User talk:Ravenswing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

If you post to my talk page, I will reply here. If I posted to your talk page, I will look for responses there.

  • * *

I am disinterested in rants. 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.

point of information[edit]

Re what you said on Resolute's page, where of course I am interdicted from saying anything in response to anyone:

  • "There are many thousands of other editors secure in their grasp of procedure and policy, so as to be able to make useful edits in subjects where they aren't knowledgeable.
    • All too often they make bad calls and misinformed votes and otherwise weigh in where they dont know the material - or the stats or sources; knowledge of procedure and policy, and claims that their readings of guidelines are policy, are not as "useful" as direct knowledge of the subject under discussion and knowledge about sources and issues about the content. including recognizing POV sources, content and language when they see it. Content should prevail over guidelines, and guidelines should not be presented as if policy, or have instruction creep laid onto them either. And POV is not relativistic; my only POV is the whole truth, not a selected part of it laid out in POV terms.
  • And sometimes, sir, you are outvoted. You can either lose gracefully and move on, or, well, go with the other option.
    • Point of information; "sometimes" I am outvoted, but most of the time what I have proposed finally passes after much arduous and needless oppositional discussion. Would you like a list of all the RMs and AfDs and CfDs that I've "won"? And care to make up a list of those I've lost? I "won" 90+ out of 100 of RMs, proportionately, I "won the vote"? And WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, numerical vote-counting is not supposed to be how things go but statements and oppose/supports are supposed to be evaluated by their merits and validity.
    • And since you're alluding to an ANI with your "go with the other option", you should realize that the last two blocks levelled against me were not the result of votes, rather arbitrary actions by individual admins, the second who went against consensus and "votes" saying I shouldn't be blocked but did anyway, then went and closed the still-open RMs that had led to that ANI..... against me, without paying attention to the votes/comments.

I've never seen you before, other than seeing your name occasionally on AFD page histories; do you know or care about the subjects and issues that underlay what has been going on, or rather, what I have been surviving?Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Wow. For someone preaching WP:NOTAVOTE, you're pretty quick to thump your chest about your putative won-loss record, aren't you? Isn't that special.

    Well, sorry. Quite aside from that many a filibuster-artist on Wikipedia claims victory less from the strength of his arguments than from their sheer volume, drowning out all others with incessant walls of text and outlasting the rest, that's not even the point. I don't, in fact, give a rat's ass about the merits of your arguments, or the articles they involve. I don't even know what they are, and that's not pertinent either. It's that from what I've seen of you so far, the Resolutes and WTMs are dead on: you're convinced that you're always right; that anyone who opposes your POV is automatically wrong; that if only you keep arguing and keep arguing the opposition will be battered into submission and everyone else will agree with you; that their failure to agree with you can only be the result of chicanery, stupidity, conspiracy, abuse of authority, ignorance or all of the above; that failure on your part to get in the last word -- the "losing gracefully" part -- is an admission of defeat; and that if every other tactic sputters out, well, go find someone else with whom to argue.

    Of course, I'm not the first one to tender you advice. You aren't listening to anyone else, any more than you did on the several occasions on which you were blocked for disruptive behavior. Why would you listen to me? Happily, this being my talk page, I get the last word, and since there's nothing constructive to be gained by you responding to this reply, you needn't do so. See that big statement in greet at the top of this page? That's my last word. Have a happy. Ravenswing 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

LacyJane Folger[edit]

Hi. Just wanted to alert you that, per your suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LacyJane Folger, I have expanded and improved the LacyJane Folger article, including multiple references from reliable third-party sources. I'd appreciate it if you could review the article in its current state. - Dravecky (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have attempted to address your concerns at the AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil[edit]

Trust me. Walk away from it. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Oh, I said what I had to say. Looking over some of the related articles, there are the same one or two books dominating the cites, with some of the same language constantly inserted into the articles, and dominated by the same two or three editors. I've gotten the distinct impression that there's a small clique of editors on Brazilian monarchy-related articles who have their own idiosyncratic notions of how they want the GNG and WP:V to read, and a one-man wrecking crew isn't going to make headway. Ravenswing 14:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've faced quite a few 'cliques of editors' over the years. My block log, will attest to that :) GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)