Hi Ravenswing, seems Order of the Eagle of Georgia got created again. As it got deleted 2 times already by your nominations just thought you'd be interested. Jaqeli 11:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the tipoff; I've just AfDed this version once more. Ravenswing 14:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Ravenswing, while reversing my edit, you indicated "Unprecedented" = no one ever did it before. This is a mistake many people make, and often leads to a gross misuse of the word. Unprecedented means without precedent, and precedented means nothing LIKE this has ever happened before, so much so that this event will be a guide or model for things to come. A good litmus test is: "what changed because of this". Meaning, is there a new rule, category, some behavior change, or impact.
Unprecedented is often used instead of something like "record" (particularly in sports), and in other cases it is used to make it seem exciting, akin to WP:Peacock. Sports facts/feats/streaks are rarely unprecedented. Streaks that extend something by 1 aren't precedents (although they are often new records). New records - numerical values going higher in any of a multitude of categories, happen all the time. But other than saying "wow, that's great" they don't often have a significant impact on the sporting world, so they wouldn't be a precedent.
Good examples of unprecedented actions in sports are: Babe Ruth home runs (MLB made a new rule to give us the modern day walk-off, which didn't exist before him); Curt Flood suing to get out of his contract (ushering in Free Agency period). Lombardi was so good they named the Super Bowl trophy after him.
I'll ask you to reconsider the edit. But if you really feel strongly about it, I won't start an edit-war. Cheers. Brad Entirelybs (talk) 02:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- That is your interpretation, anyway. The dictionary definition is "without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled." This fits its usage here. The further interpretation of "what changed because of this" may well be how you prefer to use it, of course. It isn't mine. Ravenswing 09:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 6 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I suggest referring to MOS: BIO first. It clearly states in 3.1 that in most modern-day cases this means the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable. Since Rachel was only 5 when she arrived with her family in Canada and she rose to fame as a Canadian, therefore she is considered a Canadian actress. Same goes for, let's say, Jon Bon Jovi. True, ethnically he is Italian-American, but his nationality is American. Hope this clearifies things. Norum 16:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion involving you on WP:DRN, HERE. --Human3015Send WikiLove 08:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Ravenswing. Since you are the only undoubtful neutral contributor on the article of UPR, and since there is an edit war again due to the push of French admins and crew to take control of the page. you had been mentioned there on the reason why you proposed "centrist" as UPR's political positioning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_of_Outing_.2F_Personal_Attacks D0kkaebi (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not that interested -- given that this kind of nonsense is going to go on barring a big change, I don't have the mental energy to spare to play permanent watchdog for them. I wish you luck in turning up someone who does have the time and energy to spare ... Ravenswing 07:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I wanted to let you know that I reverted the last few edits for the Jerry Sharell article. The article had a link referencing a 2013 attack, but upon further reading of the source; it was Sharell's father that was the victim of that attack. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
George Jackson (conductor)
I think this might interest you since you commented in the first deletion attempt. Please visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Jackson (conductor) (2nd nomination)--Karljoos (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
You do AfD ... that's good. Not enough of that.
And you like Baroque music? That's doubly good.
I responded on my talkpage. Tony (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
An archived ANI discusion
The discussion in which you participated is archived without being closed. This edit makes me prosecute the case. Is there any way to take the discussion into final result or solution? Mhhossein (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, taking it to the Requests For Closure page. Ravenswing 02:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I see you reverted back to that edit. You might be right with your reason to revert it. However, I find it funny that such statement by an IP editor (the most frequent vandals) appeared in the article just after the first season's game and that's the reason why I tagged that as vandalism. Had it appeared before the season I would have ignored such edit. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I do a lot of reverting of anon IP edits for vandalism; it's probably the bulk of my edits at this point. I just figure that they need to BE for vandalism. I saw that edit myself a few hours before you did, asked myself whether it was a defensible assertion, went to look at the Blackhawks' seasonal record for the years up to 2007, saw that it was the second-longest string of futility in the franchise's history, that the franchise went from an all-time record of over 80 games under .500 to 80 games over .500 in just eight short outstanding seasons, and decided that the IP was right. We just can't decide that anything potentially controversial an anon IP asserts is automatically wrong, never mind automatically vandalism, and never mind dependent on the time of year. Ravenswing 05:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Ravenswing, ( BTW, I love your moniker; is there a story behind it?)
Yesterday, I edited by adding someone I, personally, know to notable Fort Ordians. How long does it take for that edit to appear & how do you verify accuracy? Thank you. Angelsings Angelsings (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
- There is, but a bit of a convoluted one; suffice to say I've been using it, on-and-off, as a byname for a few decades now.
As far as edits to the Fort Ord article, I don't see any evidence that you've made one. I'd go back and try putting your edit in again. As far as verifying accuracy goes, first off, does the person you're seeking to add already have a Wikipedia article? If not, it's almost certain it'll get edited right back out. Beyond that, evidence that the person served at Fort Ord could include a newspaper article or a mention in a biography. This can be indirect: if a biography states that Soandso served with the 194th Armored Brigade in 1963, that's valid even if it doesn't explicitly mention Fort Ord, because we know the 194th Armored was stationed there then. Please do review Help:Referencing for beginners for a heads-up on how to properly cite information. Cheers! Ravenswing 16:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
New Coke essay?
I noticed your "essay-like" tag on New Coke with this edit, but I didn't share that response to the article. Could you please take a moment to explain on Talk:New Coke so that it might be properly addressed? Thanks! -- ke4roh (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- As it happened, I was asked the same question back in April, and here's my response.  I received no answer to that, and I expect it dropped into the same black hole as the numerous complaints on the talk page about the very same tone did. Ravenswing 21:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
British ice hockey players
You've been prodding ice hockey players in the Elite Ice Hockey League. I'm no ice hockey expert, but I was under the impression that this league was fully professional and that its players therefore meet notability guidelines for ice hockey players. Is this not the case? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's not, and they don't; this is one of those leagues where third- and fourth-liners from the NA mid-minors and bottom-rung college hockey programs turn into stars. We don't accord presumptive notability to the various British leagues, and those players have to explicitly meet the GNG. (Some I checked in that flurry do, and I didn't prod those.) WP:NHOCKEY/LA is where you want to review to see the take of the WikiProject on various leagues.
Beyond that, ice hockey is an obscure and little noted sport in Britain. For instance, I follow the BBC sports site for soccer coverage. It has top level sections on soccer, Formula 1, rugby union, cricket, tennis, golf, track & field and even cycling. It has smaller sections on American football, boxing, paralympics, equestrian sports, horse racing, Gaelic football, snooker, swimming, rugby league, and "winter sports" (skiing, curling, and the like). They don't cover the Elite League at all, and simply have a block referring you to the league's webpage for scores and news. Ravenswing 16:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I don't know (or care, to be honest!) enough about it to disagree. It just struck me as odd given all our articles appear to refer to the league and its teams as professional. As to being obscure and little noted, it depends where you live. In most places in Britain I'd entirely agree with you. However, I live in Coventry, where Coventry Blaze are always big news and ice hockey is one of the most popular spectator sports! But that is rare, I'll admit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't gainsay that the Blaze may be a big deal in Coventry; I expect there's decent coverage in Manchester as well. But adding a league to one of the lists makes the presumption that every player of every team that meets that particular criterion's standard will meet the GNG. I don't believe the coverage of the league nationwide's sufficient to meet that standard. Ravenswing 17:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I want to remove the maintenance tag from Louis L'Amour, placed by yourself 4 years ago. The articles not perfect, but it's sufficient sourced and cited, IMLTHO. If you disagree, please explain it to me. Regards Tapered (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- After a quick re-read, it could use a few more citations, but the uncited material does appear to be verified by his website, and the writing doesn't sink to the level of WP:PROMO. Tapered (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?
Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
– Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It is certainly not "axiomatic with pretty much any high school" that a high school would get most of its students from one middle school. Many, and perhaps even most, are fed by multiple middle schools. This particular school district may have only one middle school, but your edit summary to the new editor's first edit was incorrect, and rather WP:BITEY. You could have pointed out that the edit was unsourced, or that this district only has one middle school, or that the edit was unnecessary trivia (which I'm not sure I agree with). Those would have been much politer and more accurate summaries for an undo. Meters (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Let's be serious: "That would be axiomatic with pretty much any high school" would be a BITEY summary only to someone with an unusually inflated sense of persecution. That aside, if you reviewed those two edit summaries more carefully -- given that they total forty words, not an onerous task -- nowhere do I mention "one" middle school; that's your phrasing, not mine. At least in Massachusetts (and I suspect elsewhere as well, although I don't go so far as to claim my unsupported notion to be a proven fact), you're quite wrong. Most districts here, outside the cities, have but the one feeder middle school, although that's not really relevant.
That my edit summary wasn't a groveling "Please forgive me, O newcomer, but duty compels me with trembling hesitation to revert your otherwise-majestic and welcome edit," well, you're right. It wasn't. I presume I'm dealing with adults, that I don't have to heap metaphoric dust on my head in communicating with them, and that it would be considerably more insulting and uncivil to treat them like kegs of dynamite just ready to go off if I don't speak with oily and insincere obsequiousness. Ravenswing 08:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- And I didn't say that you said "one" middle school either. And you didn't qualify your edit summary to rural schools in Massachusetts. You made a unecessarily rude, incorrect blanket statement about all high schools, and quite likely chased off a new editor. That's Bitey. I'll fix the article inclusion so that even you won;t be able to find fault with it, and unwatch your talkpage since I have no interest in debating your faulty semantics. Meters (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- "It is certainly not "axiomatic with pretty much any high school" that a high school would get most of its students from one middle school." Your quote, sir; only the emphasis is mine. If you're unwatching my talk page in a huff because I'm declining to buy into your Humpty Dumpty-esque debate style, where reality is what you declare it to be, fair enough. Ravenswing 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I am unable to see any malicious use of socking, but if you look here the user seems to be advertising their use of an ip sock. Didn't know how much attention it deserved or whether they are just ignorant of policy.18abruce (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay ... but I'm not an admin, so I'm unsure what you'd like me to do about it. Ravenswing 22:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Fabian Benko, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. I don't usually template regulars, but you're being intentionally provocative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me? You toss in a handful of BS weblinks, without the slightest effort to ascertain if they're reliable sources, some of which DUPLICATE others you've already attempted to toss in, and you're crying provocation? Ravenswing 17:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)