User talk:Ravenswing/Archive5

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. Also, my ex-wife is a snoopy, obsessed piece of work who might just stumble across this while Googling me, and if so, Lisa, I'm laughing my head off.

Lynn Singer

Greetings: Just wanted to let you know I've posted some thoughts re the Lynn Singer entry, and that I look forward to comparing thoughts with you, as it would appear we differ – I see this sort of thing as a nettlesome area in general for Wikipedia – so, who knows, perhaps a useful insight or two might emerge. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at Jeff G.'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:HOCKEY

Would ya believe, afterall this time, I'm still peeved about the dios being on the birthplace names at the NHL team roster templates? Even though Dj, explained the reasons to me? Oh well, whatcha gonna do. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Helping

Hi. I think you are right about Jeff G. Looking into it, I notice you bite Gomez91. This is a user who appears to be trying very hard to do the right thing, but needs some help, especially with formatting links. Care to try your hand at helping this user? If someone does not help Gomez91 soon, Gomez91 is sure to suffer at the hands of Recent Changes page patrollers. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• You mean that I sent Gomez a warning about repeatedly deleting facts from an article, something I notice he did again today, and was likewise reverted by another editor? He already has a full set of links, I see. That being said, what prevents you from helping Gomez91 yourself? WP:SOFIXIT.  Ravenswing  06:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, because Gomez91 is editing pages on your watchlist, not mine? --64.105.65.28 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're the one who took enough of an interest in matters to go over MY contribution list and find out what I've been saying on other peoples' talk pages. Suggests that you have some spare time, to me.  Ravenswing  18:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback you raised a concern and (I thought) asked for advice. No one can give much useful advice without first looking to see what it is you are concerned about. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

How that would pertain to MY contribution list I can't imagine, but it takes all kinds, I suppose.  Ravenswing  04:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Holík

Alright, I just thought it was an error that had crept in, if that's the project consensus, I'll live with it. Bevo74 (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there..

I was just reading your discussion on Duncan MacPherson, and what Seawaggg had written, which lead me here to see your in the Boston area.. I'm Duncan's brother - and in the small world that we live in, our (2nd) cousin works in the Boston radio market, and used to play for the Bruins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Byers. Anyway, just thought I'd make mention of that.. keep well. Later —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gribbler (talk • contribs) 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Mm, thanks for writing. As it happens, I was a season ticket holder in Springfield and saw your brother play ...  Ravenswing  18:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers Page

What happened to the Hartford Whalers page. Someone made it impossible to edit any section. I do believe the sections on retired numbers and departure from Hartford need to be protected from unregistered users but the whole page is protected from any edits. What happened?Whalerguy1 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Salma Attaulla jan

There no controversy being added but the truth and facts when she has stated on national tv to been have invited to miss pakistan world. we can add the cbc link as well. you cannot keep away from the news.... even if you are her PR. it will be added whether you like it or not. And keep your threats to yourself! --Sonisona 04:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignorant Asshole Who Was Eventually Indeffed (talk • contribs)

• You have a history of personal attacks, a history of incivility and a history of defamatory material on BLP articles for which you've declined to provide sources, as Wikipedia policy rigidly requires. You would be better served in focusing less on your outrage at being warned of behavior that violates Wikipedia rules, in favor of conforming with those rules and thus requiring no warnings.  Ravenswing  14:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

AZW Hawaii discussion thread

Actually AZW did NOT lose their shirts with the AJ Styles appearance. In fact the company has grown ever since getting bigger and better with each shows and in 5 years have attracted stars from Dragon Gate, ROH, TNA and WWE. And the promotion draws more than 100 people to their events at bigger venues. You wikipedia geeks need to know your facts before making assumptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.73.90 (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• And spammers like you ought to know yours. For one thing, where in the hell did you get the impression that this was a topic in which (a) I was interested, (b) I had contributed, or (c) there was even an article on the subject ON Wikipedia? God alone knows what led you to my talk page to pop off, but you can take yourself to someone who knows what you're talking about and might even care. As long as that discussion isn't on Wikipedia, you can be as much of a mouthy jerk as pleases you.  Ravenswing  06:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

Please do not make unhelpful submissions as you did to my talk page. Such submissions are not in accordance with Wikipedia's code of practice. Many thanks. Abjk421 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You removed an AfD template, in violation of deletion policy. This is not the first time you have removed templates without notice or explanation. You were warned for doing so. This is exactly in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and it is certainly not vandalism. What was vandalism was you changing someone's vote in that AfD, turning a "Delete" into a "Keep" and changing the wording. That's a serious violation.  Ravenswing  14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I opened a sock puppet investigation on them all at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewthorpeapps. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dj. We'll see how it spins out.  Ravenswing  14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Orr

I've been working on the Orr article for most of this month. Since you've worked on it quite a bit, I'd like your input on it. Is there anything missing? Anything need to be improved? Etc. I'd like to get the article to GA. user:alaney2k(user talk:alaney2k) 21:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Ice Hockey in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Ice Hockey for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD

Regarding my AfD and your wondering "whether the next act involves prompt public claims of (presumably right wing) censorship": I like the subject's writing and was trying to follow a link, got lost, Googled, and was surprised to find the Wikipedia article. I like radical politics, but I like Wikipedia and its integrity, too, which is why I AfD'd the (vanity) article.

I feared a possible 'retribution' for the AfD and so created an SPA (I've edited just a few Wikipedia articles before, and never before issued an AfD). This may have been wise, and you were right in one regard: after the AfD I promptly received Wiki-talk claiming the subject was "clearly targeted for political reasons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minbbb (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well ... yes, I've taken flak and have had my motives questioned for filing AfDs. But in the end it all rolls off my back. What, in sober truth, can anyone do to me? Get me fired? Anger my wife? Evict my cats? As far as the "clearly targeted" charge, my perpetual answer is "If you genuinely believe that no one can apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines without malicious intent or ulterior motives, I feel sorry for you," or variations thereof. Feel free to steal it! In your shoes, I wouldn't worry.  Ravenswing  17:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Emily Schooley DRV

Just a quick note - I can heartily accept people disagreeing with me. What I am sure you and a lot of other Wikipedians are not a fan of is WP:BATTLEGROUND. Which is why that particular article was put up for deletion, and why there was a backlash of SPAs. That aside, I am working on finding more reliable sources to establish notability and was arguing for such with what evidence collected thus far. If it is not sufficient, so be it. Not going to start edit warring. Bytemeh (talk) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I certainly wasn't accusing you of edit warring; there is, after all, no article in question to examine, and that's not the point of the debate in any event. I stand behind the statements I did make. As far as battlegrounds go, you are yourself the editor most guilty of provoking one, in so far as you're throwing around unwarranted and unproven claims of bias and took the trouble to rebut most of the Endorse voters. For my money, there was a "backlash" of SPAs in the same fashion as we often see at AfD concerning obscure performers; there's a fan page where an angry article creator made a "Those bastards are trying to censor Our Heroine off of Wikipedia! Help stop them!!!!!" post, and a dozen or so fans eagerly storm the ramparts. Almost invariably, the SPAs lack any notion of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and define "notability" to mean "we think she's important." Somewhat farcically, given that their sole focus is in defending the article (and, as to that, the honor of the subject) at all costs, they are unusually quick to claim bias and ascribe sinister motives to the veteran editors who dare oppose them. This is why - quite properly - we tend to discount the opinion of SPAs in AfD debates.  Ravenswing  23:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Which in normal circumstances is completely fair, I agree. However, in my own case, I have been on and off the site as the mood strikes, and avoided joining in the AfD discussion for that reason, as knew would be viewed as an SPA with this name. Same as how I am not going to keep reposting the article, which is what I meant by edit warring, as I see others have tried that tactic. I would not normally be so quick to ascribe bias/hostility, either (and will freely admit my own bias in having enjoyed seeing Emily perform live, which is how I became aware of her), save for that the user who submitted her article for deletion has conflicting stories as to how he found her article, was very quick to make positive changes to articles about Frozen North and made promotional edits for Flips Twisted World. I am trying to avoid WP:POINTy with my own edits but it seems obvious to me that Deepsix66 has a vendetta going, as he has now targeted an event she is involved with. I am happy to agree to disagree and leave the discussion here, if you wish - I have no desire for petty arguments, and can fully admit that my initial involvement in the subject was more emotionally charged than it should be. Just have no tolerance for bullying, is all, and a bit of a white knight complex. Bytemeh (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You have awarded me a 'Copyeditor's Barnstar'

Am I to feel chuffed or rebuffed? Please explain.

Now that you have brought attention to yourself, I must point out that things must centre 'on' not 'around' your hockey.

Sorry, it is a curse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossrat (talk • contribs) 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Either usage is correct in American English. That being said, no insult or rebuff intended; that's a legitimate barnstar!  Ravenswing  22:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Computer bulletin board articles

There is an entire category of articles about bulletin boards, and articles about hacker groups, and even articles about all the meetings the small group of users held, mostly with no references, beyond the two I nominated at AFD. Edison (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. If I was ever to issue Traynor's Law, one of the leading candidates would be "The degree to which a group believes that their impact on the world is worthy of memorializing is in inverse proportion to the sum of its size and genuine notoriety."  Ravenswing  20:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 Karachi plane crash

I know what you mean. I don't know if you've seen his comments at other air crash-related AfDs, but this is what he does. I can't really complain about him being a deletionist—he has every right to be one—I just wish he would be a bit more civil and stop trying to find faults with everyone who disagrees with him. Regards, wackywace 19:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I probably have, over the years; I've certainly had run-ins with him in other debates. And yeah, I'm not one to complain about deletionism myself, because I am one. Part and parcel of being an honest editor, though, is to know when something passes (or doesn't) the rules, whether you like it or not. Hmm ... come to that, I probably would have been less smarmy in that debate if I didn't have a "Geez, here's Mick again, all prepped to be a jackass as usual" moment. 'Tis a pity.  Ravenswing  20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Problem is, now that there are so many editors who everyone has opinions on; so many guidelines, essays and policies; and so many opinions that AfDs are much a debate about editors and policies than they are about the articles. wackywace 20:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Too right. That's why I'm pretty strict about it; when I nominate an article for deletion, I'd better have a solid policy ground in mind, and when I vote on an AfD, it's because there are (or aren't) solid grounds to delete, and I've checked over the article myself.  Ravenswing  21:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Most recent comment....

I know...it amuses me greatly when people claim there is a hockey cabal when there are a number of huge issues the project can't agree on. Or atleast hadn't agreed on in the past. Just because people work well together and often agree on similar issues does not mean we are a cabal. Resolute made an amusing usebox based on that kind of comment when Tony the Tiger was calling the project a Mafia. I think its at User:Resolute/Mafia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hah, I like that better than the vanilla project infobox I'd been sporting. Up it goes!  Ravenswing  16:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Return

Hello, Ravenswing. I hope life is going well for you. I am interested in returning to some part-time editing, but I have been out of the loop for a couple years. Has there any big changes to editing policy, particularly around the Ice Hockey WikiProject, that I should be made aware of? Thanks. Croat Canuck Talk 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, man, long time no hear! I hope life's going well for you ... In any event, the biggest item is that WP:ATHLETE was finally devolved to the various projects, so our notability guideline (WP:NHOCKEY) is now an official Wikipedia guideline. Other than that, I can't think of much ... good to have you back around!  Ravenswing  16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

State National

Very nicely put. I like it. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Why thankew!  Ravenswing  16:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry that I mentioned your post in one of my posts. I got a little upset at the new stupidity. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:Manitoba

I agree, although he just took a cheap shot at calling us arrogant on his talk page, but I'll just let that go. Unless he reverts it back, we have nothing to worry about. Nations United (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Pretty much. It's a complete giggle fit seeing someone who Just Knows He's Right And Everyone Else In The World Is Wrong having the stones to call anyone else "arrogant," but self-righteousness is never in short supply on Wikipedia. As long as he doesn't try to sneak in his edits against unanimous consensus, he can declare moral victory as strongly as he needs.  Ravenswing  04:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion on Plane Crash Afd.

Hi, unfortunately another plane crashed yesterday in Karachi, and the article was nominated for deletion, your input in the previous discussion was considerable(2010 Karachi plane crash), I appreciate it if you could devote your time to the current discussion. Please review this event here and the afd discussion here Taqi Haider (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi

I asked the administrator who closed the {{afd}} for their opinion as to whether I had committed an "impropriety" by creating a redirect when the article was deleted.

I saw your note about "rants". This is not a "rant".

We have an obligation to inform other contributors when we have discussed their contributions.

I didn't mention you by name, but the admin can easily determine who you are by following the link I offered them.

So I am letting you know. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, I agree your response here isn't a rant; what that big honking header is there for is to discourage - or attempt to do so, anyway - the "How dare you nominate my article for deletion, don't you know that this is the most important walk-on extra actor in the history of Western civilization, you toad?" or the "How dare you warn me for vandalizing user pages with obscenities?" responses. Thanks for the tipoff to your talk with the admin; you can certainly feel free to use my name in any other such discussions.  Ravenswing  17:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"bizarre debate"

I did suggest early on that this is one person, and still think so. Were you involved in the Bishop Ralph case (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Seiwert-Fleige for Part 1)? We had that there - with four different language Wikipedias involved ultimately, and an apparently hacked account. There was more differentiation between the socks there, though. (I was getting quite fond of one of them...) This one is very similar style in most of the suspect posts and I think he's either playing for the sympathy vote (without realising that doesn't work on Wikipedia) or totally off his head. (Could be both...) Peridon (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I wasn't, no, but I've seen similar cases, if not on this eye-popping scale. As far as playing on the sympathy vote, I don't think that - there's just way too much verbiage for that. IMHO, he's either a complete nutcase or a seriously bored, pathetic fellow. I suppose it doesn't much matter either way.  Ravenswing  13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Bobby ORR GA review

If you want to see a hard, nit-picky review for a GA, see Talk:Bobby Orr. Is he punishing me for the Hockey project not going his way on navboxes? :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't put it past him, on the bright side might mean you could go for FA on the article quicker. -DJSasso (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I swear, you are stalking me... ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Says the guy who keeps coming to me for help. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Silly fellow, he's stalking ME. (ducks)  Ravenswing  21:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually in reading the article over, I would go straight to FA with it whenever he is done. It's already past GA in my view, and if its not FA already its right on the edge. -DJSasso (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it past him at all; I've seen vindictive behavior out of him before. I'm going over that review and taking issue with some points.  Ravenswing  18:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Help would be appreciated, but I was only joking about the navboxes. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at Talk:List of surviving veterans of World War I.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Marcus Qwertyus 16:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

National Yiddish Book Center Clean Up

Hi, I was cleaning up the National Yiddish Book Center page and I noticed you had written the following a year ago:

further, the relevance of the original second paragraph to this section was unstated. Charity Navigator does NOT report the Center as "poor," but as "needs improvement."

According to the original link provided in the citation (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7542) Charity Navigator currently gives the overall organizational rank one star, or poor, and rated the organizational efficiency with zero starts, or "Exceptionally Poor: Performs far below industry standards and below nearly all charities in its Cause (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=484#15). I assume this wasn't the case when you removed this section, but it seems questionable to remove what strikes me as a legitimate source according to the NPOV policy. Is there another reason for its removal? Guldenberg (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Other than that the link didn't support the assertions of the paragraph? I can't imagine what other reason would be necessary. Of course, what Charity Navigator reported over a year ago and what it does today may well differ.  Ravenswing  17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I was just responding to the user who complained that criticism of mismanagement as evidenced by a charity assessment organization was removed last year for the organization's promotional purposes. If you removed it because the website had changed its rating, but now that it has changed back (or, from what I can tell, gotten worse) should it be reinserted in the criticism section? My sense was that the link was originally included to back up assertions of poor organizational efficiency, which seem legitimate.Guldenberg (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• If that's what Charity Navigator is reporting now, whether the assertion was inaccurate last year, it would seem to be accurate now. I see no reason to object to the paragraph being restored.  Ravenswing  19:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

NHOCKEY discussion

Since I believe you were the original author of this sentence, you might be interested in this discussion to help clarify it. -DJSasso (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Hi. As you've previously been involved in discussions concerning MickMacNee, I'm notifying you that a Request for Comment regarding MickMacNee has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 11:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again. The following might be in your interest: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MickMacNee#Response to RGTrainer. HeyMid (contribs) 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do restaurant reviews count as "significant coverage" of the reviewed restaurants?

FYI, I started a thread on this question at the Notability guidelines.  --Lambiam 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Ravenswing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— HeyMid (contribs) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

help

hi can u help me with my page please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy404 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I certainly can. Which page would you like me to review?  Ravenswing  23:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Clarence Campbell

Howdy RG. Sooo, that's where ya got that quote, that you used at Mick's RfC/U. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's actually what tipped me off that the quote was ripped out of the article, ironically enough. The quote had come to my mind, and I was going over to cut and paste it. I keep an eye on that article, which has been editorialized a good bit, but Maxim's not normally one of the editors whose work I scrutinize.  Ravenswing  04:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Atleast he's no longer objecting to inclusion on copy-right grounds. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Err spoke too soon. Anyways, I'll sit back & let others weigh in there (Riot article), as copy-right stuff is a tad over my head. GoodDay (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding CJEnviromental socks

You've expressed interest in having user:CPerked & user:SharedPlanetType checked for sockpuppetry. I would like to add User:AkankshaG to that list as possible master. Do you agree? Phearson (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't hurt to check.  Ravenswing  18:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:Mind doing it for me? I don't wish to come off as someone on a witch hunt. Phearson (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, a ANI has began Phearson (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Epass (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

War of the ёὂ's

And thank goodness for that....lost far too many editors because of those discussions. :P -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. What's my standard advice about consensus? That sometimes you're on the losing side of it, and if you are, lose gracefully and move on.  Ravenswing  18:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't so blatant I don't think anyone would mind...but he put up that second Afd after there were already 5 keeps on the first one...clearly he knew consensus was against him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I just think the guy's got a complete tin ear. Doesn't really get it when people disagree with him, doesn't really get consensus. He's far from alone on WP, that's for sure.  Ravenswing  18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No he certainly is not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Heh. Can I trade it in for a good cup of tea? (grins)  Ravenswing  16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits by Ravenswing (talk) to last version by Gene93k

What happened here? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• As my edit summary said; Gene had listed the AfD twice, so I removed one of them.  Ravenswing  00:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Leading goalies ranking

Thanks for the feedback, I missed the style guide info on appropriate flag use. For future reference, what is consensus criteria for ranking NHL goalies? Most tables I see are using GAA, but I find this problematic because I haven't found criteria that states the minimum required number of games played during the season. Wins would be a better candidate in my opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubilium (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wins are a poor candidate; Dominick Hasek won six Vezina Trophies with a relatively mediocre team. Goals against is the historically acceptable standard, for which for most of the league's post-WWII history a minimum of 25 was the official NHL standard.  Ravenswing  15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Cheers! GAA it is then, I will use it going forward, and amend my earlier contributions accordingly.

Jubilium (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Plymouth, Mass

[I'm a complete asshole, which is why you don't even want to bother with my unredacted comments in an archive.] DigbyDalton (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• The "joke" here is in the various Virginia settlements pretending that they have had continual - "continual" being the key word - settlements with unbroken municipal governments in all that time, which is of course not correct. No one disputes that Virginia, as a colony, had Englishmen before Plymouth Colony did, and the pertinent articles do not claim otherwise, but that has nothing to do with the statement in question. In any event, if you want to overturn a reliable source making a statement of fact, you'd better come back with significantly more than a tourism website for a source, and you'd better come back with better than that a settlement was later incorporated into a town founded much later (and which in fact relocated across a river).

  Beyond that, though, I believe I expressed my disinterest in parochial soapboxing at the top of this page. Those editors wishing to discuss how to improve articles are welcome. Those looking to pick fights, not so much. Find some other place for your rhetorical spins, would you please?  Ravenswing  04:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

old news...

Inre this diff. While certainly Wikipedia grants that those you listed are significant without argument, WP:ANYBIO does not require "notable"... it that it simply states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"... and to meet that requirement of being "well-known and significant", we would then look to the GNG toward such awards to see if any award might be determinable as "well-known and significant", and through significant and enfuring coverage and sourcability of the DVD Exclusive Awards,[1][2][3] they appear to be suitably "well-known and significant", even if only to their industry. Just saying. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't agree with your premise that because you can find Google hits for a particular award it therefore means that a particular industry considers that award to be "well-known and significant." That's the kind of award creep that's bedeviling the hockey project now. Y'see, when I drafted the notability criteria in use now, I put in the line "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) ..." thinking - somewhat foolishly - that people would understand that "major award" would have to be on a par with those other honors mentioned: a MVP award, best defenseman, playoff MVP, that sort of thing. No, not a chance, because now people are hotly arguing that ANY award issued by a league must be "major," and so we're getting arguments of presumptive notability rotating around Rookie of the Month and Unsung Hero citations. I stand by my characterizations of what awards consensus seems to find important in the film industry - Academy Awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, BAFTAs, Golden Palms - and don't feel that we should find EVERY award that has an active publicity committee pushing it notable for that reason alone.  Ravenswing  04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Orr

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Bobby Orr article. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why thank you!  Ravenswing  02:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Matt Puempel

Hello. Someone else edited out the proposed deletion of Matt Puempel's page almost immediately after it was posted but I'd like to discuss its notability. It has now been posted on Talk: Matt Puempel. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

made me laugh

Should really be more careful... i have known a few to WP:HOUND one's AFD noms if you piss off ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, it's not as if the DreamFocuses and Col Wardens of the world don't reflexively haunt AfD anyway, voting Keep on anything and everything regardless of the merits.  Ravenswing  17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Afd debate on Daniel Ra

Wow, good thing you're a deviantArt expert. You squashed Daniel's claims of "notability" quickly and with sound reasoning. I am willing to be he never thought someone with knowledge of dA would ever find his AfD. He needs to wake up and realize that he's no special rose in between the sidewalk cracks. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say I'm an "expert" at dA, but I've been there for several years and know the score. Daniel's certainly attracted a little bit attention over there - 20,000 page views and a hundred-plus favs on pictures he's had up for a couple years is more than a mere lurker gets - but it's nowhere remotely close to what the name artists get. No ... it looks like Daniel's another one of those vigorous self-promoters who hopes that his superficially well-sourced article flies under the radar.  Ravenswing  11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like Daniel knew the writing was on the wall and {{userreq}}'d it. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Hey, I'll give the guy a small bit of credit; most of these self-promoters who get caught out fight a lot longer and nastily.  Ravenswing  15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

Main page: Talk:Wayne Gretzky § What? Gretzky a "Canadian-American"?

There has been an endless edit war for months and months. I have simply removed the nationality from the lead altogether. I realy think per the MOS there is no need to mention his nationally in the lead at all - plus sounds odd hes a retired Canadian? We cant keep edit Waring over this silly point.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Buffalo Sabres

I've started a discussion, per inconsistancy at the HHOF sub-section & Retired numbers sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Quebec Nordiques

Thanks for telling me that. I also removed Wade Belak, since he retired last week. --17px|Talk|link=User talk:Puckingham Puckingham 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Oh Snap!

Hi RG, just FYI, User:Peruvianllama is not the editor who created the page on the band, he just moved an earlier page for the phrase "oh snap", the true creator is User:Lejam (who is no longer active, and this page is his only creation). Robman94 (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL

Ravenswing eh? I was like how did this guy get on my watchlist.... -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. As soon as I get reupped for AWB I'll start renaming sigs, but I was startled enough with a Google search of my name that I felt I needed to get a little more anonymous.  Ravenswing  13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah people forget how wide open you are on the net with google. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I put in a request to change too. How do you get AWB permissions? TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I can give you access. You will just need to download it at WP:AWB I believe it is. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Access granted. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, AWB is pretty easy to use. Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage  Ravenswing  14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit the switching thing would be easier if I hadn't (a) racked up nearly 30,000 edits and (b) been so bloody active on AfD.  Ravenswing  15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thank god I don't have the hockey Afd's I've participated in on my watchlist anymore or you would be spamming me even worse than you already are lol. But its all good. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh. I'm deliberately flagging all the edits as minor ...  Ravenswing  15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Still show up on watchlists unless you change your settings to default to hide minor edits, which I don't so I can catch vandalism. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm back TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, is that you, CC? Funny thing ... we've been "CC" and "RG" for what, seven years now, only to flip on the same day?  Ravenswing  05:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why the moniker change? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Trying to get my real name off the Web as much as is feasible for reasons of privacy; here and RPGnet were the biggest offenders by volume.  Ravenswing  22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Renaming your contributions

Ravenswing, congratulations on your rename and I understand why you want to rename your signatures but my watchlist is flashing red hot with all your changes. Any chance you can run the changes as minor or use a bot to avoid the collateral watchlist notifications? Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be running them as minor. So you would have to hide minor edits to not see them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I AM using minor changes, but I'm using AWB to avoid having a bot do it ... my experience with them is they wreak all manner of calamities. I'd rather deliberately authorize any one change, especially where I'm changing other people's talk pages.  Ravenswing  15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, in that case I'll disable view of minor edits for a few days then. Simple. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I was coming to make the same complaint, but I find it all rather humorous. I don't think I'll ever forget your username after seeing my watchlist fill up with it!  :) Resolute 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this is somewhat disruptive and unnecessary. Why not just redirect User:RGTraynor→User:Ravenswing and User talk:RGTraynor→User talk:Ravenswing and be done with it? Then, if anyone clicks on an old signature, it'll go to your new username. —SW— ^babble 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because he is trying to hide his real name. So it is necessary to change all the signatures. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What DJ said; I can't imagine going through the trouble of a name change just because I liked the sound of another one better. The necessity of it, I believe, is my privilege to decide for myself. As far as "disruption" goes, the vast majority of these edits, so far, has been on archived AfD discussions and the talk pages of anon IPs who've received warnings, pages which I doubt should be on many watchlists.  Ravenswing  05:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And booyah ...

... this is my 30,000th edit. Here we go, Bruins, here we go!  Ravenswing  16:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go is right....Here we go to another first round exit at the hands of the Canadiens. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. I'll remind you of that in a few weeks! (prepares a healthy dish of salted crow)  Ravenswing  16:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am with DJ on this one... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

New Haven - Springfield intercity high speed rail line

You deleted two sentences that were both accurate.

The sentence cited "plans" for the Springfield-New Haven rail, which is accurate --the project has been fully-funded on the Massachusetts side. I see no reason to delete the sentence.

Also, you deleted another sentence about the realignment of the Vermonter. That is scheduled to begin construction this year. Again, I see no reason to delete the sentence.

I will restore the original edits, with the White House .gov as the source JWM83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC).

• Neither statement is, in fact, accurate, and the sources you've proffered to back them up either do not say what you claim they do, or else are outright broken. We are not allowed to infer a statement from a source; we can only report accurately what the source says.  Ravenswing  01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Coyotes

Please elaborate on what I wrote on the Phoenix Coyotes plage that was constituted as "vandalism".

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.115.31 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I rather think that this diff [4] - which is, come to that, nearly a year old now - is all the elaboration that's needed on the issue, thanks. Wikipedia is for statements of fact, not editorializing on why you hate a certain team. If you'd like to become a genuine contributor to the site, I strongly recommend reviewing WP:SOAPBOX and WP:PILLAR for more information.  Ravenswing  05:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

California Seals

Is there any particular reason why you changed my edit on the California Golden Seals page? The franchise originated in the WHL. The club that played in the WHL is the same franchise that entered the NHL. This is no different then the Vancouver Canucks.

When Barry Van Gerbig was awarded an expansion team for the San Francisco market in 1965 (for the 1967/68 season) he purchased the WHL club that year. He wanted to use that club as his expansion team. He decided it would be better to put the team in Oakland because the arena was brand new versus the venerable Cow Palace in San Francisco. This is why he moved the team from San Francisco to Oakland in 1966/67 (and renamed them the California Seals). He wanted to prepare the club for their transfer into the NHL. When he brought the Seals into the NHL the following year as an expansion team he even kept a chunk of the roster intact. This included Charlie Burns, George Swarbrick, Gerry Odrowski, Tom Thurlby, and Ron Harris. Not only is this mentioned in the official NHL publication from 1991 called The Official National Hockey League 75th anniversary commemorative book, but its also noted in Brad Kurtzberg's great book Shorthanded: The Untold Story of the Seals: Hockey's Most Colorful Team. Heck in the 1967/68 NHL pre-season the Seals wore their WHL uniforms. I've seen pictures of them playing against the LA Kings with the WHL uniforms. They unveiled a new design prior to the start of the NHL regular season. So the fact is the franchise originated in 1961 in the WHL. To remove that info is to remove established fact.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mm, looks like you're right; van Gerbig purchased the team in the run up to the expansion just as happened with the Canucks.  Ravenswing  18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, I've restored the info. I gave you the two books mentioned above as evidence to support this. Kurtzberg's book is probably the most indepth tome out there on this franchise.

And you're right about the Canucks. I think it was the Plexicor company (from Minneapolis) that owned the WHL Canucks. When they were granted an NHL expansion franchise they simply brought their WHL franchise into the league via the 1970 expansion.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP Prod

Just noticed your comment about not noticing a prod on a page so you had to take it to Afd. Just thought I would let you know that BLP prods are a bit different, they don't use up the one prod rule, if an article has had a BLP prod it can later have a normal prod as well. The two are considered seperate processes. Just to save you any issue in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ahhh ... thanks for the tip. I think it's more prudent to take such things to AfD - an objection being an objection, IMHO - but it doesn't hurt to have a better grasp on the process.  Ravenswing  13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Removing a BLP prod isn't really an objection because a BLP prod can be removed with a reference that supports a fact but not necessarily notability and isn't really a comment on notability. But I do see you point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

  Noticed you telling someone that they were lazily prodding articles. Just wanted to note I agree most of them do qualify for articles. BLPProds are different that Prods and articles about living people now require a source that sources a specific statement on the article otherwise they get BLP proded. I see you found a bunch of sources for them and put them in your edit comments. However you didn't add them to any of the pages sourcing something so technically someone else can once again come and BLP prod them. Living people now always require an explicit source on the page. They are getting tough on it. While I agree good faith would have the prodder do a search for sources, it was specifically set up to put the onus on the person creating the article so that people wouldn't have to waste time researching poorly written stubs and the like. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, I know they get to prod them, and I know that BLP articles have to have sources. It just pisses me off when idiots use ANY form of deletion policy on ANYthing - that isn't an obvious CSD - without the slightest attempt at verification. Period. This isn't even a matter of good faith so much as it's one of common decency on this encyclopedia.  Ravenswing  22:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

  Speaking of, I did see that you worked to add a source to several of the latest batch of sub-stubs Dolovis created. I just wanted to let you know that I deleted them per IAR as the creation of dozens, if not hundreds, of such articles by this user is detrimental to the project. Even so, it was important to me to acknowledge your effort. Cheers, Resolute 00:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Err ... what makes them detrimental? They're not any more objectionable than the many stubs put together by completionists of (say) everyone who's played more than one NHL game.  Ravenswing  03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  The problem in this case is that they aren't even stubs. These single sentence copies of the roster list offer almost no context, are orphaned, and likely will be forever, and in many cases, there simply isn't enough source material online to actually create a biographical article per WP:N and WP:V. What's worse, he's created dozens, if not hundreds of similar sub-stub articles of marginally notable hockey players that are unwatched and unexpandable. This is a pattern that simply was not going to stop if people continued to politely ask him to create something more substantive. Believe me, I hate stepping over people to take admin actions like this and it is my hope that Dolovis will put more care and effort into the creation of his articles, or if he likes, create a list article of rosters for the tournament. But I do not feel that his current pattern was benefiting Wikipedia. Resolute 05:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  The question is, is he required to create full-scale articles? I don't precisely hold to the completionists' POV, and I certainly don't think that nonsense articles for the sake of A 2010 Winter Olympic Article For Every Country In The IOC or An Article For Every Bridge Crossing the Connecticut River - things I've fought at AfD - but there's a point being lost in the cloud of our distate for Dolovis' antics and lack of communication skills: he has every right to do what he's doing. Were I to create a stub article on one of the scrub minor leaguers who manned the USA World Championship team this year, you would never dream of deleting it, and I'd fight doing so with a vengeance. Whether or not I intended to work on bringing the article up from stubhood would be irrelevant - anyone claiming that the intent of the creator was a valid ground to delete would be laughed off of AfD. Our inclusion criteria plainly states that playing for one's country in senior international competition suffices for presumptive notability. Period.

  Would these articles be difficult to source? Probably. Would it require some effort? Almost surely. Is Dolovis going to do that? I don't think any of us expect it. Is it necessary for him to do so? Not according to the relevant policies and guidelines. Seriously ... I implore you to restore those articles, because I think you may have been swayed by your feelings about Dolovis - any other regular, it wouldn't have occurred to you or any other regular hockey admin.  Ravenswing  05:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

  Technically the policies do now require him to do the sourcing. As mentioned above the new BLP policy requires article creators to do more than just create a single line stub. They have to source a specific statement made in the article with a reliable source otherwise the articles are valid to be deleted without discussion via BLPprod. Other admins outside the hockey area have also warned him about this in the past so Resolute isn't the only admin who has told him about this. That being said things would be alot better for both sides if he would just put in two seconds of work and actually put a source on his articles and not expect others to do the work for him. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"Presumptive notability" is exactly it. We presume notability, but we can't hold to that presumption if it doesn't mete out in reality. I actually checked several of the entries prior to deletion, and in most of those cases, there is nothing that would pass WP:RS, and therefore the general notability guideline. For most of these latest articles, and indeed, the majority of the articles he's created, it is impossible to write an actual BLP article. I do respect what you are saying, but after seeing yet another editor politely ask Dolovis to put more effort into his creations, only to be met with threats on his talk page, I spent some time thinking of how best to deal with both problems. Deletion is an inelegant solution, but seemed the best way forward. I will happily undelete if he, or anyone, is willing to put effort into expanding to a viable stub, but IMNSHO, these one sentence regurgitations of a stat sheet needs to stop. Resolute 14:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dunford at Qunicy

I didn't see that in any of the refs, but I might have missed it. Where did you get that info from? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Article in the Quincy Sun three weeks ago (which would be the April 28th issue); Dunford gave a speech in Quincy at a memorial honoring Josiah Quincy II at his gravesite, where it was mentioned that he'd grown up in Quincy and graduated from high school here.  Ravenswing  01:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Parise

That would probably be the thing to do. I must admit, it really isn't a huge aggravation for me yet, which is why I have hung around the discussion. I had actually been looking for a team / organization that Parise played for that used diacritics in any form for some players, but didn't on his name. I didn't think to look at UND until today. Canada Hky (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Hm ... I've been a Hockey East season ticket holder, and I've never seen diacritics used on jerseys or on programs at college hockey matches. Why, you'd almost think that the English language doesn't use anything of the sort!  Ravenswing  07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  College hockey might not, but the OHL/WHL/QMJHL do now I have noticed them in a few pictures lately on wikipedia of the backs of players jerseys. Not sure how long its been happening or that maybe I haven't paid much attention previously. I would wager a bet we will see more of it now that more and more intenational players are playing over here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  On UND's roster pages and media guides, they used them for some players - I am not sure about jerseys. I doubt they make decisions from sport to sport, so when they didn't use them for Parise, that was kind of what I was looking for. Canada Hky (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• No doubt, the leagues were pressured into doing so, with block threats -- hahahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Mm, I wouldn't have been surprised if the Ontario and Quebec leagues, in particular, had been doing so for years ... but in any event, the language wars are a much bigger issue in Canada than down in these parts.  Ravenswing  14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Maroons

First off, you've yet to state a reason for removing the information beyond, perhaps, a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, indeed, the Maroons were founded before the Rangers, Black Hawks and Red Wings. How is that relevant? The team is, nonetheless, not counted as one of the "Original Six" teams, a term considerably more in the cognizance of the average hockey reader of the last half-century than the composition of the NHL of the 1920s. Secondly, your edit summary was quite uncivil; no erroneous statements were proffered, and perhaps a review of WP:CIVIL is in order. Beyond that, perhaps you might seek a consensus for removing the statement on the article's talk page if you find it as offensive as all of that.  Ravenswing  06:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of what the term 'Original Six' means, as I'm an avid fan who has been following hockey since the early 1980's, and been to the HOF -- in both locations it has occupied, actually. But that's completely off topic. What is relevant in this case has to do with writing clarity, which is my issue with the first half of the sentence I removed. It served no real purpose. First off, this is an encyclopedic entry. Clarity being the key aim of any expository writing, an opening paragraph should be a clear summary of the article. In this case, requiring an understanding of the NHL's rather confusing history for the layman reader -- especially in the leading paragraph -- is not only unnecessary, it actually makes things quite confusing.

Read this sentence and pretend for a moment (like John Rawls 'veil of ignorance') that know practically nothing about the NHL: They (the Maroons) were the last non-Original Six team to win the Stanley Cup until the Philadelphia Flyers in 1974. You might make the false assumption that the Flyers were also in existence when the Maroons were. Or, you might make the false assumption that the Maroons weren't a contemporary of said 'Original Six' franchises, which further compounds possible confusion given the term 'original' in this case is not only dependent on NHL history, but is also dependent on what the word 'original' means in this case... particularly considering that A) 'original' in this case is admittedly misinforming (as there were more teams in the original NHL than those six, while 4 of those six weren't any more inaugural members than the Maroons were; and B) the term, as it is used here, is anachronistic. Yes, the 'Original Six' refers to the teams playing in the league's era falling between 1942-66, but mainly is used when referring to the post-expansion NHL. The Maroons pre-date both the term and the era of that 'Original Six' refers to. The sentence doesn't even make an attempt to inform by saying 'Original Six era ', but rather 'Original Six'. Again though, either case would likely be confusing, especially given the task of any lead paragraph in an encyclopedic entry.

Now, on your assumption that I was being somehow uncivil (I didn't call names or make any threats)... Consider your assertion, in your edit summary,Nothing non-sequitur nor inaccurate about it; the Maroons weren't an "original" team, and "Original Six" being a modern term is irrelevant... I took exception with your claim, as in this case, the Maroons were just as much an original NHL team as the Hawks, Wings and Rangers are, so it isn't irrelevant based on the definition of 'original' or the chronological precedent in the context of the statement. I wasn't aiming at anything more than addressing your oversight in your statement.

Look, I understand the point you're making. A bit of background on me: I studied English with an excruciatingly tedious Rhetoric professor at UIC (his last name was Fish if that rings any bells), who would spend an hour telling grad students how to write a simple sentence. Hopefully this sheds some light on my obsessive analysis of this one particular sentence in a (relatively speaking) obscure sports article on Wikipedia. In turn, I also hope that you, being someone who (in all likelihood) spends a good deal of time reading legal papers, understands the point I am attempting to make. All I'm saying is that, for the sake of the article's clarity, it would be more beneficial to simply say something along the lines of 'the Maroons were the last team to have won a Stanley Cup that has since folded' and leave it at that. No confusion for the casual reader, no lumping together two completely disconnected periods of NHL history by adding the Broad Street Bullies into the mix, and no wasting of space with information that doesn't make the introduction any clearer... which is the entire aim of an intro to any article. Thanks for your time, and my apologies if I seemed a bit surly in my edit summary. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In Ryecatcher's above discourse, the one relevant point might be that the sentence could be confusing to those unfamiliar with hockey. That may be a valid point, but that only argues for re-writing the sentence or moving it from the lead, but not removing it completely. However, I still see no imperative to move the sentence either since it's logically correct and factual, is an interesting fact, and further "Original "Six" is linked to it's meaning for the hockey neophyte. Suggestions for rewording can be made on the Maroon talk page. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That'd be my take - that it's a pertinent, relevant fact, linking the term a neophyte might not know. Rewording it for better clarity, as Bash did, is fine. Whether or not the sentence should be in the lead is a content issue for the talk page; myself, I think it's fit for it, but that's a vox populi thing.  Ravenswing  14:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Lou Raymond

Because it's quoted directly from the source. I was unaware that there was a prescription for using bold outside the lead in this case. — KV5 • Talk • 20:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Using quotation marks for a name suggests that the name is somehow made up or unofficial. There's no need to do so to indicate that it's from a source, as long as the source is properly cited.  Ravenswing  00:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Slow down big guy

The sale is not official until the 21st when it is voted on. So we can't actually say those things in past tense yet as far as they "were" a team etc. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Think there's any doubt? Bettman was present for it; this is all in the bag. We all know he doesn't say boo without the governors backing him up.  Ravenswing  18:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oh don't get me wrong. I have zero doubt. But as you know Wikipedia doesn't run on what we think might happen. Personally I don't care if you change it over...but there already was a revert war earlier on the same changes. So best to probably not encourage it further. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Agreed. The league, through Bettman, announced the relocation. At this point, the Thrashers are dead, and Winnipeg is in its place. If the situation changes on the 21st, then we'll adapt. But, reliable sources support Ravenswing's viewpoint. Resolute 18:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Not really, reliable sources only support that a sale was agreed on and that there will be a vote. They even made it very clear in the press conference that a relocation was not yet going to happen and that several things had to be met before one would happen. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  If Bettman wasn't there, that'd be another matter altogether. We can either make the changes NOW, or have revert wars for three weeks, after which the changes will be made anyway. It's far less fuss and hassle to make the appropriate changes now. If the 5% chance of things falling through come up, then as Resolute says, we can adapt, but either way, changing now will involved less work and fuss all around.  Ravenswing  18:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Exactly. Bettman himself announced the relocation. Something could change in the future, yes, but for now, I think editors changing Atlanta to past-tense are correct. Resolute 18:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  You are going to get edit wars in either direction so might as well have it at the technically correct version. Actually nevermind...might as well change. It is like trying to plug a dam with your finger. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Except that we obviously have different viewpoints there. In my view, and that of RSes, it is technically correct that the Thrashers have relocated to Winnipeg. Personally, I doubt very much we'll have much in the way of edit warring if this is the basis of our actions, as this is what the league has officially announced. The vote is just to ratify what has already happened. Resolute 18:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's things like the fact that the team doesn't relocate if they don't meet 13000 season tickets etc which are the cause for concern. The BoG rubber stamping it I am sure will happen. But yeah...like I said not worth trying to plug the hole with your finger. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson

It seems kinda uncool to !vote redirect here, and then misinterpret the statement in the article to as an excuse to remove the very information being redirected to. Yworo (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• It would be had I actually done so. What I removed was a statement in Wilson's article asserting that he was a founder of Burning Man, for which no evidence has been provided, and which statement has been tagged for sourcing for over a year.  Ravenswing  18:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No you didn't: the statement said "Wilson founded the Guns and Dope Party and its corresponding theme camp at Burning Man''. It makes and made no such claim as you say you removed. Try to actually read the whole sentence before you decide what it means. Yworo (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The phrase I removed was, in fact, "and its corresponding Burning Man theme camp," which gave the impression that the entire Burning Man camping event was his creation. If the phrase had read the way you're now suddenly claiming it did, that might have been another thing. The next time you set out to be insultingly and uncivilly patronizing, try harder to have your facts in order, would you? Have a nice day.  Ravenswing  22:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Eleazar ben Judah of Bartota

a Tanna is a Rabbinic sage whose authoritative opinions (on the Henrew Bible) are recorded in the Mishnah. They are the only authoritative people to interpret the Tanakh according to Jewish laws. This is Jewish History on the people who made the Mishnah. You may ask in wikipedia Judaism project on the matter

thanX! --Midrashah (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• As I said on the article talk page, if this gentleman is an important historical figure, there are reliable sources which would say so. If you include them in the article, you can readily save it.  Ravenswing  23:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Springfield, Massachusetts

I don't see why you reverted several edits by an IP to this article as vandalism. They are clearly perfectly reasonable edits. I don't know whether or not they make a worthwhile contribution, but they're definitely not vandalism. I have undone your revert. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• You didn't notice the whole section that was stripped, references and all?  Ravenswing  02:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What section are you talking about? This IP added a substantial amount of good material, and the only cuts were a slight shortening (not removal) of one section. This is clearly not vandalism, whether or not you agree with the changes. Colonies Chris (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing others' comments from talk pages

Please don't do this again. [5] --Tothwolf (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

• How about reading WP:NPA, which holds "On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack." I really rather have a hard time imagine "And since you're a little slow" to be anything but an egregious personal attack.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • If you don't have a thick skin you probably shouldn't be provoking people in these sort of AfDs. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I do have a tolerably thick skin, but egregious personal attacks are impermissible. Why you're so heavily invested in preserving personal attacks I don't know, but it rings very strangely coming from someone whose user talk page so prominently displays a piece by Jimbo on cyber civility. I appreciate your advice, no doubt nurtured from your own experience of being sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility, but I daresay I'll handle matters as I think best. Cheers.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, I wasn't sancationed for incivility per se. What I actually brought up with ArbCom at the time was later proven true. One of the accounts was eventually indef'd and the other two were abandoned after being sanctioned at AN/I and by ArbCom. Eventually I'll get around to getting ArbCom to clarify what happened, but right now it doesn't matter too much since it hasn't been a problem since it was finally dealt with at AN/I and by ArbCom :) If you are interested I'll see if I can find the links for you, but based on the comment you made, it seems more like you are trying to find something with which to attack my character instead... --Tothwolf (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
      • And to add to what I wrote above, my concerns over your behaviour stem from watching large numbers of contributors leave Wikipedia after being bullied and wikihounded by other editors. This has since caught the attention of the WMF and is being actively discussed. You can begin to get an overview of the mess if you follow the updates [6] [7] from the Wikimedia Strategic Planning group.

        To further put this firmly back on topic, your removal of another editor's comments [8] [9] [10] was inappropriate, and arguably far worse in terms of behaviour than the somewhat uncivil remark which was but a small part of his comments. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

        • (shrugs) The record clearly shows that you were sanctioned by ArbCom for incivility, placed on a six-month editing restriction in consequence, and several months down the road subjected to a permanent interaction ban with two of the editors in question. That they both abandoned Wikipedia over half a year after the decision, after logging circa 800 and 4000+ edits respectively after the decision, doesn't suggest to me that their reaction constituted slinking away in shame, conceding that you were right all along. Certainly, if you weren't interested in people knowing about the case, you wouldn't feature the links to it so prominently on your talk page. You can scarcely accuse people of unwarranted digging for information which you take pains to display openly.

          As far as the appropriateness of my action goes, yes, you've already stated your opinion. Repeatedly, and in more than one venue. Was there something about my disagreement with your POV, or my further response of "I daresay I'll handle matters as I think best," about which you needed further clarification?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  08:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Adam Clayton Powell III

I've removed your prod for the official reason that he was the vice-provost of a university, which is a fairly high-up academic office. On a more P.C. level, any proposed deletion of any member of the infamous Clayton family is likely to be controversial. WP:AfD is the place for such discussions. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The same user declined my prod on Adam Clayton Powell IV (engineer); I don't really see how the family name is relevant here, please feel free to take to AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised; certainly, if he's removing prods based on academic standing, he should familiarize himself with WP:PROF, which plainly holds that a person who "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society" (emphasis mine) is notable. "Vice-provost" is neither. Then again, Bearian's record as an inclusionist speaks for itself.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  07:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit reverts

You've reverted several of my edits to player pages, citing the WP:HOCKEY guideline, which specifically states that all player pages will use "diacritics". Kindly undo your reverts, as they're in violation of the very policy you're supposedly defending. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, which you participated in, if you're still not clear on what the guideline is. Consummate Asshole Long Gone, And Thankfully So (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Try again. The sentence reads, in point of fact, "Diacritics shall be applied to all player pages, where appropriate as for the languages of the nationalities of the players in question." (emphasis mine) The nationalities of the player pages reverted are uniformly North American.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the player in question being the player whose name the "diacritics" are on, not the player whose page it is. You know fully well that the "consensus" is that "diacritics" are used on all player pages, and are resorting to sophistry to try to claim it's something different. While railing at me for not "respecting consensus". Consummate Asshole Long Gone, And Thankfully So (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who repeatedly claimed in edit summaries that "There is no consensus," you can't imagine that your opinion or your credibility has much meaning here. That being said, I refer you to the large tag line at the top of this page; there is no purpose served by you further posting to this talk page.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of respect ...

... for my good and worthy colleague DJSasso, I shan't serve up the salted roast crow I'd promised for his prediction that the Bruins would get whipped in the first round by the Habs. Right now I'll save it for jail food for the lunkheads who are setting cars on fire and attacking police in Vancouver, dishonoring a gallant team. That being said ... BOSTON BRUINS ARE THE STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!

(I've waited a long, long time for that ...)  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I figured that was coming. It won't be the last I hear...my dad is a life long Bruins fan. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD's on Irish Cricket teams.

I notice that you have commented on a number of the current batch of AfD's on Irish Cricket Teams, there is a debate on going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket about what the guidelines should be, the more input the better. Mtking (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the heads up, but while I'm happy to help apply existing policy and guidelines in any AfD, I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough in cricket to be able to lend an informed opinion as to notability criteria. Good fortune!  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Help Me Help Norm?

Hi there, I hope Im doing this right. Im trying to fix wikipedia/facebook content and photos for Normand Leveille. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. THANK YOU. marcusmcelroy@rocketmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capt.Marcus (talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sure thing. After looking over the article, I've a few thoughts. Most particularly, the changes you've made have the article coming off like a sportswriter's piece, not as an encyclopedia entry. Sentences such as "His infusion of speed and excitement thrilled Bruins fans," "Leveille looked to be in fine form early in his sophomore season" and "Although often forgotten about by the rest of the NHL, Leveille remains a fan favorite in Boston" are unacceptable. Says whom? These are all WP:PEACOCK violations. It's poor form, for instance, to claim that Leveille was more highly touted than Al MacInnis. Mentioning the mere fact that he was drafted before MacInnis, Chelios, Vanbiesbrouck etc provides factual information, and leaves it up to the reader to infer anything beyond that.

  Secondly, you need an inline citation (per WP:IRS) for many of these assertions. Terry O'Reilly said that Leveille was going to be better than Yvan Cournoyer? Fair enough. When did he say it and who reported it?

  Thirdly, you're running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL on some of these statements. "He was just 19 years old and was destined to be an NHL star, and then poof, it was all gone in a moment." He was? We don't in fact know that. Many players have respectable rookie seasons and have early-season streaks without ever becoming stars.

  In general, I strongly recommend the links you'll find in WP:PILLAR and WP:MOS for a better idea on how to write a Wikipedia article. You should take a swing at cleaning up the language and providing cited sources, but if you like, after that, I'll do a rewrite (if necessary!) so you can see how it's done. Alternately, take a peek at other articles, especially the ones that have Featured or Good Article status, such as the ones for Bobby Orr, Wayne Gretzky or Jacques Plante for examples. Good luck!  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons

Just a note to let you know I asked a question on your old Commons talk page. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, I responded over there. Sheesh, that's a 30 year old shot now ...  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Inquiry on AfDs

Hi Ravenswing, I'm interestd in the AfDs process in Wikipedia and notice that you once involved in AfDs. I'm not sure whether you find that some discussers are admins while some are not. I'm just wondering whether you care about the adminships of the participants in deletion discussions. Does the referee's adminship affect your attitude towards the result of AfDs? Thanks. Bluesum (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• I know that some are; for instance, with hockey-related AfDs, I do know which of the hockey Wikiproject editors are admins, three of whom often contribute. Does this status matter to me? Only in so far as an admin is generally an experienced editor, more likely to accurately apply policy in such debates than the average editor. That being said, I've certainly disagreed with admins before and will again, in AfDs or otherwise. In any event, since I'm not myself an admin and have no authority to make closing rulings on controversial AfDs, whether I'd be prejudiced in favor of admins in a close is a moot point.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  11:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, admins are not always right, and there are definitely some times when we disagreed (or will disagree) with them. Perhaps the same for us. :) Bluesum (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I am always right! ;) Resolute 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in!

Thanks for weighing in on Wafah Dufour. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thanks for the barnstar! Fortunately, I wasn't too emotionally invested in the outcome. Otherwise I might have gotten bowled over by the snowball. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• You're quite welcome!  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fitchburg MA Wiki Page

Hello. I'm a bit of a wikipedia novice but I monitor and edit a few local articles on occasion. I'm having an issue with one article, specifically Fitchburg, Massachusetts. An unregistered user (166.82.80.176) is continuing to place "Jefferey Gonynyer" (apparently some pit-crew worker) in the notable residents section. I already reverted his edit once and advised him (multiple times) that this individual doesn't qualify as a notable resident. Unfortunately, he has continued to undo my revisions (as well as others) and ignore my comments. I added information and a notability criteria link (Wikipedia:Notability) to the Fitchburg MA discussion page hoping to help inform him, to no avail. To aviod an edit war and possible consequences, I haven't un-done his last revert. I notice that you (ravenswing) also reverted one of this unregistered user's edits (to the notable residents section), so I thought I would ask you (Presumably a more seasoned editor than I) how to approach the issue. Is there a way to report an IP, or advise Wikipedia staff of an issue with an article/individual? Thanks for the help. BRS2195 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your restraint in not wanting to escalate this into an edit war. What I take from the edit summaries is that this guy isn't reading the edit histories and just keeps putting this Gonynor chap back in every time he finds him missing from the article. Unfortunately, reporting him at WP:AIV - which is where you'd want to go for this - requires that he be given multiple notices to stop his spamming; I just gave him another one. Another difficulty is that the fellow might not be a vandal, and genuinely believe Gonynor to be notable, so I'll see if raising the issue on his talk page will get his attention. Here's hoping.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  01:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help!

BRS2195 (talk) 01:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• No problem. As you can see below, the IP does seem to have been acting in good faith, if in ignorance of our notability standards.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

jeffrey gonynor

what do i need to do to prove to you jeffrey has worked as tranport driver and pit crew member? roush racing has taken down all older posts. geoff bodine and melling racing have shut down long ago. not trying to start a fight with anybody.maytbe you can help me as to where to look. jeffrey started working from 1995 at moroso racing until 2002 with roush racing.has worked with mark martin and kurt busch.was over the wall tire carrier and transport driver sorry if this has been trouble for anyone. i am not as skilled with all this as you are. thank you for any help you can give me, i will try to find any refrances i can befour anymore posts.can i run them by you when i do? thank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.80.176 (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Whether Gonynor has worked as a transport driver or pit crew member isn't the point; no one is saying he didn't. It's whether such positions are notable enough to qualify for Wikipedia articles. They are not. The only way you can do so is to find links to multiple newspaper or magazine articles about Gonynor - which, according to WP:GNG, discuss him in "significant detail" - and supply them to us. (I'd certainly be happy for you to run any such by me.) Frankly, I don't think you can; I looked myself for anything of the sort last night, and failed. All that turned up were his Twitter and YouTube links, which do not confer any notability, and he has zero hits at Google News.

  Beyond that, I recommend you review the links at WP:PILLAR, WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE to get a better understanding of the requirements and the process. Good luck.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Jets colors

Check their own website. And their press release on their website their logo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApocalypseNow115 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tell you what ... how about YOU do that? Perhaps there's another press release other than "True North Unveils Jets Logos" out there which explicitly states that "ice blue" or "crimson" are official colors of the team. The one the Jets actually put out, though, claims nothing of the sort, saying that the team's colors will be released at a later time. In any event, a casual glance at the logo doesn't show any "ice blue" or anything remotely like it.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  12:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you observe the background of that very website? I'm apologize if I have offended you in someway (you seem agitated in tone), but if you had looked at the website itself, the various background images and the outlining of the team slogan "Fuelled By Passion" all sport the same "ice blue" the Thrahsers sported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApocalypseNow115 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC) --Also, if you check these two images: http://3.cdn.nhle.com/jets/images/upload/gallery/2011/07/identity-unveil-7-20_small_revised_July22_1-5170509967_slide.jpg http://2.cdn.nhle.com/jets/images/upload/gallery/2011/07/identity-unveil-7-20_small_revised_July22_1-6170514826_slide.jpg It clearly shows the wordmark in the very "ice blue" I was referring to. However, I do concede that it doesn't matter whether or not the red is "crimson", as the ownership never indicated as such. I thought I had read somewhere though that it was, but I was mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApocalypseNow115 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I recommend that you look over the links given at WP:PILLAR - specifically, in this case, WP:V and WP:IRS. What you'll find there is information on properly sourcing articles. All information given in an article must be able to be sourced to a reliable source stating the assertion. Nothing can be sourced by our personal observations and speculation. When the team puts out an official press release stating that "ice blue" is to be one of the team colors, that's an official, reliable source. Claiming that a color you identify as "ice blue" is used by the site's webmaster in background graphic arts (well, so is black, white and numerous shades and gradations of blue) as grounds for declaring that an "official" team color is unacceptable.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  15:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• • • But that's just it, it's not just the background images. Those links I provided you with are actual logos that feature the colors. Their AHL affiliate has also released their new logo, that features same shade of blue that I am referring to. Also, since they haven't actually released anything concerning their colors at all, why even list them then? How are you so sure? I mean, that's just observation too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApocalypseNow115 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
      • (1) That "fueled with passion" banner IS a background image - what the heck else would you call it? It is not the team logo. (2) The AHL team logo is the AHL team logo. It's not the Jets' logo. You want to call "ice blue" one of the Icedogs' logo, I'm not stopping you. (3) It's a defensible position that no "team colors" should be listed at all. If you want to remove them outright, I'm not stopping you there either.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  00:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Owen Nolan

Although I recognize what you said in your latest edit summary, my point about Owen Nolan, to reiterate and elaborate, is that his contract is a professional tryout contract. Without the qualifier, one could interpret that his contract is similar in standing to that of any roster player with a conventional season-based contract. If he doesn't make the team, he will never go in the record books of ever being a Canuck. A one-word qualifier is hardly a detailed elaboration of the contract. It is just a more accurate description.

When I heard the news, I personally felt it was premature to add this to the Quebec Nordiques article until such time as he actually made the team, so I didn't act on it. Since someone else did add it (you), I felt it was necessary to be accurrate about his standing with the Canucks for the interim.

To a passionate hockey fan that follows hockey news closely, the qualifier may not be necessary because they are likely already informed on the subject. However, the casual hockey fan, or the nostalgic Nordiques fan that isn't as active in NHL current events, may take it at face value and not follow the associated wikilinks to validate (speaking of validating, the addition lacks a reference, which I will add). I understand it is not your intention to mislead, but this may accidentally mislead without the qualifier. I encourage you to reconsider. Hwy43 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• If he signed a five year, multimillion dollar contract, and for some reason - poor performance in training camp, injury, what have you - he never took the ice in a regular season game, he still wouldn't go in the record book as a Canuck. The exact nature of the contract is, therefore, irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that there is, in fact, a remaining Quebec Nordique who is listed on the roster of a NHL team. Should Nolan fail to play, then that gets wiped out and Foote remains the final active Nordique in the NHL; that's a change to the article which would take all of about three seconds, when and as necessary, and is scarcely an onerous one.

  That being said, exactly what does your putative "casual" fan take from the sentence as written? About what do you think it misleads? It doesn't say that Nolan was the last active player to take the ice; the section still states that Foote was. (Truth be told, I'm happy for that casual fan to take the sentence at face value, when the face value is, after all, accurate.) That the casual fan might not understand that "under contract" doesn't necessarily mean "currently active skater?" Perhaps I have better faith than you in the intelligence of the average sports fan, but I rather think he does grasp that, whether or not he follows the NHL's daily transaction list.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hershey Bears

Do you know where on the Hershey Bears website says Hershey Bears Hockey Club. I don't see it. I am a Hershey Bears fan and I hope you are one too. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Well, a Falcons' fan, actually, but I've been to games in Hershey. That being said, you don't have to go very far. Scroll down to the bottom of the main page and look at the colophon.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  17:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I see it perfectly, but just because it says it under contact information does not mean that the team is really called Hershey Bears Hockey Club. That name is probably used for when you want to contact the team like writing a check or a letter to the team itself. Peoria Rivermen, Norfolk Admirals, Rochester Americans, Springfield Falcons, Oklahoma City Barons, and Texas Stars have the same problem too. Here is a list on what it says on these 6 AHL teams’ websites.

1. Peoria Rivermen- Under contact information says Peoria Rivermen Hockey Club. The article for this team does not say Peoria Rivermen Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Peoria Rivermen. Here’s a link: Peoria Rivermen Contact Page

2. Norfolk Admirals- Under contact information says Norfolk Admirals Hockey or Norfolk Admirals Hockey, Inc. The article for this team does not say Norfolk Admirals Hockey or Norfolk Admirals Hockey, Inc. in the first line. It just says Norfolk Admirals. Here’s a link: Norfolk Admirals Contact Page

3. Rochester Americans- Under contact information says Rochester Americans Hockey Club. The article for this team does not say Rochester Americans Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Rochester Americans. Here’s a link: Rochester Americans Contact Page

4. Springfield Falcons- At the bottom of your team’s website, just like the Hershey Bears website says Springfield Falcons Hockey Club. The article for your team does not say Springfield Falcons Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Springfield Falcons. Here’s a link: Your Springfield Falcons Site

5. Texas Stars- At the bottom of the team’s website, just like the Hershey Bears website says Texas Stars Hockey Team. The article for this team does not say Texas Stars Hockey Team in the first line. It just says Texas Stars. Here’s a link: Texas Stars Homepage

6. Oklahoma City Barons- At the bottom of the team’s website, just like the Hershey Bears website says Oklahoma City Barons Hockey Club. The article for this team does not say Oklahoma City Barons Hockey Club in the first line. It just says Oklahoma City Barons. Here’s a link: Oklahoma City Barons Site

7. Hershey Bears (Old Hershey Bears Archive Copy Website from Web.Archive.ORG)- At the bottom of this page, just like the current Hershey Bears website says HERSHEY BEARS Hockey Club. If this version of the Hershey Bears website was still up, what would the first line of the article say? Would it be HERSHEY BEARS Hockey Club is a professional ice hockey member club of the American Hockey League, and is currently the top affiliate of the NHL Washington Capitals then? Here’s a link: Old Hershey Bears Website- The site will appear with The Internet Archive Wayback Machine Information. After it appears, you then click on "Impatient?"

This is perfect evidence that the team is not called Hershey Bears Hockey Club. It’s just called Hershey Bears. When I played for my high school baseball team which I hate high school sports now was called Hamilton Hornets Baseball, the name that was used as contact information for writing checks was Hamilton Baseball. The name Hershey Bears Hockey Club is used if you want to contact the team. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• • Are you having that much trouble wrapping your head around the premise that an organization can be popularly known as something and have a different legal name? Tell me, do you tell people that you live in Pennsylvania, or do you tell people that you live in the "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?" If the Bears are playing a road game in Providence, do you figure that's in Rhode Island, or that it's in the "State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations?" Come to that, when you tell people you're going to a home game, do you tell folks you're seeing a match in Hershey, or in Derry Township -- because "Hershey" is not the legal name of the municipality? For the most part, these legal names in full are what's used in the lead sentence of Wikipedia articles, and that's perfectly proper under the Manual of Style.

    No, what you don't have is "evidence" there. What you have is your personal inference, which is a different thing altogether.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  22:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it ain't my fault that hockey teams articles don't have hockey club at the end of the team name. I do here people say Commonwealth of Pennsylvania though. Hersheybearsfan (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"Membership" redirect notes on ECHL team articles

I think the IP who made this edit is User:Hersheybearsfan. He's gotten on this kick about the ECHL using the term "membership" and has created a bunch of redirect pages (i.e., Victoria Salmon Kings membership redirects to Victoria Salmon Kings) and then put those notes at the top of the article pages. Not sure what the deal is.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 02:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure myself, but thanks for the head's up.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  05:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Should the redirects in question go up for speedy deletion under R3? Or should we keep them on the off chance that someone, someday, might search for them?  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, I don't think HBF is socking with the IP edits...He's really new and very enthusiastic and I don't think he realizes that if he has an account he should be using it to edit.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 12:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't imagine he was socking, and in point of fact he's not. It's perfectly legitimate to use multiple accounts for good faith edits. That being said, I'd definitely speedy the redirects; the notion that anyone would possibly attempt a search for "Victoria Salmon Kings membership" is far-fetched, never mind remote.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  15:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged them. The "membership" saga continues, however, as now he's edited all the pages in question to say that the ECHL uses "Foo membership" as an alternate name for the team, and that it commonly does this with all its teams past and present yadda yadda yadda. I've asked at the WikiProject if we can all agree that the "membership" term is irrelevant.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm reverting them even as we speak.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh

Well I'm glad someone agrees with me that those links are OK and that block was out order. However, a number of people don't agree. I wonder if we're missing something or what?

I'm also not inclined to think that the admin's actions -- making blocks like that and then closing discussions and deleting posts to his talk page -- are at all OK for an admin. I'm inclined to press the matter but I'm also starting to get the feeling that the reply would be "of course it's OK".

I don't really have a point, I'm just... oops, ranting. Herostratus (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Heh, that's okay. Who first stated the aphorism that the mark of an intelligent man is the degree to which he agrees with you? That being said, while I generally defend admins, "I'm right, so go away now" is an attitude wholly unacceptable in one, and suggests that he's unfit for the position.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)