Hi Ravenswing - I noticed you have deleted this article with the following comment, "Unsourced article, recreated apparently out of process after being AfDed". I had at some point, in line with a lot of other Wikipedia things I watch, been hoping to source some reference material for this article so would hope you would be happy of we can restore this article and I'll move it up my list. Can you also tell me what AfDed means - its a new term to me. Thanks.--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm somewhat startled that an editor of your longevity hasn't encountered it before. "AfD" is short for Articles for deletion, the process where people seek to remove articles for various violations or deficiencies in policies and guidelines. By far, the most common ground for deletion is lack of notability, where an article lacks reliable sources which qualify under WP:GNG. The GNG holds that subjects must receive "significant coverage" (which is about the subject, as opposed to entities with which it might be associated) in multiple "reliable sources" with a proven reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and I recommend you review it if you're unfamiliar with it. The Whitelegg article was deleted for lack of sources in 2007, subsequently restored with an exhortation to add sources, and there it's stood for nine years, still sourceless.
While I'm disinclined to reverse my edit, given that it's already sat on Wikipedia for a freaking decade without sourcing, I've taken the liberty to copy it to your userspace at User:Davidvaughanwells/Thomas Whitelegg. When you have the time to properly source the article, you can restore it to mainspace at your convenience. Ravenswing 08:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks - I work in the rail industry so there are so many acronyms I can't keep up! I also tend to just write articles rather than get sucked into the Wikipeda machine! Cheers--Davidvaughanwells (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I made a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Proposed replacement for WP:NCOLLATH and based on the earlier discussion we were all having I wanted to put it on your radar.RonSigPi (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
The recently deleted and salted article 2017 WGC-Dell Match Play has re-appeared as 2017 WGC Dell Match Play. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Johnsmith fulfilled his promise at AFD ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"Getting a pass"
Regarding this edit: the top-ten goal scorers get passes; the top-ten points leaders give passes :-). isaacl (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- PpPpPpPpPppppptttt ... (smirks) Ravenswing 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
1967 NHL expansion: Revision history
Regarding - Really doesn't have anything to do with the 1967 expansion, and is covered in the appropriate team articles.
Well it has at least as much to do with the 1967 expansion as the note about the St Louis Eagles (and the other previous franchises). It included owners of the 67 teams, one of the teams and two of the areas involved.
Kevinskogg (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm a serial vandal?
I created the infobox on every hockey player on Wikipedia, genius (username the strokes, I'm not bothering to login). And then I moved on with my life, lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, let's see. Presuming that you're actually The strokes, yep: you were a serial vandal. No need to use my own words for it: Dorvaq was perfectly eloquent about it on your talk page, with statements such as:
you can't deny that you have been disruptive. I mean, you've even admitted to being disruptive in your own edit summaries. One particular instance states: "don't stop agitating me, I'll keep vandalizing your page Addhoc. This is my new username, and it's this for a reason". In addition, most, if not all, of your last 50 edits consists of vandalism on your part and/or feuding with Ccwaters, Addhoc, and RG to push your point across.
Lastly, you may accuse RG of being immature for his comments, but making comments such as "I feel better about this disagreement knowing for sure that you're a ********"; insinuating that RG is a hypocrite, labelling the three as Wikinazis; and resorting to vandalism when other editors disagree with you under the victimization ruse, neither reflects positively on *your* maturity level, nor does it lend credibility to your claim of endeavouring to reach amicable solutions.
Or, perhaps, JaMikePA, who was even someone on your side in those disputes:
You may be comfortable with how your disruption reflects on your maturity level, but I can tell you that if you continue at your current maturity level, you will not gain the support of those who have the power to impose such actions.
And sure, you created that template. Here's the warning DJSasso sent you for vandalizing it: . (Which you did several times, by the bye, with charming edit summaries such as "eff off" and "little fag needs something to do in his spare time ie: the rest of his life while the welfare cheques roll on in." It's a bit of a surprise that DJ didn't indef you for that one.
Your incivility and rampant vandalism doesn't prove anything you wish to get across or that they are incorrect. It actually proves to them that they are.
In any event, so what? A broken clock is right twice a day. The strokes made 1600 edits over a few years. Many users permanently banned for being jerks, like BetaCommand and MickMacNee, made tens of thousands of productive edits, none of which immunized them against following the civility and conduct policies of Wikipedia. We didn't need their antics, and we didn't need The strokes. By the bye? All that nonsense went down nine years ago. Whining about it now is how you define "moving on with your life?" Oooookay, sport. Ravenswing 19:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Was a month to the day before I was an admin so I wouldn't have been able to. But I might also have not noticed. I get a kick out of how he always comes around and mentions he was the guy who created the infobox and how it hasn't really changed since then. When if you actually look at the diff between his last constructive edit and now you see that it has been completely rewritten since he did it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was curious myself, and took a peek. I also took a stroll through some of those disputes he seemed awfully eager to provoke. He sure did seem to love the "I wrote the hockey template so that means you're not allowed to disagree with me!!!" premise, didn't he? Ravenswing 20:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Haha totally vandalized my talk page saying to learn how to code....if only he knew what I spend all day looking at for my job. Looks like he is mad that his contribution to hockey on Wikipedia has been completely replaced. -DJSasso (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Eh, what can we say? Petulant whiny types like Strokes who refuse to grow up will always be with us, world without end, amen. About all there is to do is point and laugh, and indef them. Ravenswing 20:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Funny thing about being a braggart on Wikipedia - nobody actually cares who you are. I've been here a decade, and that guy's handle doesn't even ring a bell. Resolute 20:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yep. Any number of busy, valued hockey editors a decade ago who few if any would recognize today: Masterhatch, CC, Croat Canuck, EarlAndrew ... we don't have headspace for the ephemeral twinkies. Ravenswing 03:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
1967 Expansion Change
Why did you not even reply to my comment? That is a legitimate question. The Bay Area to Cleveland to Minnesota back to the Bay Area is at least as relevant as the Philadelphia Quakers. Kevinskogg (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Simple: immediately following the Background section, those bits mention previous NHL franchises, if any, as well as the move history of those six teams. They're not intended to be general histories of hockey in those listed cities -- if they were, one ought to mention the superseded teams in Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and San Francisco at the least. Ravenswing 03:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- The move of the Minnesota to Dallas is noted. This note is specific to the owners of the franchise and the franchises involved in the expansion. The awarding of a new expansion team to Gunds after they expressed their desire to move to the Bay Area was directly related to the merged 1967 franchise both in ownership and franchise location. It is not a "general history of hockey in those listed cities." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- We'll have to agree to disagree on the subject. If you'd like to seek consensus to your POV, feel free to raise the issue on the article's talk page. Ravenswing 04:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Dorothy Taubman Technique
I think you are mistakenly removing the material on the page about Dorothy Taubman.
1- The material is properly sourced. See the notes in the reference section. 2- I've left a lengthy discussion on that article's talk page about why the material is necessary to understanding the subject's life, and why it made her famous. 3- I don't appreciate the fact that you just deleted it ad libitum and didn't move it to the talk page for discussion and review.
I'll be waiting to hear your thoughts! Laguna greg 19:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)
- I've responded on the article talk page. Ravenswing 19:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- All right, I can see your point(s). However, there IS an inline citation...right in the first line of that section just to be clear. That source, an exhaustive one, is independently published and exists in libraries all over the country. Please don't say this material isn't supported, because it sure looks like it is to me. If you're trying to say that there aren't enough, I can probably fix that. But you could have sent me a note, or left a message on the talk page, or put up a banner or something.
- -Another thing- what you left in the article IS A MESS. The end of the article doesn't make any sense any more and will need some serious revision. Will you let me do that? Please comment before I do more work.
- -And I really do want to know- why didn't you just move the offending material off the article and on to the talk page? I myself do that all that time! I know that 1- I'm a new, inexperienced editor, and 2-that work submitted here may be challenged (I happen to agree with this method very much). But there was some serious work done on that material just gathering the sources. To have it deleted unilaterally wasted more than 6 weeks of my time. Why should I work on a wiki when the work I do, some of it very good, will be deleted without discussion or review? I thought that was why there was a talk page.
- -I did not write these sections to "defend Taubman's work". If you think that is the tone being struck, I'll gladly rewrite it but no one has said that to me yet. All I was trying to do was describe what she had discovered, as best I could, with as much documentation as I could find. If you think this material belongs in a separate article, I can do that as well.
- -Waiting for your reply! Laguna greg 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna greg (talk • contribs)
- None of the material I removed, in any of those subsections, had an inline citation in it. An inline cite properly is placed at the end of a sentence it's referencing.
That being said, I disagree that anything was left a "mess" ... except, perhaps, some of the jargon-riddled verbiage I hadn't touched. "Taubman adduced that the seemingly discrete technical elements coalesce into a synergistic whole, minimizing the need for each, potentiating their separate, individual effect, yet blending into a seamless unity that only a trained observer can discern separately." Material like that really blows holes through the Manual of Style, which holds that "Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording."
Beyond that, you may be missing the point. I didn't remove that material because I thought there might be a better place for it, or that I felt it was poorly written and needed a rewrite. I removed it because it was badly superfluous to the article, and hence didn't belong at all. Spending time writing a section (although I'm flabbergasted at the notion of taking six whole weeks to write 1500 words) doesn't immunize any of us from having our work removed if it violates Wikipedia guidelines or is otherwise found unsuitable. I didn't need to secure anyone's permission in advance to do so, any more than you asked on the talk page in advance whether it was alright to add that material. Having material deleted happens to us all — out of my own edits, I've had more than 1,600 deleted. Ravenswing 03:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)