was drafted in the first round of the NHL draft. Going into the 2003 NHL Entry Draft Stewart was rated as the 19 best prospect for North American skaters. With their second first round draft pick, the 25th overall, the Florida Panthers selected Stewart. The following season Stewart's productions dripped to 58 points but, he scored a career high 35 goals, as the Frontenacs missed the playoffs. Stewart attended the Panthers training camp prior to the start of the 2004–05 OHL season. He had an impressive camp but was sent back to juniors to help his growth as a player. In his last OHL season Stewart led Kingston in scoring with 67 points. The Frontenacs missed the playoffs for the second straight year, as such Stewart played made his professional debut, playing 10 games for the American Hockey League's (AHL) San Antonio Rampage. He scored a goal and two assists during his 10 game stint.

• Third sentence: Comma after team. Sentence missing a period.
• Fourth sentence: Comma after career.
• Fifth sentence: "First" season. Comma after OHL.
• Sixth sentence: Comma after season. "Adding," not "added."
• Seventh sentence: "Off-season" "Was named captain" is preferable phrasing, although that's optional.
• Eighth sentence: Comma after draft. "19th" best prospect, not "19."
• Tenth sentence: "Production," not "productions." Comma before "but," not after. I'd also phrase the sentence "While the Frontenacs missed the playoffs the following season, Stewart scored a career-high 35 goals." - the way it's phrased, it implies that his scoring 35 goals materially led to the team missing the playoffs.
• Fourteenth sentence: "As such Stewart played" ...? Horribly awkward and ungrammatical. Perhaps it should read "After the Frontenacs failed to make the playoffs for the second straight year, Stewart made his professional debut ..."

That would be too many errors to support an article for GA were they all the errors the article had, let alone those in a single paragraph. Ravenswing 11:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

My Message Puckhead1

I would like to but I can't expand on the Trenton ECHL franchise's (Trenton Titans) article and it really needs to be expanded. I don't understand why the Las Vegas Wranglers article has more information than the ECHL teams founded before them. I even tried to revert the Titans article back to the 15:02, September 2, 2011 version but I can't. Puckhead1 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• You do not have to insult other editors to discuss a content dispute, and Wikipedia policies require that you don't. Ravenswing 02:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine then Puckhead1 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Peacer8181 and Steven Michael Woods

hey, i'm not really sure what to do about what peacer8181 is doing at Steven Michael Woods. i wonder if you could look at the diffs and the talk page, and maybe advise me on what step i might take next? I'm sorry if you're not the right person to ask, but i'm at a loss, being a little new at wp, and you already read up on the other episode. this and this and this and this, as well as the talk page of the article. i'm not asking you to solve it, but just maybe to recommend where to report it if it's reportable? thanks! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that Peacer's first wave of contributions boiled down to "Hang the muthaf***** high!", but the current revision looks reasonably balanced. If it holds ... fair enough. Ravenswing 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks for your input. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Oath of Allegiance

You quoted me with it. First of all, that's an archaic american document from 230 years ago. Second of all, it applies only to the US and its citizens. So what if it reads "....that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty"? US is not the whole world. As far as I am aware of, US accepts dual citizenship, which kind of contradicts the Oath of Allegiance. Also, it refers to the nationality (which as it has been said several times already), not ethnicity. PS. Apu from the Simpsons is still an Indian immigrant to the US, not an American. (sorry, had t make it funny....lol) Nazi Fuckwad Who Was Community Banned For Being A Nazi Fuckwad 02:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Well, yes, when we're discussing how American law and custom applies to immigrants to America, it's quite appropriate to discuss - wait for it - American law, and quite inappropriate to discuss the laws of anywhere else in the world. Canadians have a similar allegiance oath for those becoming Canadian citizens, which is likewise governed by Canadian law. (And "as far as I am aware of?" From where did you get that information? It happens to be wrong - the United States does not, in fact, recognize dual citizenship, and never has.)

  Beyond that, however much you kept attempting to wrench the discussion to countries, jurisdictions and laws having nothing to do with North America, the application of North American law, custom and practice was the topic of the conversation. As far as ethnicity goes, the only one who keeps insisting on mentioning it is you; the rest of us were talking, as we had from the start, about nationality.

  In any event, it's a settled matter, consensus (and the MOS) being unanimously against your POV. Now while paying attention to what other people write doesn't seem to be strong with you, at the top of this page, in big bright letters, are the words "I am disinterested in rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym." That really does apply here, to you as well as to anyone else, and in coming here to talk yet more on a settled matter concerning which your eloquence has so far left us unmoved, you're just confirming the words of a couple editors who advised that you were just plain insistent on having the last word. Were I on your talk page, of course you'd have that privilege. Here, I do, and I see no reason for any response from you on this matter. Ravenswing 04:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Sept 2011

Listen up, I deleted what you left on MY PAGE. So leave me alone finally, will you? If you gonna keep leaving me more messages even after I told you not to, I will report you. PS. Not to mention that you delete posts that proved me right, but are inconvenient to you....kinda suspicious if you ask me. Anyways, this case is closed now. Do not reply. Nazi Fuckwad 17:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He never edited your page after you removed what he put there. If anything it looks like you are harassing him by posting here when the matter is done. Just walk away. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh he did remove some stuff. He quoted me with an archaic american document oath of allegiance and then was trying to convince me that the US doesn't accept dual citizenship. I went and checked the US Immigration website and it clearly states there that US accepts (just doesn't recommend) dual citizenship. That proved him to be wrong and because it was inconvenient for him, he simply deleted my post where I proved him wrong. That's abusing adm powers and will be reported. Nazi Fuckwad 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

He doesn't have admin powers since he isn't an admin. He did no such thing. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so not an adm, fine. Still, he deleted the information that was inconvenient to him. Nazi Fuckwad 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to remove posts on their talk pages. And if the case is closed, then leave it be and move on. The only thing you are showing me right now is that you find it important to get the last word in on everything. If you actually wish to disengage, then do so. Resolute 18:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first off, pal, quite aside from your ongoing distortions, misinformation and outright lies, yes, you indeed get to delete the warnings I posted to your page. A warning is a notification, and you deleting it is considered evidence that you read it; among several other things so far, I'm quite surprised you've been on Wikipedia so long without knowing that. (And that being said, where do you get off stating that it's okay for you to remove posts from your talk page - which it is - but claiming that it's "abuse" for others to do so on theirs?)

Secondly, feel free to take this to ANI. It would be amusing, since you've already made a huge lie in your edit summary on this diff [1], where you claim as of 12:05 that you warned me to stop posting to your talk page. Your first such request was 45 minutes after that, and the admins at ANI do not treat very kindly people who complain to them and lie to do it.

Finally, you have been warned twice now to cease to post here, and I'm wondering what about that is so difficult for you to understand. There will be no further warnings. Ravenswing 19:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad

Would you comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caiyad Phahad regarding the GFDL-violating, WP:FAKEARTICLE-violating copy-and-paste of the article to User:Phoenix B 1of3/Caiyad Phahad? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

WHA

THanks for getting rid of that fate of teams section, it was driving me nuts, I was about to do the same thing.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, I get bugged when these "postscript" sections get as big as the rest of the article combined; the Hartford Whalers article is a frequent flyer in that regard, when for some peculiar reason the "Departure from Hartford" section matters more to some people than the entirety of the team's history before that. Eeesh. Ravenswing 09:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerted Effort Domestic 2011

Devilmaster, Ravenswing: I hope you'll excuse my deleting / abridging your comments on the talk page. Even though the article should be deleted soon, it's best if names of living people not be discussed this way, especially since it's got to point of mentioning person X in city Y who (the discussion says) isn't one of the people the article is talking about. Once this stuff gets into a mirror, it could be there forever so -- again -- I ask you to forgive my doing this without consulting you. EEng (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oh; yes, you're quite right, and no apologies needed - we're enjoined to delete unsourced BLP comments on sight, without warning, if disparaging. I'm the one who ought to apologize here. Ravenswing 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazos Belle.
Message added 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ravenswing! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (use English)

Howdy Ravenswing. There's something familiar about Who R you?'s name & posts. Though I'm happy he's on the pro-dios side of the arguments, I'm concerned there might be sockering going on. 2 editors come to my mind: Dschor, who had a sock Who are you? (thus my suspicions of the name) & MickMacNee, due to the long ranting posts & the fact that Who R you appeared a mere week before MickMacNee was indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know Dschor, but I believe Mick was an anti-diacritics fellow, and I've noted the long ranting posts myself; besides which, I can't imagine many people expect that he's not lurking around in some fashion. If you're concerned, take it to Sockpuppet investigations. Ravenswing 18:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nay, I'll let it pass. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh I am pretty sure he has had an account before if you look at how his account started...but I won't go about guessing who it is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

AIV

In your last report to WP:AIV, you listed User:24.59.165.22 as a vandal-only account. From what I understand, User:24.59.165.22 is an anonymous user, and therefore has not registered an account. Cheers, C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 03:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC).

Please pay attention

This edit removed a user reported vandal. What are you going to do to fix this? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• My apologies for inadvertently removing that report. Just out of curiosity, what prevented you from fixing it yourself? Oh. I see you did fix it yourself, a minute after posting here. Oookay, fair enough. (scratches his head, furrowing his brow) That being said, while I'm sure you've never once made an edit in error, would you care to post with a little more civility the next time out? Ravenswing 06:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

For added snark

You should have pointed him to WP:TEMPLAR. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• Mm, yes ... I'd seen that essay, and was trying to remember where I'd found it; it would have nicely suited my take on things. That guy does like pushing the edges of civility, doesn't he? Ravenswing 00:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Henderson Award (2nd nomination)

In a revisit of a previous AFD you commented on, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Henderson Award (2nd nomination).--GrapedApe (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Best AFD comment I've seen--GrapedApe (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, thanks. Swear to heaven, if I ever get appointed Dictator of Wikipedia, one in my Top Five List of rules to be implemented would be to bar anon IPs from participating in AfDs - if you have never bothered to register, your odds of having little to no grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are overwhelming - and another would be to automatically strike any Keep vote based around the theoretical improvability of the article where the voter made no attempt to do so before the close of the AfD. Ravenswing 15:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• To be fair its hard to blame someone for not fixing an article during an Afd. Would you want to put time into fixing something up if its possible its about to get deleted and you would have wasted your time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've seen I don't know how many AfDs either close as Keeps and/or where a bunch of Delete voters flipped their votes because some industrious soul made improvements enough to satisfy concerns about notability or sourcing. I'd much rather improve an article I thought was worth saving than to let it be deleted because, well, someone else would surely do it ... right? Ravenswing 19:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I just meant it is easy to see where they are coming from. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Ferns for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Ferns (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I pick your brain...

Hi,

Are you still interested in the idea of at least some non-admins being able to view deleted pages? I understand that the proposal was shot down previously by foundation counsel; however I believe I have at least two possible answers to their concerns.

One possibility is to make this prospective (apparently the antonynm of retrospective although I'm not so sure) - that is to say that only edits deleted after its implementation can be viewed. For revisions such as libelous edits or copyright violations and so on, there can be a hard delete, lying some way between this soft delete and oversight, which will function just like a present deletion. Admins could also have the power to toggle a deletion from hard to soft (or to undelete) - so selected deletions made before this feature is implemented could be made soft.

The second possibility is to introduce a procedure somewhat like RFA where users are given permission to view deleted edits by the community. As admin privileges are currently granted not just based on trust in general, but also on trust that the tools will be used appropriately, there is a much greater pool of users who would be eligible to be given this permission.

And of course, it is perfectly possible to use both of these systems at once.

I have cross posted this to a few users who were active in the discussion in 2008 - I don't feel this is a violation of CANVASS because I have not made the proposal myself - the reality is I need an experienced Wikipedia with some "street cred" to make it. I already attempted to steer a discussion of a similar proposal this way, but sadly that discussion is irretrievable (see here - or even better, don't!). Because I have posted this to a few users, I would be greatful if you would reply at User_talk:Egg Centric/Proposal and perhaps we can get a discussion going!

Thank you!

Egg Centric 23:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - silly me, I forgot to link to the original discussion in 2008. Here it is: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Persistent_proposals/Straw_poll_for_view-deleted

Portland Winterhawks

Well, so much for WP:HOCKEY's diacritics compromise, eh? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You are going to blatantly canvass like that? -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you assuming that Ravenswing will disagree with your latest actions? Why not let Ravenswing decide for himself. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ravenswing is known to agree with removing diacritics. As such a post like this which is clearly not neutral blatantly violates WP:CANVASS. I fully respect Ravenswing to be able to make up his mind and I do not know what his position would be re my reverting you so a discussion could be had. But a post like this to someone who has historically voted against using diacritics was a canvass. And I know you know that. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to follow my mentors advise & stay clear of you, for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• Truth be told, I've stepped back from tub thumping on the diacritics issue; my feelings aside, it's plainly still a heavily controversial subject with no end in sight save for the foreign nationals imposing their language usages on the English Wikipedia. In any event, I don't figure I have the right to get POed over putative breaches of the "compromise," seeing as I bought pretty readily into the concept that it had become a dead letter and was ripe for a challenge. Ravenswing 18:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No doubt, dios will eventually be added to all the North American based hockey articles. Then eventually, diacritics will be added to the content of articles. I'll never understand the need for certain editors & their supporters to push non-english on English Wikipedia. I reckon I may aswell give up trying. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, yes, it does look like they will be; demonstrably there's no consensus to enforce COMMONNAME. Ravenswing 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP: HOCKEY compromise?

No bleeping wonder I resigned my membership. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well ... as I've said before, considering you and I both were in an effort to overturn the compromise as obsolete, defending its sanctity (and complaining that others aren't respecting it) isn't something we really get to do now. I remain POed that despite clear Wikipedia policies, non-English language usages get to overrule English-language usages here, but we're just plain outvoted, and the nature of a consensus system (come to that, the nature of the sport of hockey) is that losers should accept the fact gracefully. Ravenswing 09:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your rational demeanor during the ongoing diacritics struggle and at WP:HOCKEY in general.  Cjmclark (Contact) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why thank you! Ravenswing 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

For this. It was driving me nuts as well. Jenks24 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alisa Cooper

Please see WP:PROD especially the sentence that says "has not been and is not being discussed at AfD." This was at an AfD so a PROD can't be used. You could have tried a WP:G4 which is for recreated articles that are the same as one deleted at an AfD. However, in this case the person has been elected and the article is a bit different from before. It needs another AfD. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zindagi Games

Short answer: AfD isn't a pure ballot, and relisting is not conclusion. Deryck C. 08:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• No, indeed it isn't a ballot, but that isn't an actual answer. It's a search for consensus, and the strong consensus was for deletion. Ravenswing 08:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stu Burnie

The article Stu Burnie has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Aaron Booth (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• A casual glance at the edit summary would have revealed that at the time you slapped the prod on it, the article had already had five edits, one of which already was the reliable source which WP:BLP requires. That being said, prodding a non-vandalism article eighteen minutes after creation is the sort of overzealous behavior that has damaged the encyclopedia's reputation, and would be unacceptable if aimed at a newbie, let alone at an editor with nearly 35,000 edits and 50 articles created under his belt, the author of the notability standards for ice hockey articles such as I was just creating. With fewer than 500 edits before this month, you will perhaps forgive me if I am concerned about your experience to perform new page patrolling, and will set this new article aside for a bit while I review your recent prods. Ravenswing 00:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

New member

Hello. I am a new member of Wikipedia's registered user community. --MaxAMSC (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• And welcome to you! If you have any questions, feel free to pose them to me. That being said, I recommend the links you'll find at WP:PILLAR to get a notion of the lay of the land. Ravenswing 22:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

JK3

Hi Ravenswing - could I ask for your opinion on the creation of a page for Joe Kennedy III...? If you recall I created a page for Herb Robinson some time ago which was subsequently deleted. Regards Jonchalk (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think it'd be a slam dunk, if there isn't an article for him already. Given the Kennedy name, this has gone all over the international newswires - [2] [3] [4] - and meeting the GNG should be relatively simple. Go for it. Ravenswing 00:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

SSP (ha ha) suspected socks

Yeah, I thought they might both be socks of someone more experienced. I think you just start it like a new one, and it'll be added to the archive.

I'm not sure whether much action would be taken given that at least one is already blocked indef. But it wouldn't hurt in the case of a serial sockpuppeteer. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly! We'll see how it plays out. Ravenswing 18:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Ravenswing, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! —Tom Morris (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly! Ravenswing 16:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Yes, you are correct that I can get a bit too wordy and perhaps redundant at times, [5], and your point is well taken. I appreciate your direct but polite input. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome. Truth be told, I think a benefit to your case would be something along the lines of "You know, this guy insists on rebutting every comment everyone has made. For my part, I stand on what I've already said, and it's time for the community's input." Ravenswing 23:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for your interventions on ANI and AE (and for the barnstar). I responded at my talk but realized you may not have seen it and wanted to say it here just in case. Take care and happy editing Tiamut^talk 18:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome (and I apologize for consistently misspelling your name!). As a fellow of strong opinions myself, I don't automatically lapse into a "OMG how dare she?!?!?" every time someone else expresses strong opinions as well. Keep on keeping on ... Ravenswing 00:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Right Back at ya

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For all your fine hockey work over the years ... you’re part of the original Hockey Barnstar class! --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because you handed out the first few barnstars doesn't mean you shouldn't be getting one. Thanks for the barnstar on my page.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aw, thankew! Ravenswing 03:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, Ravenswing. I second your induction into the original Hockey Barnstar class. :) Maxim_(talk) 03:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks for the cool barnstar as well! Patken4 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#College_baseball_All-Americans

Hi. As you've previously participated at this discussion, I'd like to invite you back to see if we can wrap this up and come to a final decision. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Asselineau (4th nomination). Such edits are disruptive. Thank you. On the English Wikipedia, anon IPs are allowed to register opinions on AfDs. Kindly strike out no more valid votes. Ravenswing 10:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just assumed that only registered/autoconfirmed users were allowed to vote, which is the case in the French wikipedia, and in other projects. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there's a powerful lot of that going on, it seems. I reiterate my strong suggestion that you and the other visitors operate here according to the English Wikipedia's rules. Ravenswing 16:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of habits. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite understandable; no doubt I'd fight the tendency were I to edit on another national Wikipedia. Ravenswing 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

One learns as he goes. It's really less a matter of fighting the tendency than of not knowing it. Personally, I've been contributing to the english wikipedia for years but I've never bother to check the voting guidelines, for lack of necessity. My bad, although I find it quite absurd to let unregistered and unconfirmed users vote (but I certainly won't "fight the tendency" as I have no time for this). Take note, however, that there are no "national wikipedias", just wikipedias written in a specific language : this brings me to tell you that it's a bit patronizing from your part (though perhaps it is unconscious) to call us "french visitors". Azurfrog and I contribute here regularly, and we wouldn't call you an "American visitor" (or whatever citizenship that you have) if you wrote french and contributed regularly to the french-language wikipedia. No hard feelings, but I think this needed to be said. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mm, well, I am an American citizen, so that wouldn't be an inaccurate characterization. That being said, I'm not a particular fan of weasel wording just for the sake of political correctness. "National Wikipedia" is a widespread term which is a lot shorter way to say "Wikipedia rendered in a language other than English." "French visitors" is a fair bit easier to say "People who do most of their editing on the French Wikipedia, most of whom have little to no history on the English Wikipedia, several of whom have demonstrated a spotty command of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

Beyond that, if we're going to discuss a patronizing tone, what of "it is one thing to count the number of sources, and quite another to read or listen to them," as if none of the Keep proponents have? What of "We face a bizarre coalition of François Asselineau supporters and genuine users, who can't read French, and have no clue, for that reason, what this is all about?" What of "That should give us a hint : that they must known what they're doing, and that we don't here?" Comments such as those, gentlemen, are deeply patronizing. Ravenswing 22:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say that, though I could have : what is obvious to me is that all the credible sources describe FA as a perfect unknown. Creating a buzz about oneself is one thing, being really notable is another. To me, FA, is the political equivalent of Phoebe Price. Hence, I was genuinely puzzled by the attitude of some of the voters, who seemed to consider the sheer number of links rather than what the sources actually said. Anyway, I have no problem accepting that the notability guidelines are different from one wiki to another. If the article is kept, though, it has to be severely rewritten. 12:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)~

And I'm genuinely puzzled by that attitude, which is more of the same assumptions and presumptions the Delete crowd have been feeding throughout. Who, exactly, is pushing the "sheer number of links" rather than what the sources are saying, and upon what evidence do you make such an assertion? Beyond that, your sheer persistence in either resisting or ignoring the provisions of the GNG is baffling. Do you understand that you only need two sources which discuss the subject in "significant detail" to satisfy the GNG? It really doesn't matter that many of the sources listed don't, as long as there are at least two which do. That having been established (and there could be a number more beyond the four I found), the "Most of the sources don't qualify!!!" statement the visitors keep flinging is pointless. So what?

That being said, if you have no problem accepting that the notability guidelines are different here ... why are you still arguing? Ravenswing 17:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am not arguing. If those are the guidelines on the English-language wikipedia, fine. I still think that two blogs mentioning the subject are not enough, but I won't put up a fight against that. If this wikipedia project wants to keep pages about people who are notable not being notable, that's not my problem : the problem is that the article is severely misleading and has to be stripped to the bones. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

May I just suggest you both walk away from the situation? You are both talking past each other and it really doesn't matter. He didn't notice that we had a different policy/guideline and agreed to be careful in the future. That is all that matters. No point bickering about semantics at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Asselineau

Hello, Hey I hope this message was not adressed to me. I m one of the few active editors from the Wikipedia in French that have actually voted to keep the article. Peace.--Pixeltoo (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it was to me due to this comment [6].

• C'mon, man, cut it out. You're repeatedly hammering on the motives of the French visitors, and not only is that a violation of WP:CIVIL, you're definitely doing your argument no favors. I strongly suggest you refactor some of your more inflammatory comments, and stick to (a) making the case on the merits and (b) highlighting the degree to which the visitors are judging this article by another Wikipedia's rules. Ravenswing 17:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this reminder. I am usually pretty calm but I will read that again if I am feeling berserk once more.

By the way I saw your modifications on the article for Francois Asselineau. Until today, people who contribute to the article, except for spelling and syntax fixing, had always discussed first on the talk before proceeding big changes. There is a full paragraph that you removed that was quoting the journalist Nicolas Doze from BFM TV. Also, you removed that part about the patriotic point of view of Asselineau's economic report that was also sourced. Do you agree to discuss first these changes, find a consensus and then make the changes? I would think it is the easiest way to not create editing war. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it really wasn't sourced; WP:IRS requires that sources be available for review by other Wikipedia editors, and a single citation at the end of two paragraphs to a TV interview unavailable at the station or network's website isn't any good. WP:BLP enjoins us to aggressively remove any statement from a BLP which is not solidly, reliably and reviewably sourced. Ravenswing 01:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that you are removing tons of sourced information. I am the creator of the article and I spent lot of time accumulating sources and arrange them in order to create the article. Not all sources are reflected in the article because I did not want to add references every 3 words. Please, before making changes that you assume are not sourced, indicate them on the talk page and I will show you the sources. Then, if you think that it is not reflecting the information in the article, we will be able to remove them.

For the video, it is available here [7] so it can be reviewed by anybody. If you need the source from BFM Business webpage, you can have the podcast here [8] and the webpage linked it to here [9]. If you need a retranscription of Nicolas Doze's words, I can do it but I do not think we need to indicate that much information on the article. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A paragraph in a BLP with several sentences and only one source at the very end is not "tons of sourced information;" in a BLP, especially a contentious one like this one, that is quite poorly sourced, and it's a straw man attack to claim that meaningful inline citations would require references "every 3 words." As far as the video goes, if this man is indeed a candidate for political office, surely there must be a print source for his political views. A newspaper or magazine interview, a press release, a transcript, the party's website? You cannot be unaware that the French-language capability of your average English Wikipedia editor is poor. Ravenswing 02:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. If you need more than one source such as Magazine interview, press release (Isn't it primary source so not valid?), transcript (Isn't it what I suggested above?), party's website (Isn' it primary source?), I can find you anything you need. Here are the recent press references with a summary of info I am thinking we could extract:

• NouvelObs, Asselineau is described as candidates (even if he does not have 500 signatures), explanation about CSA case.
• Bondy blog, UPR created 50 years after after Rome Treaty, EU creation for the benefit of the US, EU as a dictatorship, Contradiction of Francois Asselineau on his own view of EU as "racialist" creation, UPR and its similarity with FN.
• Nord Eclair, Asselineau is a Finance general inspector, candidate since 3 december, UPR a thousand of members, several thousands of supporters, France political decisions taken by non-elected oligarchy, French political scene is a puppets theatre, it explains people lack of interest for politics, exit UE, Euro, Nato, money, goods and people flow control, opposition UPR / FN, UPR presidential program inspired by CNR political program, nationalization of bail-out banks, highway, water management, TF1.
• La VOix du Nord Candidate, 55 years old, people union for democracy, exit from UE, Euro to solve French economical crisis, neither right or left political positioning, thousand of member in party.
• Le nouvel Obs gaulist nostalgic, exit from UE, Euro and Nato, 0 minute of presence in the media during presidential campaign.
  

Regarding my English level, I am aware. I would believe that it is not an English level problem but a more general redaction problem. My French level is similar since many people are rephrasing me also on the French wikipedia. --Lawren00 (talk) 07:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of those non-blog links are perfectly sound citations; thank you. I've just put together a political platform paragraph for the article which should serve well enough. Ravenswing 08:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Bronze Star. I've been busy in the "real" world and haven't the time for editing wikipedia. Maybe one day I will find the time and passion and come back to it. Cheers! Masterhatch (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of List of surviving veterans of World War I

It appears you were instrumental in deleting the above article.

In many discussions over the years it was agreed that this list should stay until Mr Józef Kowalski was deceased.

He has now appeared again in the news, see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/jozef-kowalski-captain_n_1299186.html

In this article, and in similar articles over the years, he has been referred to as a World War I veteran.

The pros and cons of this debate have been discussed extensively over the years and it has been agreed that Mr Józef Kowalski is a World-War-I-era veteran.

Would you please revert this article to its original status, especially while Mr Kowalski remains in the news.

Thank you Cam46136 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)cam46136

• The previous article was not deleted, but redirected, in accordance with current consensus. Whatever opinion may have held over the years - certainly there was no solid consensus as to its treatment with respect to Mr. Kowalski when you were last regularly active on Wikipedia, in May of last year - does not permanently bind current consensus. That there are news reports erroneously identifying Kowalski as a World War I veteran does not compel us to act as if he were one, and labeling him as a "World War I-era veteran" involved an entirely subjective POV in the first place. If that war, why not the Finnish Civil War? Why not the Irish war of independence? Why not the various Baltic wars of independence?

  That Kowalski is currently in the news is interesting, but I expect anyone wishing to know about him can read his own article. Ravenswing 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

But Mr Kowalski has been deleted.

The redirected page shows that Stanisław Wycech is the last surviving Polish veteran. This is incorrect.

The Treaty of Versailles signed on June 28, 1919, was a peace treaty between the Allied Powers and Germany.

The other peace treaties were: the Treaty of St Germaine with Austria in 1919; the Treaty of Trianon with Hungary in 1920; the Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria in 1919; the Treaty of Sèvres with Turkey in 1920 and a revised Turkish treaty with the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Major conflicts directly related to World War I continued in Eastern Europe up to and past the signing and ratification of these treaties.

Mr Kowalski was a World-War-I-era veteran and the information in Wikipedia relating to this matter is now incorrect. Cam46136 (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)cam46136

Kowalski's article has not been deleted. That being said, there are reliable sources stating that Wycech fought in World War I. Kowalski did not, and there are no reliable sources attesting to anything other than that he fought in the Poland-Soviet conflict which followed. The current list is one of "last surviving World War I veterans." Kowalski did not serve in WWI. Ravenswing 19:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Ravenswing. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For making me grin

		The Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice
		JUSTICE! Keep up the good sense of humour. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Heh, no problem! Any time. Ravenswing 01:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Query

Just out of question, how many supports/days are needed to make a community ban in effect? Soviet King ^{Pound me if i messed up.} 04:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Some," and that's not really a specious answer - it's not something for which there's a statutory amount or percentage. I admit I'd like to see a better rule - or any rule - on numbers than currently exists, because I've seen "community" bans enacted on the opinion of fewer than ten editors. Ravenswing 06:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Fyi

It wasn't so obvious when this was the revision I found. [10]. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 11:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - An invitation

I'm not exactly sure which editors who have been involved in the original discussions I should notify of this - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but rather than mistakenly leave out, I'll instead include. Regards, Rivercard (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I award you this barnstar for making me laugh with your funny comment on WP:ANI here: ([11]) Soviet King In Soviet Russia, page edit you! 10:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you, sir! Ravenswing 14:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Harry Trihey

I gave the article a quick read over and I only had one comment/question. In the 1900 Stanley Cup challenge you call the Crescents the "Maritimers" when talking about their performance in the series. This can be confusing since you never state that the Crescents were (I assume) Maritime Professional Hockey League champions. Also the Crescents' page claims that the Maritime league was circa 1910-1915 which doesn't match-up with the time line. Obviously WP is not a reliable source and this could be easily incorrect, but both pages claim Coleman's book as a ref and I couldn't confirm since I have no access to it. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't state that the Crescents were the MPHL champions simply because neither does Coleman. Suggesting that a Halifax team is from the Maritimes, however, is no more inaccurate than if I characterized the Winnipeg team against which the Shamrocks played as "Westerners." That being the challenge era, teams did have challenges accepted without being members of a recognized league, which might have been the case with the Crescents. Ravenswing 21:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Harry Trihey

To be honest I had debated nominating it for GA. But since I had no hand in actually writing the article I didn't want to step on toes. I have seen many GAs that aren't much better than this so I think it probably could get that. Might need a going over by a GA/FA guru like Resolute, but I think you did a pretty good job. -DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I would definitely recommend putting Dit Clapper up for GA if you are so inclined. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to either of them being nominated, but sure, let's do belts and suspenders and have Resolute go over them and poke holes. It may be there are ways to improve the articles ... and honestly, I'm unsure the Trihey article is long enough for GA, although it could be filled out. (I wish, for instance, that I wasn't as reliant on Coleman and the Montreal Gazette as I was, but for 100+ years ago, those are the English-language sources there are.) Ravenswing 18:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that is the only real problem I see with Trihey, that it might not be full enough, but as you say its 100 years ago. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to do a more thorough review for you guys tonight, but right off the bat, both articles will need expanded leads. The lead should cover everything you would want a reader to know if you had only two paragraphs (given the article sizes) to explain them, and should touch on the sections in the article body. Clapper's legacy section is very repetitive in starting each paragraph with "Clapper...". Those would be two quick things to fix up. Cheers! Resolute 19:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew you would have a good idea. I am just a gnome so I am not so good at it. Mostly just know I have seen worse articles get GA. Or maybe I am just used to seeing so many of our crappy stubs that a B article really excites me haha. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

lol, no doubt! Both look pretty close though. I'll see what some of my collected resources have to add as well. Resolute 20:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• There, tweaked both articles. Is that more what you're looking for, Resolute? Ravenswing 21:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, this is probably going to seem harsh, but it's for your own good.  ;)

• On Trihey:
• Definitely better on the lead, but I think the first paragraph of Trihey's article can be expanded a little to note that he was an early innovator of passing and teamwork strategies, and that he was inducted into the HHOF. The infobox does mention this, but as a rule, I always note this in the lead too. It is one of the player's most important career characteristics. I would probably split his retirement and legacy section into two: The first discussing his innovations in hockey, and the second focusing on his post-hockey life.
• Look out for run-on sentences, especially those that join relatively unrelated statements. i.e.: "Already respected enough to serve on a competition committee regarding the adoption of goal nets [8] and to be quoted as the preeminent authority on forward play by his linemate Arthur Farrell in his 1899 book [1], Trihey continued his form in 1900, once again leading the Shamrocks to an easy league championship, while repeating his league scoring championship with 17 goals." - That should definitely be at least two sentences.

• Some things that you could add to Trihey's article from a couple sources I have:
  • Podnieks, Andrew (2003). Players: The ultimate A–Z guide of everyone who has ever played in the NHL. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 944. ISBN 0-385-25999-9.
  • According to Podnieks, he didn't just command the 199th Battallion, he formed the 55th Regiment Irish Canadian Rangers (supported by this references)
    • He served on the Harbour Commission from 1930 to 1935
    • Was a life member of St. Mary's Hospital (Montreal)
  • Some news archive stories:
    • Also played lacrosse] (1899)
    • Trihey's own thoughts on playing hockey (1902)
    • Referee of at least one game of the 1903 Stanley Cup Final (1903)

• Alright, on the Trihey comments ... just about every addition you have here - refereeing a Cup final, playing lacrosse, the 1902 Mansfield article - is already in the article. That Burns article you linked, however, is a heck of a find, and I can mine that for some details. Ravenswing 02:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

  I did quick comments, then went looking for articles. I never did check if they already existed in the articles. Whoops. Resolute 03:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• On Dit Clapper
• Remove the location of his birth and death from the lead. It's against the MOS to put it there.
• Would still like to see some more info in the lead. For instance, how come it isn't noted that he won three Stanley Cups? Would definitely also note that he was the only player to have his jersey retired and to be inducted into the HHOF on the day of his last game.
• Like Trihey, watch for run-on sentences. I am horrible for comma abuse myself, so when copyediting my own work, I look at every sentence I find that has three or more commas and look to reword.
• MOS quibble: Some of your references are placed before a comma or dash when used in the middle of a sentence. They should be placed after.
• As with above, I'd probably split the retirement and legacy section into legacy and personal life.
• Not a fan of the "Achievements and facts" section. It is a list of trivia. Some of it I would organize into an awards section (eg: Joe_Nieuwendyk#Awards_and_honours), others I would move into the prose. Some (like the fact his name was dropped in Slap Shot and that his jersey is on display) I would drop entirely. Pure trivia in both cases.
• Many statements that require sourcing
• Some sourced additions:
  • Podnieks, Andrew (2003). Players: The ultimate A–Z guide of everyone who has ever played in the NHL. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. pp. 145–146. ISBN 0-385-25999-9.
    • Specifies that his induction into the HHOF and jersey retirement immediately following his last game is the only time in NHL history either has happened.
  • Duplacey, James; Zweig, Eric (2010). Official Guide to the Players of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Firefly Books. p. 89. ISBN 1-55407-662-5. (I love this book, btw. It's brilliant for working on HHOF bios)
    • First player in NHL history to be named an All-Star at two positions.
    • Specifies that "Dit" came from the way he lisped "Victor"
  • Suffered a broken thumb (1940)
  • Bruins goalie asks for trade because Clapper resigned (1949)
  • Suffered a heart attack (1964)
  • Obituary (1979; Some family and personal history)

Hope some of this helps! Should keep you two busy for a bit, at least.  ;) Resolute 01:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	I award you another barnstar for making me laugh again on another WP:ANI ban thread I've posted: ([12]) with the comment High Freaking Time! Throw the troll back under the bridge. Keep up the humor! Soviet King :  ?  02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Harry Trihey

Hello! Your submission of Harry Trihey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Interior (Talk) 19:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

For making me laugh here. Sorry to say I was rooting for the Capitals, but... Calabe1992 02:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Harry Trihey

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Before

You realize that I helped craft BEFORE, don't you? ...maybe not, you haven't been here as long as I have. I don't have much of an ego, and this isn't about that; I'd like to keep the discussion on track, is all. If you want to withdraw then that won't likely be a problem, as I suspect that no admin will actually delete the article simply because of NHOCKEY. I think that NHOCKEY may be taking things a tad too far though, and this discussion is one (possible) example of "too far".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Color me bemused; I registered for Wikipedia a year and a half before you did (and over FOUR years before you began sustained, substantive editing), and have half again your edit count. That being said, whether you had any hand in WP:BEFORE or not is scarcely relevant - as, for instance, is the fact that WP:BEFORE was in place in early 2008, when according to your edit history after the month you registered for Wikipedia (Nov '06), you had fewer than 50 edits over the following two and a half years.

  Now that we have the silly whose-is-bigger games out of the way (I hope and trust), this is not sidestepping the question: I have asked, twice now, whether you have performed your due diligence. Your avoidance of the question can only suggest that the answer is "No, not really."

  As to your question as to whether the article can be sourced here, why not? It wants a translation of Czech sources, I daresay, but that's certainly possible. This isn't a case of WP:NHOCKEY "taking things too far;" it's a matter that WP:NHOCKEY, as do the other subordinate sports criteria, is working as advertised - in presuming that a player who meets its criteria can meet the GNG. Under the circumstances, your withdrawing the AfD is the only sensible course. Ravenswing 04:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  I performed my "due diligence". Can we move on now? At this point I'm mostly just glad that someone replied with something more than "Keep WP:NHOCKEY", but the rest of this we can discuss on the AFD page. (incidentally, I must have made a typo with your username or something, because there's not much of a history for you that I'm seeing... although, as you said already, that's rather irrelevant. We seem to have mostly avoided each other to date, which is fine [Wikipedia is a big place after all]. You're "did you BEFORE" accusations do provoke some defensiveness in me, especially since I'm quite uncomfortable with AFD in general already).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Erikvcl

Thank you for your wise and considered posts there. I believe this user shows signs of being worth persevering with. Others may differ and we may both be proved wrong but I believe it is worth extending this to editors. By doing this you have taken some of the load off me and I really appreciate that. --John (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, I'm not doing it because of any belief this guy will get it. I have none, and I'm dead certain he'll step in it again if he sticks around; I doubt there's been an editor like him in the whole history of Wikipedia who's responded with "Gosh, I've been so horribly blind! Of course I've bought so much into my partisan beliefs that I've become a rabid POV warrior, and I shall now go forth and be a paragon of neutrality henceforth!" I'm just stubborn enough to want to try to hammer it home nonetheless. Honestly, I think the most promising part of this is Erikvcl's musings that perhaps Wikipedia is not for him, as long as we permit those of whose morals he strongly disagrees to edit freely. Ravenswing 11:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, but I happen to believe it to be both ethically and pragmatically superior to let him make this determination himself rather than make it for him. Worst-case scenario we can at least say we tried and he will have no grounds to say he was unfairly or brusquely treated here. Thank you again. --John (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That's exactly it; we are on record as having tried, in good faith, regardless of our belief as to whether it would work or not. (That being, as to that, the chief lesson I was trying to impart.) Ravenswing 11:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You've Got Mail

Hello, Ravenswing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RfC/U notice

As you have worked with User:Agent00f, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f. I know it's moving backwards, but I'd like to have all previous attempts at least tried before going for the final solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please note I have moved one of your comments to the talk page. I understand why the confusion was caused (because Agent00f deleted the instructions he was not supposed to), but I will reinstate them so you can see why each person is limited to their sections. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A Bunny for You

A Bunny for You

I see seven or so experienced, thoughtful Wikipedias who all see eye to eye. That sounds like the community speaking. I trust the community more than I trust my own view. You are all probably right and I am wrong. I hope you find a lasting solution, as wasted keystrokes on back pages is one of the great tragedies at Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you one day when we are both paddling in the same direction. Much respect and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I like bunnies (and live with one)! Thank you for this thoughtful gesture. Ravenswing 01:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Dear Ravenswing, I apologize for being harsh on anyone. But please I am asking because I do not know whom to ask. Could you please tell me what is the solution when there is lots of WP:RS but no consensus. What needs to be done in such cases on the wikipedia? But in anyway I apologize for being harsh. Could you please help me and suggest a solution. Best regards and thanks Robin klein (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

James Chico Hernandez

Thanks for your help and keeping me in line! It is Greatly Appreciated!:) Have a Nice Day.Chico 9 Chico 9 (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WHA

Link was dead, couldn't find a new one to replace it... thought it was smarter to make the statement more bland. Maybe you can find an article to back it up again? DMighton (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, but that's what the Wayback Machine is for ... Ravenswing 00:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wayback Machine? What is this mysterious device? lol... I googled and couldn't find anything... guess I didn't think of looking it up in its original language. DMighton (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed NHL realignment

I agree with you that the realignment section was not a case of crystal balling. But it occurred to me that since the plan was rejected that we may be placing undue weight by leaving it in the main NHL article. Definitely belongs at 2012-13 NHL season, but perhaps removing the section from this article was valid, simply under different grounds. Thoughts? Resolute 16:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I too almost reverted it because the league had announced it. But I agree with Resolute, it should probably be moved to the season article. I believe we have a league business section that this could fall under. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It makes decent sense to do so, I suppose. Ravenswing 17:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that given a pending future realignment, perhaps it would be worthwhile to keep in place until a new plan is agreed upon, and then the content scaled back to a minimum in context of discussing the new plan. However I have no issues with moving the information to the season-specific page. Either way, it may be suitable to add a note about a future realignment in the works, to address the new Winnipeg team. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Maltese nobility

Remember Tancarville and their various self-sourced articles on Maltese nobility? (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barone Francesco Gauci Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttigieg De Piro (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principe de Sayd etc.) Dilek2 is adding info from Tancarville's website, though not citing it.[13] Edward321 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up. It doesn't seem that this is another sock of Tancarville's, but she does seem - from a glance at her talk page - that the concept of proper sourcing bores her, so another eye out never hurts. Ravenswing 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Could you please talk to Dilek2? They are repeatedly spamming this [14] across multiple pages. I have repeatedly mentioned the lack of sourcing in my edit summaries as well as some talk pages.[15][16][17]. Eventually, Dilek2, provided a source.[18] I don't know how reliable that source is, but it supports none of Dike2's edit. When I told them so,[19] they blind-reverted me again.[20]. They have also engaged in personal attacks against myself. [21] When I asked them not to, [22] they repeated the attack.[23] I am disengaging for now, I probably should have done so sooner. Edward321 (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for trying. Dilek2 responded by personally attacking me [24][25] At least they haven't blind-reverted you. Edward321 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not anything attacked,...but he is a vadalizer... Indeffed Sockpuppet Clown (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• No, he is not. He has quite properly removed edits of yours that were either unsourced or inadequately sourced, and calling him a "vandalizer" for it is a personal attack, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You have an altogether-too-long history of ignoring Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sourcing and notability, and this must stop. Certainly insulting those with whom you disagree must also stop, and if both do not, we'll have to explore sanctions. Ravenswing 03:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • • A couple more people have chimed in telling Dilek2 they need to use reliable sources. Dilek's response was to say "mostly Turks in Wikipedia are Racists, bigots and story twists".[26] Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Greetings. I have seen your name around and you seem to have plenty of good sense so are probably a good person to ask. Not being a hockey editor I have heard many times "the hockey diacritics compromise" without knowing what it was, and have just found it on the WikiProject hockey front page (obvious place to look if I was smarter). Before I saw this I totted up the numbers and left comment at Talk:Dominik Halmosi. Now having seen the "compromise" I don't really understand why these still-here-so-vaguely-notable Czechs-in-Czech Republic BLPs are still at "English common names"? Is there something I don't know? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Alright ... here's my take, which I'll try to make as unbiased as I can, seeing as I'm a strong partisan of one of the factions involved. It's a huge simplification of a long, long fight, but the Compromise represented more in the way of exhaustion and that we had to have some manner of modus operandi than any genuine conviction, and not all that many people really like it. In particular, there are two ongoing factions, with frequent conflicts: one which feels that the way names are rendered in the subject's home languages should prevail on the English Wikipedia, and one which feels that WP:COMMONNAME debars any such usage unless it is the predominant one in English-language sources. Add to that the rumbling from editors outside the Wikiproject who mutter that the hockey editors have no right to enact a private compromise, and exasperated parties when edit warring and other conflicts wash up on the shores of ANI, and you have something of a witches' brew.

  For my part, I'm in the second faction, and strongly believe that WP:COMMONNAME should either be enforced or repealed before we're hipdeep in diacritical marks which are not used in the language in which this Wikipedia is supposedly written, but I break with the faction on the issue you touch on above -- if (say) we're talking about Czech hockey players who've never played outside of Europe, for whom English language sources don't particularly exist, I don't think COMMONNAME applies to them.

  In any event, you might get a different spin on things from some of the other editors who monitor my talk page, some of whom are on opposing sides from me in this debate, but for some time now I've practiced what I preach and stay out of the morass, on the ground that the anti-diacritics faction is in the minority and that even if there is not a strong pro-diacritics consensus, there's certainly no consensus in the other direction. Ravenswing 04:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's very full and informative. So it explains why despite the compromise going forward some of those older stubs are left as they are. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the Compromise is so much "going forward" as lurching from side to side. More often than otherwise, people are afraid of the consequences of it being breached; often enough, some folks get the notion that sentiment is swaying in one direction or another and take a swing at overturning it. (In all fairness, I've been party to that on one occasion.) As far as any stubs go, I expect it's more that they've been overlooked than anyone has deliberately left them alone. Ravenswing 04:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Peter Stoykewych

Hey, I moved this over to here for a faster response time rather than on the college hockey page. 1. You are right, there is no requirement for you to let me know of a potential prod. It's just included on the template you placed on the page. 2. I am not offended that you delete an article that I created. As I put on the talk page, you need to do what you feel is right to make Wikipedia better. If deleting this page due to WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY is justified, then I encourage it. As proper, these articles are note MINE, but rather WIKIPEDIA'S. I have no issues with that at all. Beyond that, happy editing. Regards, keystoneridin! (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Err ... I'm not the one who filed the AfD. Ravenswing 06:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Top part was not intended for you, sorry. I asked that the page be deleted on the AfD. Good day to you.keystoneridin! (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

California Golden Seals

Agreed. I was just copying the style used on many other similar NHL team pages - including others who never won any of these items.

Again, though, I agree with your undo.

Jmg38 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Worlds largest round barn

Hello, I noticed your rather sarcastic comments on your edit summary for worlds largest round barn. I've also noticed a pattern since I spoke on the ice hockey project page of you being quite cynical and rude towards my edits. Possibly send this to WP:ANI? or can we resolve this distaste amicably. Anyways, I am providing links so that you can be certain the title of "worlds largest" is not of my own assumption. http://www.travelwisconsin.com/item_detail/Worlds_Largest_Round_Barn.aspx http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide-3156995-world_s_largest_round_barn_marshfield-i http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM2400_LARGEST_Round_Barn_in_the_world http://www.flickr.com/photos/41022142@N07/4001687017/ Should there be any further conflict, let's please discuss this.Keystoneridin (speak) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• The degree to which a threat to take this to ANI fazes me is minimal; where serial edit summaries along the lines of "Go fuck yourself, you vandal" are handled with kid gloves at ANI, I'm afraid that a complaint boiling down to "He's not stroking me as much as I think he ought to" would at best be treated dismissively, if not derisively. "Grow a backbone, will you?" was one response given within the last couple days.

  That being said, perhaps you could rein in your bruised sensibilities and answer the question I posed: what official sanctioning body conferred upon this barn the official title of "World's Largest?" Or, as is far more likely the case, did the locals assume it was, start giving that as a nickname for the building, and the nickname stuck? All that your sources indicate - and I already see that you have had problems with posting sources that did not support the statements you made - is that people call this barn the "World's Largest Round Barn," and that the local fair thinks enough of the barn to use it as a logo. That's fine, but it's worth no more than the article currently states: the name is a nickname. Ravenswing 01:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my sincerest apologies. I took the statement in your edit summary as "I was" giving the name to the barn rather than the locals. By the way, I see that you are from Mass. What is your favorite college hockey team? Thanks!Keystoneridin (speak) 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and the Northeastern University Huskies; I'm a NU alum and a one-time season ticket holder. Ravenswing 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Site ban

What should I do to persuade the wikipedia community to not site ban me? I noticed that you were one of the few editors willing to entertain my position in the debate on whether to ban me that's why I'm asking you. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, having looked over the sockpuppet investigation, I'd say it's looking pretty grim, and I don't precisely disagree with the premise; you *have* been sockpuppeting, and you *have* committed vandalism in your so-called "silly" moods. For the good my advice will do you at this stage, your best tack is to ask that very question on the investigation page: what would the admins there want from you to demonstrate your good faith and your future cooperation, and give you a second chance? Do not qualify this. They aren't going to want to hear, as I didn't want to hear, that yes, you've been a bad boy, but Flyer22 is Out To Get You. Just apologize, and say you'll never do it again, and never mind who else you think is at fault. That investigation isn't about what anyone else has done. It's about what you have done. Ravenswing 22:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Annnnd ... seeing as you were indeffed ninety minutes after I wrote this, it's become moot. Oh well. Ravenswing 12:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hartford vs Buffalo on Whalers page

I have been looking over recent edits of the Hartford Whalers page and saw that someone claimed Hartford is a bigger metro market than Buffalo. This is in fact true today and was true at the time the Whalers left, take a look at metropolitan census table from the 90's http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t3/tables/tab03.xls. However, it is true that Hartford was the smallest US market when the team joined the NHL. So how should we handle the wording? Should the smallest US market statement just be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalerguy1 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI-GeoSwan-AfD Discussion

I already posted something on the page, but I wanted to personally apologize to you here for my incivility. I wrote what I shouldn't have written, and there's no excuse for that. I'm sorry. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Quite alright, and I thank you for your courtesy in apologizing, which is of course accepted. Ravenswing 09:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Society for the Preservation of Beers from the Wood

What part of Society for the Preservation of Beers from the Wood do you feel may be original research? I understand tagging it for primary sources, but those sources, such as they are, do support the text. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• And where they all come from the society itself, that's OR; they are, in effect, doing their own talking. Ravenswing 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you've overstretched the definition of original research. Original research would be something created by the person writing the article. I added most of the sources, but I did not create any of them. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere

I am obliged to inform you of my reply on WP:ANI - as my predecessor in the discussion there on the Edward de Vere issue. What I would like to ask you: Would you please explain to me what you mean with my alleged "handful of articlespace edits (being dominated by the authorship issue)"? Have you spent time for adding my edits to a total? It should be obvious that nobody has the right to prescribe me a certain amount of edits in articles on Wikipedia, especially in articles which are so heavily under control as the authorship issue is. You certainly know that a number of editors were banned for a longer time because their editings - as it was believed - supported a so-called fringe theory. And if I say that I also support this theory, and in the same time I perfectly know that any editing in favour of this theory would be reverted and I immediately made responsible for this "misdemeanour" - so what can I do? (I ask: Is such a conduct really fully compatible with the freedom of speech? - I do not think so.) Then I mostly can make only small edits like putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence where there was none. Exactly this has been my last editing in the article on Edward de Vere, you can have a look. And this is perfectly OK, or isn´t it??? However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a supporter of a so-called fringe theory (which has been and still is supported by a number of Assistant Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) is excluded from any Talk Page on this subject. If you don´t know this fact, please ask someone who knows. And besides this, you have certainly no exact information on the amount of my other editings on English-language and other national Wikipedia pages which have nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon. So what is your point, can you explain it to me? I hope you will do so, because otherwise it would be a little bit strange, given the fact that you addressed me. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• There is nothing "alleged" about you having a handful of articlespace edits; according to a useful Toolservee edit counter, in nearly a year and a half, you've managed 164 articlespace edits. (And that being said, if you don't know this fact, your complete edit history is visible to any Wikipedia editor, and it's quite easy to compile a record of where, when and how much you've edited.)

  While you're absolutely right in that you are the sole judge as to how much activity you put into Wikipedia, an average of two articlespace edits a week represents the output of a casual, inexperienced editor, and that inexperience shows in your ANI complaint. You are also absolutely right that a supporter of a fringe theory is not barred from talk pages, absent any violation of Wikipedia rules, but no one has suggested any such thing, and you raising such an absurdity is another of your several strawmen. What I suggested you do is use the Oxford talk page for discussing improvements to the article - a legitimate use of that page - instead of launching out-of-the-blue ad hominem attacks on other editors - an illegitimate use of that page. Ravenswing 22:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don´t agree with your term casual, inexperienced editor for my person. However, I don´t suggest to you that you have a look at my global edits. Have a nice day, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You really made my day

Thanks for the barnstar, you really made my day.

Quick relevant story, the article is almost an accident, or at least, it wasn't really my plan. I was working on improving the NCAA Women's basketball tournament pages. I was working on 1990, had added a pile of data, and a bit of text summarizing the Final Four games, and decided it would be nice to have a nice picture. I wrote to the athletic department, no answer. I followed up, no answer. I tried a couple other people there, no answer. I wrote to a fan, looking for help, and she sent me a link to some articles written by a different person in the athletic office. I wrote to him, asked for a picture of the 1990 (and 1992) teams, and, pretty much as an aside, mentioned I had personally taken a picture of Tara, but it wasn't very good, and if he would give me a better one, I'd work on improving the article. He did and I did. I hadn't planned on doing that much, but her career is fascinating, and I couldn't stop. Your post helps make it worthwhile.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I understand how it goes. At least two of my DYKs and one of my GAs came from me randomly wandering through other things and stumbling across stubs that bugged me. Anyway, it's a heck of an improvement, and thanks for your own kind words. Ravenswing 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Revival (sports team)

I have updated the page. I hope it addresses your concerns. I never intended to mislead anyone. Someone had to write the article. Remember good-faith. Cheers. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1971–72 NHL season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John McKenzie and Ed Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, friend

I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ECHL "franchises"

Thanks for getting that. Beat me to the punch! I'm not sure why the "franchise" non-issue rears its head periodically. Cheers!  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

More often than not its the same editor. The one who makes the biggest noise is a pretty heavy duty sockpuppet. I have had to block a lot of their accounts. Haven't looked at this editor yet so I don't know if it is them again. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But, when all is said and done, we can't really stop a determined enough puppetmaster. Heck, there are eight public WiFi nodes within a couple minutes walk of my workplace, and that's in a small county seat of 17,000. Ravenswing 01:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup exactly. That is basically how this guy has been getting around it so often. A lot of his editing appears to come from a mobile connection so likely a cell phone or a tablet. But his behavioural evidence and his general geographical region all tend to give him away lucky enough. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam help?

Hey! I see you got a recent subscription to Highbeam. Mine just expired, and I've been asked to re-verify a statement I made using an article. See Talk:1988 Winter Olympics#Cost. Can you look at this article and copy up the paragraph I used to cite the cost of those Olympics? Thanks! Resolute 22:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits of 2011 Stanley Cup Finals

I think my edits are correct. They were on a team that made the finals for the first time, although they didn't play. Should I also note that they did not play as well? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• If the players don't play, they don't appear. Should the Bruins make it to the Finals this year, it's not going to be Matt Bartowski's "second" Finals appearance; he's yet to take the ice in one, nor is his name even on the Cup for one. A hard and fast rule is that a player who doesn't take the ice hasn't taken the ice: the game that broke Garry Unger's consecutive game streak saw Unger on the bench, except that his coach physically prevented him from taking a shift. The NHL didn't count the streak as continuing, even though Unger was dressed for the game and on the bench. The likes of Bartowski, Khudobin, Arniel and Hnidy weren't even dressed for any Final games. I invite you to remove these edits before they are, once again, removed. Ravenswing 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The term "finals appearance" can be interpreted differently, and is subject to semantics. When I said "appearance", I did not necessarily mean that they dressed or played; but are simply on a roster of a team that is in the Stanley Cup Finals. I never said they dressed or were in the lineup. And I noted that they did not actually appear, but rather were on the roster for the first time their team made it to the finals. Unger's streak was that of games played. How should I note that they were on a team that made it to the finals? I never said Bartkowski's name is on the cup. Marc Savard's name, however, is on the cup. For example, if the Bruins go on to win the Stanley Cup this year, Bartkowski would get his second championship ring, day with the cup, and team picture appearance; as well as the first time his name would be engraved on the cup. Do you not understand that? How should anyone know that Trent Whitfield and Colby Cohen were on the roster and received rings, held the cup, were included in the championship team picture and get to spend a day with the cup that symbolizes Lord Frederick Stanley's bowl. I know these facts about players' experiences and cite sources to back up my statements. I am just trying to inform people in this article how many times a player has been on the team's roster when his team makes it to the finals. It is not useless to mention how many times a player gets a ring, appears in a celebration on the ice, and spends a day with the Stanley Cup. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it really can't be; it is only subject to semantics from people eager to take inaccurate stances. The NHL very plainly limits recognition of players having appeared in the Finals (or playing on a team generally) to those taking the ice during a game. That players who did not qualify appear in team pictures (as do many non-players) or receive Cup rings (as did over five hundred people employed by or connected to the Bruins in 2011, down to the ushers at TD Garden) has nothing to do with that, and I am quite comfortable with Wikipedia readers having no explicit clue that Trent Whitfield or Colby Cohen did not, in fact, appear in the Cup Finals when, in point of fact, they didn't. If you want to invent new, unrecognized definitions, get consensus on the talk page first. Ravenswing 09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • But I have noticed before that articles that have sections I didn't write also make the same statements I did, and I was under the impression that on the Finals rosters that the definition was very loosely defined for Wikipedia ardicles, and did not need to be classified by the NHL's recognition standards; as many I didn't write are not defined by official NHL standards. For example, I noticed that Chris Chelios actually did not appear in the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals and the article mentioned that it was his fifth appearance, even though he didn't make a finals appearance that season. I also noticed that it listed that season as Mark Hartigan's second appearance, even though he was only on the roster both times his team made the finals and did not appear. I also noticed the same is true for Aaron Rome. I also noticed that "Category:Stanley Cup champions" has always been full of players who were on Stanley Cup winning rosters who did not qualify to be engraved, and were not engraved by a successful petition; and that this category is also loosely defined. The consensus in these articles always seemed to be loosely defined to me. I must have been under the wrong impression. I even cite sources to back up my statements. I had no idea that articles had to be defined by NHL standards of "appearances". Is that a Wikipedia rule? Others have made similar edits to what I have made. I am not trying to make inaccurate statements. I honestly don't know Wikipedia's standards for articles. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • If the Chelios article asserts that he made a Finals appearance when he didn't, the article is wrong. If Hartigan's article asserts that he made Finals appearances when he didn't, the article is wrong. (You, in point of fact, made that change for Rome on the Finals article.) I'm unsure why it's such a hard thing for you to understand that in order to be credited with having played, you actually need to play, and bringing in irrelevant side issues such as whose name is or is not engraved on the Cup doesn't help. Once again, if you want to change the definition to your liking, then seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages, but I can't see any reason for you to seek further debate here. Ravenswing 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my rant

I think you're better. Don't prove me wrong. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• At ranting? I certainly have a great deal of experience at it. Whether I'm better at it than you is quite subjective, of course. As to your odd rant on that AfD, I shan't respond there -- it's close enough to a NPA violation to warrant redaction in any event. I'm happy to have become acquainted with a number of talented and dedicated colleagues over my nearly ten years and 35K+ edits on Wikipedia, but no: this is neither Facebook nor Myspace, and if we were all in some manner of popularity contest, no one would ever revert an edit, advocate deleting a page, or vote "Oppose" on any RfA or indeed any issue whatsoever. The thousands of volunteers who seek to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines -- as opposed, say, to making new ones up to suit our amour propres -- is what keeps this from turning into Urban Dictionary.

  Now if you consider opposing your POV on an AfD "burning bridges," oooookay; it's a free world, and I promise not to snarl if you decide that you're not a buddy of mine. I will say this much, though: what the hell are you doing with the mop with such a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the encyclopedia's notability guidelines?

  There. That's *my* rant. Ravenswing 06:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL Hiberniantears (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Succession on Majipoor

Nice catch! Your wording is clearer and takes in account episodes like Voriax's untimely death. Rivertorch (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you kindly! Ravenswing 02:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

§

NHL relocation speculation is getting funny

Wow, this speculation on Wikipedia is getting nuts [27]. Earlier tonight I put a CSD tag on a Seattle Totems page [28] that some guy created because, according to him, that's where the Coyotes are going and that's what they're going to be named. (He had all the info boxes and everything.) Sigh. Taroaldo ✉ 08:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• Mm, it's been like this for years. The pages for defunct teams -- the Whalers, the Nordiques, the original Jets, even as far back as the Kansas City Scouts' article -- are routinely spammed with Hot Rumor Of The Week That Our Team Will Return, generally bolstered by a source from a local bored sportswriter. The articles for teams thought to be vulnerable to moves -- the Coyotes assuredly, but also the Penguins, the Predators and others -- likewise. Ravenswing 21:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

More funny NHL stuff

So, today's fun activity is dealing with Ottawa's announcement that Scotiabank Place will become Canadian Tire Centre on July 1, 2013. Of course, less than two hours after it was announced on TSN, someone had moved the Scotiabank Place page to "Canadian Tire Centre" and the name was changed in the NHL page, etc. *sigh -- Taroaldo ✉ 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• One of the elements that -- if I had my way -- would feature prominently on WP:PILLAR is this: there are no prizes on Wikipedia for being the first person to scoop the rest of the world and make a change to an article. Another syndrome we see all the time here, as you can see with the ongoing edit war over Alain Vigneault's name appearing in the Rangers' article. Ravenswing 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I try to keep good humor about all of it, but now I find someone issuing very subtle threats about either ANI or 3rr regarding the repeated redirects that are getting added to Scotiabank Place. I've been trying to get Canadian Tire Centre moved back there and the page move-protected until Jul 1, but admins have been slow today. I finally posted a comment on WP:AN asking them to do the move, because it's starting to get a bit tedious.

You are absolutely right about the competition to be first with the scoop; this is supposed to be a collegial project, not a competition. Taroaldo ✉ 02:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Pembroke, MA Wiki Page

Hello Ravenswing, I am unsure why you would remove the information that I added to the Pembroke page about Pembroke Community Media, and refer to it as vandalism. The information that I added was true, and correct. Please explain yourself.

Thanks 173.162.209.241 (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Cathie Cathie@pembrokecommunitymedia.com

If you happen to look at the reversion -- [29] -- I didn't touch the PCM info you added. The reversion I made, back to your revision, was of an anon IP who was screwing with the census data. Please exercise more care. Ravenswing 03:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your stance on eSports

I'm sorry can you please explain to me your stance on eSports? I fail to see why these players are not considered athletes even when the US Government(among other governing bodies) themselves consider them to be athletes. It is because of your rather ignorant stance on eSports that we are not allowed to add our players into your Wikipedia site for others to see. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.61.55.96 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Huh. Go figure. The last time I chimed in on any debate on so-called "esports" was nearly two years ago, where along with dozens of other editors -- nearly unanimously -- we determined that they formed no part of sports notability criteria. (I definitely have no authority to make such rulings unilaterally, as you seem to presume, and I'm not egotistical enough to imagine that my rhetoric swayed the masses to vote against their beliefs.) Writing any of the others to demand explanations of them? No, I see that you haven't.

  That being said -- and no, the US government does not consider video game players to be "athletes" -- sure, I'll explain again here, seeing as it seems to have been too much trouble for you to read that debate and see the reasoning presented there. Those aren't "sports." They're games. Sure, there are professional tournaments, and their most prominent champions are celebrated within their own communities, but that doesn't make them sports, any more than chess, blackjack, Magic: The Gathering or Monopoly are "sports" just because they, too, have professional tournaments and world champions. I recognize that a lot of video gamers were scorned in high school gym class and yearn in their souls to be seen as "athletes," but I neither invented nor defined the distinction.

  Beyond that, why do you care? The decision of some sports Wikiproject editors never did ban video game players from having Wikipedia articles; we just declined to include them under WP:NSPORTS criteria. They can still qualify if they meet the requirements of WP:GNG, which applies Wikipedia-wide. Perhaps you can read the links at WP:PILLAR and correct your ignorance on how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 03:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey

A short question - is this your account - [30] ? Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• (blinks) Can't imagine why it would be ... Ravenswing 10:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, a mistake. Sorry for bothering you. Sir Lothar (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks much for the barnstar! — Hunter Kahn 00:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• Eh, thanks for minor league work. I was a season ticket holder in Springfield for many years, and I dislike the prejudice against minor leagues that operate in a lot of the sports WikiProjects. Ravenswing 01:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tim Horton

I believe Buffalo retired Tim Horton's number 2 and Toronto retired Tim Horton's number 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.153.99 (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not quite. The Leafs don't retire numbers, but they "honour" them. Horton and King Clancy (who wore #7 in an earlier time) were added to that list, but it's still in circulation. A number of Toronto players have worn the number, the most recent being Ian White and Garnet Exelby in 2010. Ravenswing 23:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

1632 series

Could you offer some substantive suggestions as to how the article might be improved, prefereably at Talk:1632 series? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ravenswing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.