User talk:Ravenswing

If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.

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

Beyond that, I keep my AfD work over on AfD. Don't write me here to dispute my posts or lobby to change my vote. Anything on your mind should be said in the pertinent discussion, so everyone can be privy to the debate.

Archive #1 - Entries archived from June 2005 - May 2006

Archive #2 - Entries archived from May 2006 - April 2007

Archive #3 - Entries archived from April 2007 - November 2007

Archive #4 - Entries archived from November 2007 - June 2008

Archive #5 - Entries archived from June 2008 - September 2008

Archive #6 - Entries archived from September 2008 - October 2008

Archive #7 - Entries archived from October 2008 - June 2009

Archive #8 - Entries archived from June 2009 - November 2009

so?

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

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

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

Thank you for your comment regarding my ACE candidacy.

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

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

Talkback

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

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

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please assume good faith.

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

"As far as Yosh7128's contribution history goes - or, for that matter, yours - it's extraordinarily unlikely that a random new editor would just happen to stumble across this deletion debate as his first experience on Wikipedia, and quite common for friends to be recruited for the purpose. As it happens, there's a policy specifically addressing this which I strongly suggest you review." --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This actually wasn't an attack. It's a statement of fact. It's something that happens all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbcomm Q's

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

Reg Fleming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (people)

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

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

January 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Milan Lucic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are You Also An Administrator by Chance

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

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

Your input

Hi.

Your input on this issue would be appreciated.

Regards

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

February 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHL Playoff Streak changes

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

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

AfD

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

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

Board wargaming

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

Steward Elections

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

Gerry Cheevers

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

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

Racism

You have characterised my implications that you are racist as bullshit. Anybody interested in viewing this user's racist diatribes is encouraged to comment on the Maltese nobility talkpage. I find this attitude you've decided to pursue highly disrespectful, and will still require an apology. Thank you. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]