User talk:Ravenswing/Archive4

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. Also do not edit yourself. You may misplace your hypothylamus.

Mitchell Gaulton

The prod was removed from this article, and I don't know enough about hockey to understand whether this person is playing for an NHL team or not... but if you still think it should be deleted, it should probably be AfDed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Judd (producer)'s Speedy deletion request

That article was made using information that Ben Judd himself has said at one time or another he is a voice actor he likes to say he drinks heavily it was said to be a fan joke from the stuff he says on the bionic commando podcast and was cited as so from the fact he GoGo dances and his appearance in playgirl. I the personal poster of the part involving the white bathrobe and marker of the page have gotten all information from actual events I have personally seen I'll add a references section with references to these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vault9Dweller (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes them illegitimate. Please review WP:V and WP:RS; all items in an article must be verifiable from a reliable, independent, third-party source. Reporting on your personal experiences isn't permitted.  Ravenswing  13:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

what was wrong with my page? it informs people of car finance, a very specific and sought after industry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcgurran84 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow the links WP:NOR and WP:SYN, you'll see the policies in question. Very simply put, Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source, and articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. I also recommend WP:PILLAR for a series of links which will lead you to our core polices and guidelines, to give you a better idea of our article format and requirements.  Ravenswing  16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so is it ok now? don't understand what was wrong with it. was very impartial. just sharing the knowledge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmcgurran84 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why deleted? Tell criterias please

Why the below article was deleted? What information about the company I can post to make the info suitable for Wikipedia? As for me I don't see any adverticing content, only facts.

User:NataliyaIT (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2008

Please see WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:N and WP:SPAM for the relevant policies and guidelines governing article creation for companies.  Ravenswing  17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for links —Preceding unsigned comment added by NataliyaIT (talk • contribs) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'd also recommend the links from WP:PILLAR, for general information about article creation and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Good luck.  Ravenswing  20:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you want my article deleted

id so i just did it for like an hour because i bet my buddy that i could find an article to settle our despute and once he sees it im going to delete it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danh2417 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already has been deleted, actually. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a webhost or blog page for betting purposes. If you're interested in the criteria we use for article creation, I encourage you to review the links at WP:PILLAR and WP:NOT.  Ravenswing  20:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

South Hadley is notable because, among a few other things, it contains Mount Holyoke College, which is VERY notable. Personally, I think we should list everything in the Valley. - Denimadept (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No more obtuse than you were being intentionally insulting by asking whether I'd ever heard of MHC. MHC's notability is not only unquestionable, it wasn't in question. That being said, notability is neither inherited nor transferrable, and South Hadley does not in of itself carry any unusual notability in western Massachusetts. Now if you want to change "Significant towns and cities in the Valley are" to "EVERY town and city in the Valley are" including South Hadley is appropriate, as well as including Westhampton, Buckland, Goshen, Leydon, Hampden, Russell ... because those Chamber of Commerce signs saying "Welcome to the Pioneer Valley" pay startlingly little attention to geological fact and more to what towns they have tagged as part of it.  Ravenswing  17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit man, I can't argue with you! Your position makes too much sense. What can I do about this?? - Denimadept (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's why a list of all towns in the Pioneer Valley is pretty much a mug's game; "official" according to whom? I doubt you'd get any two sources to agree. The Chamber of Commerce's version? A geologist's version? Which towns actually touch the river?  Ravenswing  18:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would include anything in the state of Massachusetts and in the Connecticut River valley, if I was going to bother arguing the point. - Denimadept (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong page

I think you posted on my talk page instead of Pianotm's. Masterhatch (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, no; I figured he'd be more likely to look to see if he had a response on your page. That being said, I've no problem with reposting that to his. I swear, WP:COI shouldn't be a mere guideline, it should be a sacrament.  Ravenswing  17:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

devoicing

I'm curious why you decided (without any discussion) to redirect Devoicing to Final obstruent devoicing. They are not one and the same phenomena, as the example of smack illustrates. I realize the page was not the best, but why redirect it to something that is a subset of devoicing?--Hraefen ^Talk 21:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Veterans

Greetings,

Though Emiliano Mercado Del Toro was older, he was NOT a "combat veteran." Both Todde and Hardy were.

(cur) (last) 13:56, 29 October 2008 Ravenswing (Talk | contribs) (4,250 bytes) (Mercado del Toro definitely has surpassed him.)

Regards Ryoung122 03:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what gives you the right....

Over the last 3 years I have built and maintained the randy burridge page. what give you the right to change my page?????? i will change it back to itts original because the information listed in the previous pages was more accurate & told people the accurate history of theis Bruin Legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clueless Ephemeral SPA (talk • contribs) 14:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed wiki about your vandalisim on my Randy Burridge page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clueless Ephemeral SPA (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On YOUR Randy Burridge page? Sorry, this is Wikipedia's Randy Burridge page, and I strongly suggest you review WP:OWN. Further, on every single edit page the following Wikipedia caution comes up "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly by others, do not submit it." Did you miss that? Wikipedia's rules against putting in personal commentary apply, and you've been repeatedly reverted by several editors. If you want to set up a Burridge fanboy page, I'm sure you can find a webhost for it, but here is not the place to do it.  Ravenswing  17:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sack article

You participated in an AfD Discussion on the article Jack Sack that resulted in that article being deleted. I have done some more research and have found a professional career and other sources and believe that the subject now meets WP:ATHLETE. Because normally articles like this are almost always kept, I decided to be bold and just place the article back where it was with the updates. However, if you still believe that there is a reason to delete this article, we can take it to any discussion forum you prefer.

To be fair, I am notifying everyone who made a comment on the AfD. If you wish to make any comments, it might be best to put them on the article's talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Mack Flenniken who had a professional career with the New York Giants and Chicago Cardinals.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that these fellows played professional football, I see no reason to force this to go through DRV just for the sake of policy.  Ravenswing  04:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WOOPS Typo--it is Jack Sack not Jack Stack. Apologies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it happens.  Ravenswing  14:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Information intensity

I removed the PROD on Information intensity and took the article to AFD. I definitely agree that as a dictionary definition this needs to be scrapped in its current form, but I'm not sure about the neologism, wanted to open this up to community discussion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Per your comment here, I don't really care what his nationality is (and I have been involved in no discussions about it), but I noticed there was already a hidden warning and figured it might have been a contentious issue, which is why I reverted. -- Scorpion^0422 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was playing a joke on my buddy. Wont happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.157.234 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Novia

Hello,

I have noticed that Wikipedia may delete my newly-created page on Novia. Novia was cited as not a real country, however I have some evidence on the contrary. The State of Novia meets all criteria under the Montevideo Convention, and thus should be considered as one. I would suggest that you research the Montevideo Convention and Micronationsbefore taking further consideration of deleting my page. P.S. I like the "user is strait but not narrow" thing.Llamaboy1203 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Llamaboy1203[reply]

As it happens, Wikipedia is a private encyclopedia with proprietary standards for what merits an article; the pertinent ones are WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI and WP:ORG. Since the world has not heard of "Novia," it does not merit an article until such time as that changes.  Ravenswing  05:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After adding a resource, improving the page, and adding a significant amount of information, do you find that the Noiva page is sufficient to stay on Wikipedia? Also did you get a chance to look up Micronations?

Do you have any reliable sources attesting to your made-up "nation's" notability? An article in a mainstream newspaper? A broadcast television interview? To be honest, I ran an imaginary "nation" in a LARP with over a hundred "citizens" and a great deal more in the way of supporting documentation than your creation does, and there's no way Gwenethlin would have qualified for a Wikipedia article either.  Ravenswing  03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB error

Hi.

There might be something wrong with your AWB.

It changed [[Augusta Lynx]] to Augusta Lynx]].

LarRan (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, just something wrong with the criteria I set up. I'm doing a lot of date deprecating, and I had set up [[August = August without leaving a space after the final T.  Ravenswing  14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its not

Its not a matter of a fan boy page. it is stating the fact about one of the best nhl players of the late 1980's 1990's.Many people in boston, Buffalo & washington still talk about this guy today. with you being in Boston.....you would know that. very little in the article was biased. Describing how the guy played halps draw an accurate picture of the playeras wella s the history behnd his nick name.. these are facts that you find on most pages listed in wikipedia. Why is thi s guy any different than Dominik Hasek, wayne gretzky or Peter Worrell? He deserves like these guys to have his story told. none of the info was gossip....or made up it was fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockeymann2399 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he really wasn't one of the "best NHL players" of the era. He was at best a second-liner with a respectable scoring record in the most offensively-minded era in the game's history, his career high in points was only 6th on his own team in scoring that year, and living in Boston, I can attest to the fact that there's no current buzz about Burridge's twenty year old feats. (Come to that, there's not a single hit for him on Google News in all of 2008: [1]) WP:V and WP:NPOV require that any assertion be credited to a reliable, independent, third-party source. No doubt Burridge's story is worth telling, but as far as Wikipedia goes, this encyclopedia can only discuss matters of attributed fact.  Ravenswing  14:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Collage

Dude, I seriously do not want to play this back and forth game with you but that picture you keep putting up isn’t a representation of Bostons skyline and it is called “skyline picture”. It’s like saying Chicagos skyline is the sears tower and the buildings around it. If you for whatever reason despite the collage picture so much then put up a picture that shows Boston’s complete skyline or create your own. Or participate in the debate to create one that everyone can agree on and I have no serious love for the collage but at least it shows a lot more of Boston than the esplanade does which is the entire purpose of the picture. (Tyork (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Lets come to an agreement

Let’s stop changing the picture until everyone can agree. The collage was up first so the mature thing is to debate, critique and come to an agreement on which picture to have up vs. putting up your favorite picture of Boston. I hope you understand. (Tyork (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have been participating in the debate; what I have not done is bring in sock/meatpuppets to create the pretense that there is any more than one editor backing this collage, or edit warring to keep it on the site.  Ravenswing  18:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod - Work-leisure dichotomy

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Work-leisure dichotomy, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --Sum (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the person I wrote this article about with their common name (Greg) and Oklahoma on MSN and found two hits from the Daily Oklahoman. He may not be famous to you (but then again you may not know many people from Southeastern Oklahoma), but mention his name in Southeastern Oklahoma and they will know him. As for whether or not he needs to be on this website, I seriously doubt it, but why can't we give some recognition to people that seldomly receive it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Localgroceryboy (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wikipedia is not a webhost. It is an encyclopedia, and people qualify for articles by passing certain standards, including WP:V, WP:N and WP:BIO.  Ravenswing  21:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans

I don't think you quite understand - Kästner was a German by ethnicity and nationality; Künstler was a German by ethnicity and a Hungarian by nationality; Bischof was a German by ethnicity and an Austrian by nationality. They are all different nationalities, but all the same ethnicity, just as an Irishman and an Irish-American are the same ethnicity but different nationalities. The last two were both citizens of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but Austria and Hungary were actually separate countries within the empire. It is therefore perfectly sensible and acceptable to list them both. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it somewhat offensive that you conflate failure to agree with your POV with lack of understanding. We don't list the "Austrian army" and the "Hungarian army" as separate entities; the Austro-Hungarian military was, in the end result, integrated on the battlefield. The fact remains that either you can approach this through ethnicity or through nationality. I note that Kunstler's birthplace is not listed as "Austria," but as "Austria-Hungary," as is the MOS practice. No doubt if Bischof had an article himself he would be listed the same.  Ravenswing  04:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my POV. It's fact. Künstler was a Hungarian; Bischof was an Austrian. The two countries were separate; the two armies were separate. There was a single Imperial and Royal Army, but its regiments were generally composed of only one nationality - and in any case, Künstler actually served in the Honvéd, the separate Hungarian army. Hungary was a separate kingdom with its own king (the fact that he was also the Emperor of Austria is by the by - it was a separate office). Saying they were the same is like saying that the Indians, Canadians and Australians, all British subjects, shouldn't be treated as separate nationalities in the days of the British Empire. Empires are by definition made up of different nationalities, otherwise they wouldn't be empires. Actually, our article on Künstler says "He was born in Sóstó, then Kingdom of Hungary, now Romania." Quite unambiguous. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Hi Ravenswing. FYI, I quoted you here. I like the way it was worded. Best! -- Suntag ☼ 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thanks for the tipoff - I definitely appreciate weighing in on that one.  Ravenswing  00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hand

I don't know where that thing about 3000 games came from, but just edited in a genuine feat you might be interested to hear about - this weekend his scored his 4000th career point, an incredible achievement whatever league you play in. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHA

Ricky Smith... Hockey Hero?... or Hockey God? DMighton (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(smirks) Swear to God, there's an expose book just waiting to be written. Dennis Murphy and Gary Davidson must feel vindicated that there was a WHA out there that made them look like the souls of financial probity and stability.  Ravenswing  06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... I am just glad this clown is out of the big picture for a while... part of me can't believe there ever was a second season. DMighton (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-noms

I've never objected to self-noms when those are the only option. I oppose people who self-nom on RfA because there is another option available. If self-nomming were the only means of getting on RfA, I wouldn't oppose people who did so, as I've explained many times. Please don't presume to know more about my positions than I myself do. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your eternal explanation, which I've seen many times, is that self nomination is evidence of power hunger. I'm quite unmoved by your implication that power hunger is justifiable as long as there's no one else available (or willing) to thrust you into the limelight. If seeking positions of authority = power hunger, then you shouldn't be doing it. In any capacity. Period.  Ravenswing  19:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as I have just explained, that is not my argument. Again, please stop putting words in my mouth and pretending you know my own positions better than I myself do. My position is what I say it is, not what you assume it is. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have said that exactly in numerous afd's that self nom is evidence of power-hunger....exactly what part of what RG said is wrong? -Djsasso (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding, and so often I presume you just cut and paste: "I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger" ... a tagline on so many RfAs I can damn near quote you from memory, about the same way you're paraphrasing Humpty Dumpty, come to that. Speaking of my own position on your stance, I've another quote for you: "Institutionalized hypocrisy is still institutionalized hypocrisy, whether one has the right to engage in it or not--and as long as I don't threaten violence or threaten to get the courts involved, I'm still perfectly justified in calling them out on it and demanding that they change." Oh, now that's ironic. I just quoted you.  Ravenswing  21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what "prima facie" means? It certainly doesn't mean "irrefutable." Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better than you know what "irrefutable" means, it would appear, a word startlingly out of place in this conversation. Now quite possibly your stance is that, well, because it's you seeking a position of power through self-nomination, you're not really power hungry, so everything is okay. In any event, you really shouldn't be taking up any more of your time arguing the point here. Nearly two hundred editors so far have voted to Oppose your candidacy, charging towards a record, and I wouldn't want to keep you from all the other rebuttals you need to write.  Ravenswing  02:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Vios

I am cleaning up the copy vios created by Michael Drew and for the most part I am just stubifying them unless someone else put some major content in. Since I noticed you edited Myles Lane with a chunk of info I thought you might be the best one to clean this one up if you don't mind. I don't want to stubify it and lose all your work. -Djsasso (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do much with it, but I'll take care of it, DJ; I figure if you're cleaning up a bunch of copyvios I can do my part. Thanks for the tipoff.  Ravenswing  20:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown merge

There seem to be simultaneous discussions going on at Talk:Downtown and Talk:Central Activities District on whether or not to merge the two. It all seems pretty poorly managed. Would you like to help out? I'm sure your wit and experience could prove useful if you're up for it. I do love to watch you work your magic. It's a rather edifying experience, haha. --Aepoutre (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, pretty simple. First off, if you Google "Central Activities District," it turns out that damn near every hit is Australian, which strongly suggests it's just official Aussie lingo for "downtown." In a couple days I'll just do a redirect.  Ravenswing  05:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diacritics quarrel

Hi there.

Me and Gene Nygaard are having a dispute over the use of diacritics in the Marián Cisár page. The discussion can be followed on the talkpage.

Could you and Djsasso help us out before things get ugly?

Thanks.

LarRan (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wenham, MA

Thanks for the Downtown input. I hadn't even thought of that. I'm sure that I've become something of a nuisance, but what are your thoughts on User talk:Nyttend#Wenham, as a fellow Mass. resident (or former resident, in my case)? It's no big deal, of course, but I'm curious to see if you think I'm completely "off my rocker", haha. Learning from the "Google 'downtown'" issue earlier: if you Google Wenham MA, you usually come up with Essex County, but if you're already looking at the Plymouth area and then Google Wenham, you get the village in Plymouth County. That's how I originally found it, and then uncovered more info. when I Googled "Wenham Plymouth County". Am I completely mistaken in thinking that coverage of both isn't overdoing it? Either way, I thought that Plimoth made for a poor analogy. --Aepoutre (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thx

http://64.233.183.132/search?q=cache:lmzjdQ9JbzQJ:www.nfbnet.org/pipermail/perform-talk/2008-June/000432.html#

Need some time to compile the entry and present definative sources. Thx for the links. Clubvibe (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as those sources are reliable, as WP:RS requires; print newspaper or magazine articles about the subject, broadcast TV interviews and the like.  Ravenswing  00:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Triple Crown jewels - query

I am looking over the history of Hockey Hall of Fame and Wayne Gretzky, I am not seeing if you made significant contributions to those two articles. Are there two other pieces of featured content that you have made significant contributions towards? Cirt (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err. So far, I've made fifty-eight edits to the HHOF article [2] (2nd leading contributor), forty edits to Fighting in ice hockey (3rd leading contributor), thirty-two edits to the Gretzky article (in the top ten contributors there) [3], twenty-one to the Jacques Plante article (3rd leading contributor), all of which are FAs.  Ravenswing  06:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally with the Triple Crown awards, we like to see expansion of material to an article, which helped it get to Featured Article status, of adding new material to the article(s) sourced to at least 10 new WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 06:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those articles were promoted with fewer than ten sources, period. I stand by my contributions - and am somewhat at a loss to figure how being the second or third most frequent contributor doesn't constitute "major" - but I'm not going to barge onto articles on the verge of promotion and dredge up ten extra sources just because your sole definition of "significant contributions" = "adding ten sources." With all due respect, that's the sort of ticket punching that's far too prevalent on Wikipedia already (cf RfA, for example).  Ravenswing  09:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I had not realized that was the case, my mistake, which two articles are you referring to? Cirt (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Plante and the HHOF article; the HHOF article had fifty-someodd footnotes when promoted, but the vast majority of them were sourced from the HHOF's own website.  Ravenswing  02:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Again my apologies for overlooking that bit, I will take another look into this soon and get back to you. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said

Your oppose on James Forrester was very well said. Geogre (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, coming from you, that's quite a compliment; thank you kindly. Come to that, I could have said more, and would have if it had been a more closely contested candidacy. For one thing, a look at James' monthly edits turned up a number of months with ZERO edits, including one occasion with two in a row. For someone who's pushing his five years on the ArbCom, it doesn't look like he's been terribly active there either. How many more cases could ArbCom have handled, and how many cases they did handle resolve faster, with a good bit less absenteeism on his part? Why should we presume he'd be any more active now?  Ravenswing  21:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial triple crown jewels upon Ravenswing for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Beerhouse Act - a most interesting read on a topic previously not represented with its own article on Wikipedia, a very good usage of DYK - perhaps another good candidate in the future could be Licencing Act 1828 ? May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thank you. Truth be told, I stumbled across the Beerhouse Act in a list of wanted articles, and figured, well, I could take a stab at researching and writing it myself. It seemed to have worked.  Ravenswing  07:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find researching work for writing a new article to be quite enjoyable. Once again, nice work. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buckacre

The article says the group has released two albums with a notable label which is one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. You could argue the verifiability of it, but that's an AFD case. Meeting WP:MUSIC was my sole reason for declining a speedy. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Turner (ice hockey)

I know you are a Boston area hockey fan so I thought maybe your input on this particular afd one way or the other would be beneficial. You probably know alot more about the particular tournament involved than alot of us do. -Djsasso (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I just noticed this a bit too late to put in my two cents worth - it looks like the discussion was closed just minutes ago - but a merger to the Beanpot article makes sense. I've been a faithful follower of the NU Huskies since my college days, and Turner's goal was huge in Huskies' annals, so it'd have been painful to say so, but WP:BLP1E is pretty clear - outside of the 1980 Beanpot tournament, Turner doesn't come remotely close to meeting notability standards, however much the Beanpot is a very big deal for Boston college hockey fans.  Ravenswing  08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

srry

srry ill stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.233.186 (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic College

There's a discussion going on here at Talk:List of colleges and universities in Massachusetts#Holy Cross?. So far, none of us know: 1) the independent or otherwise status of the college from theological school or 2) what to name the article if they are indeed the same organization. If they're truly separate, of course, then that will require separate articles and separate entries in relevant lists and templates. I thought you might be able to contribute, considering your extensive knowledge on Boston-area subjects. --Aepoutre (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Yakoo50.JPG)

Thanks for uploading File:Yakoo50.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template for saving space and maintenance

Hi there.

Is this a good idea, do you think?

Template:2006WOIHMGerCze

Regards, LarRan (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Arneson

HI there,

Just wanted to say Hi, after having passed my recent Request for adminship, and to thank you very much for your help with Dave Arneson's article in the wake of his passing! There are articles on other early designers of the game from the 1970's era that may need work, such as Brian Blume, Mike Carr, Tim Kask, Robert J. Kuntz, and Jim Ward, and many other articles in the D&D game designers category (and its subcategories), if you want to do more work on this important subject.

You may have noticed me saying that I wanted to get Arneson's article up to "Good article" status; I intend to do so as a tribute to Dave. We at the D&D WikiProject have already gotten the following articles promoted to GA: Gary Gygax, Wizards of the Coast, Dragons of Despair, Drizzt Do'Urden, Forgotten Realms, Tomb of Horrors, Dwellers of the Forbidden City, White Plume Mountain, The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Planescape: Torment, Dragonlance, and Against the Giants, and have just nominated Neverwinter Nights 2, so I don't see any reason we can't do the same now with Dave's article now that you and others have helped to improve it greatly.

Any further help you can give on this article would be appreciated! Drop by the project's talk page, where we are discussing our Good Articles, and ask questions or offer assistance. Thanks again! BOZ (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just an update! :) I have nominated the Arnseon article for GA a few days ago. If you're interested, you may wish to place the review page on your watchlist and wait for the review to be picked up. That way you can help out when a reviewer begins to make comments. Thanks again for help in working on this article! BOZ (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It took a while, but the Dave Arneson article is finally up for review. If there's anything you can do or add to give it that last nudge, I think we'll have a "Good Article" in no time. :) BOZ (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:KrautLine.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit?

Hey, you sent me a message "User talk:75.170.173.233" regarding an edit of Dallas Stars back in October 2008. I have never edited a page on Wikipedia. Not one. I'm glad someone's out there looking for people screwing Wikipedia up, but I think you've got the wrong guy.

-Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.173.233 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are ya, RG?

You've been away since April 10 (2009). What's up? GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd AfD of Alcides Moreno

As you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (which ended in no consensus) I thought you might like to know that it has been nominated again. The new discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcides Moreno (2nd nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Like Paralegal would know better

Any chance in keep your libel and slanderous comments off of Gilly's page? Your posts have been logged and could be used in the real near future! Oh yeah... I forgot about IP tracking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryalan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, just out of curiosity, what are you talking about?  Ravenswing  06:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I just tracked down your own edits and found out. You might have taken some trouble to get the right guy. The edits to which you object were not put in by me. Better luck next time.  Ravenswing  06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Burges Salmon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Burges Salmon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burges Salmon. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on diacritics

You are welcome to join the discussion on diacritics here.

Cheers LarRan (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey RG. When you return to Wikipedia, you gonna find some changes on the hockey articles. Diacritically speaking. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be appreciated

Please see my question at Talk:P._J._Axelsson#Name_of_article. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn

Is his year of civility probation up already? He just left me a uncivil, assume no good faith bomb on my talk page [4] Racepacket (talk) 05:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new case has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Racepacket which covers years worth of sockpuppetry and abuse by Racepacket and his sockpuppets to the Dane Rauschenberg article. Any questions that you or Racepacket may have can be addressed there. Alansohn (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the comment above is a good example of wikistalking. Racepacket (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... RGT hasn't been around since April: take it elsewhere. ccwaters (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, yeah, I was on something of an extended Wikibreak. How goes it? And that being said, I just went to take a peek at Alansohn's comment. I swear, some people just never learn. It is quite possible to state things without breaching civility rules, and one would imagine someone who'd been on civility probation would learn how out of self-defense.  Ravenswing  06:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECHL task force

I have been working on many ECHL articles since I joined Wikipedia a few years ago and am in the process of petitioning WikiProject Ice Hockey for a separate ECHL task force. As you are a minor league hockey fan in general and have made many edits and contributions to relevant articles, I felt that you would be qualified to help with the task force. I am asking ten other Wikipedians and am hoping for at least five commitments before I petition the WikiProject. Would you be interested in joining this potential task force? Rik (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Hockey League GAR notice

National Hockey League has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check with you before...

I nominate File:Bourque 7.jpg for speedy deletion as a blatant copyright infringement. You state that you are forty-something which would make you a teenager back in 1981, a teenager with press credential and thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment. Having trouble believing that. Don't take it personally, I like your contributions but I'm very keen on preventing photographers rights from being violated at Wikipedia. Regards. —Krm500 ^(Communicate!) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you freaking kidding me? I was 22 years old in 1981 - that "forty-something" statement, while still barely accurate, was the one I put up on my user page in 2005 - and, as it happens, a staff photographer at Northeastern University's college paper who pulled an internship at the Patriot Ledger, taking pictures with a not particularly expensive camera in the days where hockey rinks didn't have 10' high glass and there were convenient holes in a few spots through which you could aim a lens. You had damn well better have a better basis to challenge people's work than to assume that you need big bucks to afford a zoom lens. I'd be more keen on knowing what I was talking about first.  Ravenswing  10:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would have nominated it at Commons where it's not certain you would have seen that it was considered for deletion. Of the hundreds of small resolution/low file size images related to hockey uploaded here this was one of the first that I wasn't able to track down and that's why I came to your talk page to discuss it. Though I must ask; Why this is the only work you have uploaded, images from that time would be highly valuable to Wikipedia. No hard feelings. —Krm500 ^(Communicate!) 15:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a number, but it isn't as if I've got a heap of 30 year old profile images kicking around; this isn't an art site, and generic action shots aren't particularly article-suitable.  Ravenswing  17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Arbitration role of Jimbo Wales

Hello. I just noticed your oppose at the above. You might find this statement from the wmf interesting reading. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly interesting reading, but the fact remains that the Foundation owns Wikipedia and that any dereliction of governance issues on its behalf is exclusively its choice, and undoubtedly revocable at will.  Ravenswing  20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFC post

Very sorry, because the bold sign pointing out closure (and the pre-existing message to that effect), was not large. I've now enlarged it. In all fairness, I've struck your entry, although I did allow the previous Oppose some 13 hours ago, since it was only just after the deadline and no bolded note was at the top.

If you don't think that's fair, could you take it up with User:Dweller, the uninvolved admin who will close it formally?

Sorry again. Tony (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, if it's closed, it's closed. It should, however, have been struck from the list of RfCs on AfD, if people can no longer comment.  Ravenswing  20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Grant

I moved it back because you redirected it there and copied and pasted it. You should use the move tab at the top. Copy and pasted moves shouldn't be done because they get rid of the edit history. I'm fine with moving it to Danny, just do it this way. RandySavageFTW (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section on it at WT:HOCKEY. RandySavageFTW (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I'm sorry for wasting your time but I had to tell you that I love your user page. I love it because of the points you make. If you wonder if people actually read your rant, I did, and I agreed with every point you made. I also agreed with all of your pet peeves and had a good laugh at a couple of them. It's just refreshing whenever I see a Wikipedian who values common sense and lets others know it through a dash of humor. Oh, by the way, Encarta won't be around much longer. You'll have to find a new non-open source reference site to frown upon. Perhaps Brittanica? Have a nice day, Neil Clancy 16:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, thank you for the kind words; such are never a waste of time. I'm glad you enjoyed it.  Ravenswing  18:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHAMELEONIZE

what type of reliable links or information do you need to consider "Chameleonize" i've seen them live, they are working with some amazing and BIG (if that helps) people on their new record... do you need for real people to come meet you and say 'yes they are a real band' come on?

Leave a comment on their speedy deletion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.163.234 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. What criteria of WP:BAND do they fulfill? Have they had any records certified gold? Have they made a national Billboard chart? Have they been nominated for a Grammy? Are they in current national rotation on the CBC? Etc. Go look at WP:BAND and see if you have any of those answers. Yes, this means that the notability criteria is heavily biased in favor of "name" bands ... and deliberately so.  Ravenswing  00:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol

That makes no difference, as WP:AFD is a discussion and not a vote. DJ 11:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, just the same way it's made no difference in the last hundred AI-related AfDs. Wishful thinking aside, when you have a closing admin say "You know, I don't give a tinker's damn how many people advocate 'Keep' on specious grounds, so we're deleting this puppy anyway" on an Idol finalist, it'll be a first; the notion that Wikipedia doesn't involve v-o-t-i-n-g, in a consensus-driven atmosphere, is by far the largest fantasy of the site.  Ravenswing  12:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.

Thanks for your recent additions to Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.. I was wondering if you could provide cites for the facts you've added. It's not that I doubt their accuracy, but I am hoping to finish expanding the article and nominate it for FA in the near future, so I need them cited appropriately. Thanks. Acdixon ^(talk • contribs • count) 13:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again

Thank you for you advise and suggestions regarding early submarine history beginning at Fore River Shipyard during the Fall of 1904. This is when a man by the name of Lawrence York Spear took over company operations while replacing John P. Holland and Arthur L. Busch in the most assiduous fashion before them. Lt. Spear was reticent over certain crucial events that led to the success of "his company". He took the place of John P. Holland and Arthur L. Busch. The design and performance of submarines began to change at this point (circa 1906) to make them more suited for above surface operation... thus making them slower and less hydrodynamic for surface warfare. His contributions were certainly overstated as he "worked" his way all the way to the top of the company as CEO during WWII and Chairman soon thereafter. This information is offensive to certain groups of individuals for certain reasons that "they" prefer that (this) history forgets the real version of this company's heritage... and just who did what/where/when/how/why etc.

Banned user

Saw this posting on Talk:Fore River Shipyard. You should be aware that the user is banned from Wikipedia as Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so please report any ip addresses or sockpuppet accounts to the usual places. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you have anything to add about the user and your interaction, it may be appropriate here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middim13 -MBK₀₀₄ 05:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, will do. Thanks for the tipoff.  Ravenswing  07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Wolters

Nice cleanup. I've cleaned up some stuff, but obviously, a lot of work was needed. The infobox still needs work - I'll try to attend to it. I did find a cite for one of your two fact tags - failed with the other but will try again.--SPhilbrickT 22:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Bird

You removed the reference to Israeli citizenship. I think she is. I have no problem requiring a cite - I'll start with this, which is short of definitive, but highly suggestive. So you don't have to read the link, the money quote (this is an interview with WNBA.com, not just some random fan): Bird: "Yes, I leave for Israel, where I will spend several days to finalize a process that has been ongoing for some time. I have applied for Israeli citizenship, which makes playing overseas a bit easier. There have been interviews and a lot of paperwork that I had to do, and now I have to go there to finish it up."

This source is more definitive, in that it says she is, not just planning to be, however, I don't know enough about it to know whether it is a wp:rs.--SPhilbrickT 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you find a reliable source stating that she has definitely gained Israeli citizenship, that's of course one thing; I wouldn't consider your second source one. The previous one is a factoid worth mentioning in the article under a Personal Life section, but certainly not a statement of accomplished fact that should go in the infobox.  Ravenswing  09:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everest Academy and High School

You participated in the AfD on this a while back. I've just had to slash it back to a near-stub, because the "article" was mostly promotional language and NPOV violations. Could you help re-build it? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Richard

I recall that I read where Thompson held Richard while he was hit by a Bruin. It was understood that was why he slugged Thompson. But I know I saw it in the movie too, because I was wondering how they would depict it. I am ok with leaving it out for now. Thanks for leaving the rest of the changes in, don't you find it frustrating to be reverted over just a part of what you wrote? I am dealing with that on another article. Alaney2k (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion please...

You asked whether I thought there were sources that addressed the topic in detail. I have responded, at length. The nominator does not accept those references. I am curious whether you accept they provide significant detail. Geo Swan (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that they provide any detail at all beyond that they merely exist. C'mon ... you're not a rookie. You're an experienced editor of longstanding, and it's almost beyond credulity that you consider a line like "The detainee was listed on a document recovered in safehouse raids associated with suspected al Qaida in Karachi" to mean that the source is about any given safehouse or discusses it in any detail whatsoever. This is the sort of argument we've both seen at AfD where the "reliable sources" a fanboy claims for his favorite garage band are nothing more than a one-line "Love Muscle is playing at Paul's Mall on Tuesday and Wednesday at 8 PM" buried in the arts and entertainment section of the local alternative weekly. We properly dismiss such arguments out of hand; why are you making them now? I don't get it.  Ravenswing  20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Still planning on sending those articles to DRV? Ironholds (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; it'll be impossible to overturn a "no consensus" ruling. What I plan to do instead, especially since I'm pretty frosted that garbage articles based on non-substantive sources can just be kept on the strength of a single user's filibustering, is redirect them all to the general safe houses article after a suitable length of time.  Ravenswing  16:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. DGG all but agreed that most of the content in some of the articles was unneeded anyway. It's good to see a user with a rational take on things around AfD, btw; thanks for not folding :). Ironholds (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for the cleanup on Danny Lawson. It's been pretty much me alone expanding this from a stub, so I appreciate the help. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Hockey League (2007–)

Hi, I've been watching you revert-warring with User:Braddaman1 over this article for the past day or so, could you please cool off and discuss it before making further edits?-- SonicAD (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS

Due to the different interpretations of this, I'm wondering if we need to change the wording. Discussion has started here: User talk:Rusty Cashman#NOTNEWS. Fences&Windows 16:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1925 Stanley Cup final

Game two of the 1925 Stanley Cup final was played at Denman Arena in Vancouver, so as to increase attendance and income. I suggest you add this to the hockey project for the 1925 Stanley Cup Final. My source is The Trail of The Stanley Cup Vol.I. I work for another website, so I have abandoned wikipedia. I'm just bringing this up just in case you ever have any desire to be accurate

Incidently, I DID add the two game winning streak Boston had near the end of the 1924-25 season, and my source I added too: The Boston Globe. I wrote to them to research the game with the Canadiens and they sent me an article on it, which has since been sent to a friend. This was the 3-2 win Boston managed over Montreal where Norm Shay scored the winning goal. The Bruins then shut out Hamilton 2-0.Corey Bryant (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing those accents from Quebec Nordiques

Bless you RG, bless you. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's an easy call. The English "Quebec Nordiques" doesn't use diacriticals, period.  Ravenswing  11:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Jerry Toppazzini

On November 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jerry Toppazzini, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the tipoff!  Ravenswing  14:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey Pub nonsense

Razor, this is for you. Get some help. (No, the impostor on Delphi isn't me.)  Ravenswing  14:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese nobility

Hi. I saw your old AfDs, comments and edits for Maltese Nobility. Please take the time to see the reformatted version just in case something's been missed. There's also a new page Foreign titles of nobility in Malta. Have a nice day. Mobile historian (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

Looks like someone's preparing a request for arbitration - [5]. Best, Nancy^talk 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, Nancy. Not that anything like this would even be taken up by ArbCom, but it's always good to know.  Ravenswing  21:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Nazarene College

Yes, I cited an essay that summarizes that activities that have occurred in regards to the issue. Please read it fully. Three different guidelines are involved. The consensus from the recent RfC was this use is not acceptable. If you wish to overturn this consensus, you can do so by submitting a new RfC. In the meantime, until a new consensus forms that permits this usage, the consensus remains that we're not going to do this. I've re-removed the logo as an icon in that infobox. Please do not restore this icon without seeking to create new consensus.

Further, the logo is replicated in the [[Eastern_Nazarene_College#Athletics|"Athletics" section in the article. Replicating it is redundant an unnecessary, and violates WP:NFCC #3a. So, if you require policy to be convinced, there you go.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Maltese Nobility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Manning (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page deletion

Can you please email me a copy of my page that was deleted? I'm unsure of why it was deleted in the first place, but would like to submit a revised version.

The page in question is The Sleepwalkers (music)

Thanks very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr91east (talk • contribs) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't, not being an administrator with access to deleted pages, but the reason the artice was deleted was that there was no assertion of notability and no evidence that the group fulfilled the criteria of WP:MUSIC for the notability of musical groups; I strongly suggest that in any rewrite you gather reliable sources which fulfill WP:RS proving that the group meets one or more of the WP:MUSIC criteria. You can check Wikipedia:Deleted_pages#Access_to_deleted_pages for information.  Ravenswing  06:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: November 2009

I believe you warned the wrong user. :) I didn't make this edit. --User:Woohookitty ^Disamming fool! 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like I accidentally kept some vandalism in when I removed vandalism here. Still though. I didn't add any vandalism to that article. --User:Woohookitty ^Disamming fool! 09:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So. Please remove the notice on my talk page. Pretty please? :) --User:Woohookitty ^Disamming fool! 11:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what prevented you from doing so yourself, but if it's important to you that I be the one to do it ...  Ravenswing  23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that the user remove it. Otherwise it can be seen as encouraging people to remove warnings. --User:Woohookitty ^Disamming fool! 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; that makes good sense. In any event, I had already done so.  Ravenswing  23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its True Allan's Mom dose live there. It is constructive cause its true!!!!! Do some research! lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.163.7.138 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?  Ravenswing  01:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A needful job done well

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Re your efforts in resolving the issues relating to Vassallo5448's contributions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you!  Ravenswing  14:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hope you're doing well ...

Hey Ravenswing,

First I just wanted to say on a personal level, thanks for dropping the line and letting me know I'm missed, even after I've been gone for so long. Basically what happened with me was, as you could see by looking at my contributions, my activity level dropped off in February 08 for good purpose... I went and spent four months in Ethiopia, and upon return editing just fell on the priority chart... I'm now in second year university, so I definitely do not have time for editing anymore. That's life. However, I am still around, I still am on Wikipedia all the time and leave myself logged on... so if there ever is some idiocy going on discussion boards that needs to be addressed, I'm more than happy to jump in. But yes, I hope you are doing well as well, I see you are still plugging away at the same pace you always were, and for that sir, I applaud you. I always did admire your realism in discussions, as well as your general hockey knowledge. Keep up the good work! Croat Canuck Talk 05:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I took a Wikibreak myself ... went from 2000 edits a month to zero. Sometimes you just need to step away! But I thank you for your kind words, as always, and it's good to hear you're doing well!  Ravenswing  09:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Remove American Girl in Italy Article?

You obviously have no interest or knowledge of photography. Please look at similar samples like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migrant_Mother where entire articles are devoted to photography that is considered significant. What sort of a mafia are you running here Dear Sir? that you should unceremoniously and without much elaboration conclude that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Girl_in_Italy does not need a page of its own? I am disappointed not just in you but wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atharshiraz (talk • contribs) 06:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've only a handful of edits, I strongly suggest you read through the links of WP:PILLAR, as well as WP:CREATE, which describes in detail the whys and wherefores of article creation. In this particular case, there is no need for a separate article for a photograph when the article on its photographer is so scanty; the information is better summarized in that article. As far as our ability to make that decision - quite aside from that you should also review WP:CIVIL for a better understanding on our civility policies - every time you create or edit an article the following statement appears: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Every editor has the privilege of making such decisions, and such decisions are based in Wikipedia policy and guideline ... not in knowledge of photography.  Ravenswing  07:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the policies and I don't think it is warranted here. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl_(photo) and the photographer's scant bio barely a paragraph more. It can happen that the bio of the author is not as extensive as the comment description and attention that is deserved by her art. That is common sense and policy should be dictated by the needs of the reader community and the content not just imagined policy for the sake of policy. If you really cared for wikipedia you would not have completely wiped out the entire article but would have included it in the author's page. But you didn't . You decided to hide behind policy nuances and minutae and legalese to censor! THAT is one of the reasons I have not done many edits though I read wikipedia daily and I deplore the propaganda circulated by the so called "RC patrol". All you did care about is to remove the little information that was available on a seminal photograph and redirected it to the author's page thereby making it impossible for someone to find out more about the artwork itself! That is egregious and subtle censorship that is precisely why wikipedia should exist . However it seems that with ops and editors like yourself I am beginning to see that its just a means of forwarding a certain kind of knowledge approved by the editors like yourself. I have been around wikipedia long enough to observe this outrageous behavior and I think its deplorable and heralds an end to such kind. Also its unchristian but when did some ever care about such moral issues? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.221.107 (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should pick as an example to buttress your POV an article that is largely a bio of the subject of the photograph; obviously the situations aren't comparable, although you might take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to your general point. Just as funny you should harp on the premise that you're being "censored," when nothing prevents you from including this information under Orkin's article. As to the rest of your screed, if you don't feel like familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that's your choice, but it's to the point where I'll remind you of the header on my talk page, which you've apparently overlooked: "I am disinterested in rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym." Kindly stop spamming my talk page with your incivilities.  Ravenswing  10:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so?

I don't see how the abuse of a sock means that removing a valid link, completely in context, is justified. Sort out the sock - the information itself is unbiased, it's agenda that warps these things. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would presume the link was "valid." In fact, it's all original research by the sockpuppet's owner, without any corroboration or third-party fact checking by reliable sources or recognized genealogical authorities. The site owner has no cites on Google Scholar, no publications of his own out there and no evidence that he is considered an authentic authority on the subject. The barrage of insults, legal threats, user page vandalism and incivilities when asked what such corroboration he could provide led to the original indef block. That being said, for further information on Wikipedia's linking policy, I strongly suggest you read the WP:EL link I've provided several times already.  Ravenswing  13:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Oops? Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment regarding my ACE candidacy.

I have given some background here. Thanks again! Unomi (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your worries as well. Thanks Secret ^account 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at Nancy's talk page.
Message added 07:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Nancy^talk 07:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please assume good faith.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "As far as Yosh7128's contribution history goes - or, for that matter, yours - it's extraordinarily unlikely that a random new editor would just happen to stumble across this deletion debate as his first experience on Wikipedia, and quite common for friends to be recruited for the purpose. As it happens, there's a policy specifically addressing this which I strongly suggest you review." --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This actually wasn't an attack. It's a statement of fact. It's something that happens all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (shakes his head, laughing) I've contributed over 25,000 edits to this encyclopedia. How about you, UBDF? Oh, right; that would be zero edits in article space.  Ravenswing  19:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcomm Q's

I've just noticed your They're not eligible to vote, but I have a hard time figuring out why questions from anons are something to duck. Ravenswing 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC). If the election rules are "no questions from anons" then I don't see why I should gratuitously break that by answering. However, I have no objection to you "sponsoring" the question by asking it yourself. If you wish to do this, please attempt to resolve the apparent lack of connection between the two parts William M. Connolley (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Fleming

Thanks! I do have to admit that there is still room for improvement for this entry. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol you must be watching my talk page....

Or did you just happen to stumble on the afd itself? Didn't expect to see you show up and agree with me. Though I did know you also think the standards are too loose, so it doesn't surprise me. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, you're on the list of talk pages I watch. I wanted to see for myself what this guy's style's about, because I haven't noticed you being particularly condescending over the years, and there've certainly been issues on which we've disagreed vigorously.  Ravenswing  03:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mostly because of differing viewpoints on whether franchises that move should be split into separate articles or merged into one. Which of course springs out of the Montreal Expos which is the only mlb team that had until recently been split out separately. So him and a few other baseball editors basically accused me and Resolute and a few other hockey editors from trying to push our standards onto them. And you are right we have definitely have disagreed pretty hardcore a few times. But its always pretty respectful of each other and we usually come to an agreement of some sort. -DJSasso (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm ... well, I don't know; one man's "pushing of standards" is another man's attempt to change the consensus. I know the way we handle shifts in hockey franchises differs from how other sports do it, and frankly prefer ours; come to that, there are other encyclopedias that do it that way too.  Ravenswing  08:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, in the end we managed to get some change in the baseball world as the history pages of the New York Giants for example has been split into separate time periods with New York Giants redirecting to the appropriate history page and the San Francisco Giants history section contains a See Also to its appropriate page. While not my preferred method it is a nice change from trying to shove it all onto a single page. It's amazing what new ideas can happen when people come together and discuss rationally. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (people)

I was thinking of including another sports amendment, at least for NHL player articles, concerning diacritics. But, I suppose that would only cause another lenghty fight & likely myself getting blocked, therefore I'll not do so. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus just isn't there.  Ravenswing  23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You have deleted my comments also, and the same rules apply. As you say, things like this can get you blocked and it is just not tolerated. --Thebethseesall (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What I deleted were personal attacks in an AfD discussion, none of them pertinent to that discussion. Removing those are the responsibility of any editor, which you would know if you had a better understanding of how AfD in particular, and Wikipedia generally, works. You've been urged several times now to review the information available at certain links so you can get a handle on these things. Please do so.  Ravenswing  21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, and I too was deleting a personal attack as you were calling me a vandal.--Thebethseesall (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Which, in point of fact, you were: replacing someone's user page with "Bitch" is vandalism, quite aside from that it's rude and unacceptable behavior here. To quote from the relevant policy, "The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence." We have every right to point out violations of Wikipedia policy, and the responsibility to do so.  Ravenswing  22:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And one postscript: I just noticed that you were monkeying with what I chose to delete here. That is another violation you've committed in a string of them, including misusing of warning templates. You'll notice that no one's prevented you from deleting out the various warnings you've received on your talk page; in doing so, you're considered to have been warned nonetheless, and aside from that, it's your privilege to refactor comments on your own talk page for anything except block templates issued by administrators. Alter mine or any other user page in the future and you will be blocked.  Ravenswing  22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Lucic

Hey RG, I've undone your changes to the Milan Lucic redirects and such. Not because of being right or wrong (I assume you're right), but because of doing it that way, you lose all the history. The page should be moved instead. However, you'll need to do a Speedy Redirect first to get the existing "Milan Lucic" record deleted first. I know it's a couple more steps, but the Lucic article has a long history and it should be preserved. Thanks! Greg Salter (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you could also do a merge, that might be workable too. Greg Salter (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first, I'm not an admin, and I don't have that ability. Second, the history hasn't been "lost;" it still exists on the redirect pages. I'll redo the redirect, and if you're an admin I'm sure you can make the switch the way you want.  Ravenswing  15:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, good sir!  Ravenswing  17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DJ. RG, just FYI for the future, you don't have to be an admin. You can even ask others to do it if you want. But having the history on the redirect page doesn't work because people won't know it's redirected and won't see it. But, we're all good now. Greg Salter (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for getting that article title fixed. I thought about getting it moved (in the past) myself, but do to my damaged reputation, I didn't risk it. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a bit less outspoken against diacriticals (hell, my RfA was sabotaged because the diacritical warriors canvassed against me) than you are, but I see no reason not to chop down overreach by the fanatics. No reason not to keep on fighting!  Ravenswing  17:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Also An Administrator by Chance

I need up with editing posts I made about the Game Changer. I posted that the book's authenticity was challenged and I included various news sources to back my claim somebody, a user named Acather96, erased them, citing I was "erasing templates." While I did make a few typos, I had edited my mistakes. However, this user still erased the content and used this as an excuse to block my edit. They also threatened me to not republish my content, citing that I would be blocked if I did so. I need an administrator to let this person know that they need to keep their political views to themselves and not interfere with adding neutral information.204.169.161.1 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, no. Looking at your edits, I have no idea what Acather was thinking, and I've restored your edit.  Ravenswing  18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your input

Hi.

Your input on this issue would be appreciated.

Regards

LarRan (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Cliesthenes has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Cliesthenes (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using a warning template to warn you about misuse of a warning template is misuse of warning templates? I'm fascinated as to how. Would you care, in your lenghty experience on Wikipedia, to enlighten me?  Ravenswing  09:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the other poster and I solved the problem and put our issues aside despite me giving him a valid warning about him assuming I was a troll. The other poster saw no need to give me a warning (probably since he saw a legitimate basis for it given his posts attacking me) and moved on and we came to a compromise. After all of this, you--a 3rd party and a bit perturbed by me editing things in a manner you disagree with--post a warning about an previously deleted post on HIS page on a settled valid warning. Given that the situation was settled, the time between the warning being deleted and your post, AND THAT THE PERSON WHOSE TALK PAGE IT WAS SAW NO NEED FOR A WARNING it appears the only valid basis for this was harassment and/or an escalation of the situation. Please do not let your feelings escalate again, and keep in mind that placing unnecessary warnings on a user's talk page can be a form of wiki-harassment and wiki-stalking--which is a topic I take very seriously. Whatever our differences, we are both here to better Wikipedia. Let’s do so. I now consider this topic closed, unless you act to escalate the situation again. In the words of DJsasso, don't template the regulars. Peace out. Cliesthenes (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you become a regular, then that might apply - over the 42 months you've been registered on Wikipedia, you have fewer mainspace edits than I've managed in the last week - but it's always more appropriate for a third party to issue a warning than to do so yourself. As far as anything else goes, you're very quick to claim "harassment" and "stalking," as well as assuming what other people are thinking and planning, and if you're as concerned about escalation as you claim, ratcheting in your provocative and insulting edit summaries would be a good start. Perhaps you should stick to parsing your own motives, rather than ascribe them to others.  Ravenswing  14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have your opinion, and I have mine. However, my opinion does not involve stepping into a settled dispute and attempting to re-escalate the situation. I believe the real issue is that you are angered that I reverted an edit of yours and have met every condition you have requested to keep my edit in the article. THIS is why you have warned me, not my warning on another user’s page that went undisputed by him. Maybe you want to disagree, that is your right. Please do so, however, I now consider this point moot. I have told you my view and, as a person that is trying to show he is acting in good faith, should respect it and move on. You can think I don't have much experience here, but that is no reason to be disrespectful. Meanwhile, I can think you have too much experience and are too closely tied to the article thus are unwilling to look at a view contrary to your personal edits. Neither is any basis to patently reject an edit. I am willing to work with you, are you willing to work with me? Now that this issue is cleared up, back to the edits. The edition of the fact that the Wings are not a continuation of the Victoria team needs to be added. It is a valid addition that survived in the article since at least December of 2006 (until your edit). This alone takes away the assertion that it is completely nonsensical since there were several thousand edits between its addition and its subtraction, we can assume a good percentage of those editors saw the addition and thought it important enough to allow it to stay. (So you are aware, yes, I realize older additions can be changed, I merely point out that this fact takes away from your argument). This fact also clarifies an inherent ambiguity of why a Stanley Cup from a team the Wings purchased is not counted. Essentially, it explains the state of franchises of the era, which is directly in contrast of modern practices of purchasing an entire team, and a movement being considered a continuation of a franchise (For example, Colorado, and Phoenix). You may see it as rudimentary, others, particularly the non-sports minded for which this article is written for, may not. Either way, it is a valid addition. What can we compromise on with this last point so everyone walks away happy? I believe that you are more offended by me questioning your edits than the edit itself. As evidence of this, you personally moved the exact phrase that you now assert is nonsensical to the History of the Detroit Red Wings article. In my mind, if it really was nonsensical, you would have removed it between then and now. I think you can agree that this perspective is at least reasonable, even if you may believe it to not be the case. So what can we do to solve this problem without you throwing warnings on my page or talking down to me? Cliesthenes (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Guys lets keep it on the topic at hand. It was a little silly to template me, but no harm done. Lets talk about hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of moving this along, I agree. Cliesthenes (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Playoff Streak changes

Hi, Just wondering why you made the changes you did on the NHL Playoff streak page. My concerns are : 1. The 'active' streaks always come before the 'all-time' streaks. This is similar to all the other playoff streaks/droughts pages for the major league sports. The way you have it now doesn't make sense since you are mixing up the current streaks with the all-time streaks. 2. I don't know why you removed the Canadiens' anecdote. Although I hate the Montreal team, I have to respect what they have achieved. Please see the discussion page for arguments for including the footnote on that page.

Thanks, Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Peebles (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I wasn't intending to be snide w/my query (hope it didn't come off that way). I had actually thought they all mentioned it by name. No need to respond -- just wanted to clear the air w/you directly, in the event it was cloudy.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, you weren't snide at all; no worries.  Ravenswing  17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Board wargaming

It would be helpful if you could discuss the issues you see with the article as suggested by the template you put on it. I know it needs more referencing (though I don't know of any 'missing' citations), and if I was aware of any other problems, they wouldn't be there. --Rindis (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steward Elections

Haha saw your oppose on Razorflame and had to laugh. I have had to deal with him over and over and over against on simple.wiki. The 12 failed Rfas there are just the tip of the iceberg. We were counting up all his failed Rfa's across multiple WMF wikis and lost count once we passed 20. But we believe its around 30. He is a bit of an addict. -DJSasso (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Cheevers

I see you reverted my edit in the article. Sorry if I jumped too soon on it without checking to see if it was notable. There have been a number of problems recently with the editor who inserted the nickname, and I guess I figured it was just another one of them. I have to ask a quick question, is the lead sentence the appropiate place for nicknames? I read where the lead sentence is supposed to be a persons full name, not the actual name of the article, but there is no mention of nicknames there. Is a nickname considered part of persons full name? To me, nicknames in the lead sentence take away from the article, and would be better served being stated in the paragraph rather than the full name, but as I said, I can't find anything in the policy that mentions the proper use of nicknames. Once again, sorry you had to revert my edit. 142.68.235.244 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, quite alright; these things happen in blanket reversions, and heaven knows that Marc needs to be checked here. As far as how nicknames should be used, there isn't a hard and fast policy, but I can tell you what I've seen in terms of common use. Nicknames so common that the player's typically known by it to the exclusion of his given name (Rocket Richard, Ching Johnson, Cyclone Taylor, Mud Bruneteau) either find their way into the article name or are always in the lead sentence, especially since most readers aren't aware of the players' given names. Nicknames in wide use for the player tend to make it into the lead sentence or the lead paragraph (Johnny Bucyk, Bobby Hull, Yvan Cournoyer, Dave Schultz), and this is where I feel Cheevers belongs. Anything else - especially with nicknames from the late 70s on, when they started to go out of vogue in the press - winds up somewhere in the article.  Ravenswing  06:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that editor

Has a history of this sort of thing under a previous name (User:Pietru = User:Notpietru). See here [6] and most importantly for the rampant "racist" allegations here [7].Bali ultimate (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised; his talk page is chockfull of warnings and "what are you doings," and I see that he's been blocked for edit warring a number of times. That being said, I hope to earn him another one, this time at 3RR.  Ravenswing  10:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright ... I've just filed a 3RR; by my count, he did SIX reverts in the course of a shade over six hours. Of course, we should leave the main article alone until an administrator's had a chance to look things over. After that ... hrm. There's as much reason to have an article on Malta's former nobility as with any other country, but this has been a mess unsourced to any reliable source since Day One. It might be worth redirecting to the main article, with a paragraph there about the Royal Commission and the abolition of titles. It's worth a discussion when things cool down, anyway.  Ravenswing  10:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be aware of WP:ANI#Maltese Nobility, and the present outcome. You seem unconcerned that the editor may be another sock, so I presume you have already satisfied yourself on that score? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He might be; I don't know. It almost passes belief that there'd be yet another Tancarville sock as active as this, however much the coincidence of a reflexively incivil editor obsessed with Maltese aristocracy articles. My inclination is not, given that Pietru has focused heavily on linguistic issues and articles, and has demonstrated facility with several languages, neither of which Tancarville exhibited. Then again, "Mobile historian" started out low and slow as well. Ultimately, I leave the decision to chase the possibility down to admins who can call for a checkuser, if they be so inclined.  Ravenswing  15:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia & French Wikipedia

Wowsers, when I saw what wasn't added to all the NHL team articles' Infoboxes at French Wikipedia? I darn near flipped. GoodDay (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying, the double standards at French Wikipedia & English Wikipedia. EN:WP has to always bend over backwards to satisfy everybody. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, agreed. We're expected to cater to the rest of the world's linguistic prejudices and no one is expected to reciprocate.  Ravenswing  05:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Flyers players at FLC

As a regular editor to pages relating to the NHL and the Flyers, I wonder if you would be interested in commenting on List of Philadelphia Flyers players which is currently a featured list candidate here. Regards, Harrias (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isles 3-D game at Rangers

Did not mean to unedit your edit; was too lazy to retype what you deleted! I searched NHL.com and got their article from the Associated press: http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=521818#&navid=nhl-search Independent? Any way, that tidbit is not significant to the article so I will not bother to edit any info. Cheers!! Raul17 (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasseled

Hi RG! I noticed your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Kassel, so I thought you might be interested in the discussion at User talk:Black Kite. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on quality control policies

As part of a project funded by the European Commission (QLectives), we are collecting and analysing data to study quality control mechanisms and inclusion/deletion policies in Wikipedia. According to our records, you participated in a large number of AfD. We are currently soliciting editors with a long record of participation in AfD discussions to send us their feedback via a very informal survey.

The survey takes less than 5 minutes and is available at this URL. Should you have any questions about this project, feel free to get in touch.

Thanks for your help! --DarTar (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurukshetra War

This is regarding your edit [8]; The sentence you removed says If the text is taken as historically accurate ... It doesn't say the war stats in the Mahabharata are part of history; rather conveys the picture of the enormity of the war described in the text. I have re-inserted the text with a small tweak (If the text were historically accurate ..). Hope you agree. Rgs Arjun^codename024 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, I'm afraid, and have discussed my reasoning at the battle's talk page.  Ravenswing  12:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HoFs

For what its worth I do see your point, but I also see the other side. It might be better to bring the topic up at the project page and then if people decide to make another change to then move the new wording to nsports like we did with this revamp. Most of the hockey project isn't watching that page I would guess, so you are apt to get better input at the hockey project. The nsports talkpage has mostly been people who aren't sports editors trying scale waaaay back on what we already have. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotcha, and will do.  Ravenswing  15:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Moria

You added the line "he is the last Nighthawk active in professional hockey"([9]) to the Steve Moria article. However, you didn't seem to offer a citation to verify this "fact". I see that you are a very experienced editor with 25,867 edits under your belt, and as such; I'm sure that you would be more than happy to help the article by adding an appropriate reference. I look forward to your future input. •• Fly by Night (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Philadelphia" Maroons

Seems to me that the Whalers' situation in 1979 wasn't comparable--at least they had the promise of an arena that was big enough for an NHL team. The Maroons didn't have that when Peto tried to move them to Philadelphia. Blueboy96 05:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the point; the point being that the notion an arena seventy years ago might or might not have been big enough for a NHL team's a subjective one ... heck, only a dozen years before, the Bruins were playing in an arena that didn't have that many seats. I'd want some inline cites, and more than one, giving that opinion.  Ravenswing  15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request you are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7  09:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Francis Trade Citation

How come this was not a good citation for the Ron Francis trade? http://www.hartfordwhalers.org/francis_ron.htm

I figured it would be a good citation since this link has copies of articles directly from The Hartford Courant. Should the quote actually say, "However, the Ron Francis trade is generally regarded by Hartford's local media as the primary turning point that eventually led to the Whalers leaving Hartford. Whalerguy1 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You not only need to link directly to any such articles, those articles need to directly buttress your assertion. How many of those articles explicitly state that the Francis trade was the turning point to leaving Hartford?  Ravenswing  12:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth

Do you have a source that says Plymouth is the oldest continually occupied English settlement? Because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_cities_by_year_of_foundation says that Hampton is. --DraconianDebate (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't need a source to trump a claim in a Wikipedia article. Even the Hampton article claims only that the city's history "can be traced" to 1610, not that the municipality was founded then, which it was not ... its own website admits it wasn't incorporated until 1849.  Ravenswing  11:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was incorporated as a town in 1849, that doesn't mean it wasn't still a settlement a long time before that. Wikipedia policy requires all material added to articles to be attributable to a reliable source. Without such a source, the assertion that Plymouth is the oldest continually occupied English settlement does not belong in the article. --DraconianDebate (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean that it WAS a continuously occupied settlement either. By contrast, Plymouth's duration as a continually occupied incorporated municipality, without a moment's break, is undisputed.  Ravenswing  10:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that, however there is still no published research showing that Plymouth is in fact the oldest continually occupied English settlement. Without such research, making such a claim on Wikipedia seems to me to be foolish. --DraconianDebate (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idiotic lists

Is there any way to undelete the 'List of oldest NHL players'?

You offered up a 'delete' vote which was a bad idea - particularly in light of the current issue of the NHL voiding it's longest contract ever for its premier free agent Ilya Kovalchuk on the grounds that he will be too old to complete it.

JustinColton the 'deleter' is on vacation. iMatthew is retired and just about everyone else involved in deleting this page are unreachable except you.

I'd expect you'd get a bazillion hits tonight alone on this page.

Thanks. Ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.242.109.226 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice try, but as it happens, Resolute, Patken, GoodDay, Maxim and Nightshift are all to my certain knowledge active editors as well. Obviously you never saw the list to which that AfD referred, and given how broken it was, I stand by my argument. If you care to research and create a new list that's accurate and sourced, go for it.  Ravenswing  07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Sellwood not notable?

John Sellwood you feel is not notable? It would seem that WikiProject Oregon would disagree with you. As the article state, he is a pioneer settler of Oregon and the founder of the town of Sellwood, Oregon. Lastly the Sellwood Bridge in Portland, Oregon is named for him. Seems pretty notable to Oregonians.BGinOC (talk) 03:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrific. Now all you need do is pass it by WP:BIO, which holds that Selwood must be the subject of published secondary source material which discusses him in significant detail. You wrote that he was a "pioneering settler" of Oregon, but Oregon had local government forty years before that land sale and gained statehood nearly twenty five years before. You claim that he founded this town, but in fact it appears that this land company did, several years after the sale. It's very likely that the bridge is named for the neighborhood to which it leads, which is supported by the fact that "Sellwood Bridge" is the span's official name. Finally, as far as a look through edit histories go, the person pushing forward Rev. Sellwood's case is in fact you, and conflating it to have the backing of the entire Wikiproject is a bit premature.  Ravenswing  04:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]