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)
Miss USA winner discussions
Since you have made previous comments related to articles on this subject, I thought you might be interested in the deletion discussions for Laci Scott and several others currently in process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
hi, just wanted to thank you for creating the page on Dorothy Taubman, which is amazingly accurate and complete. i'm curious -- are you a pianist? were you a student of hers? how did you come by all this knowledge? thanks so much for putting the page up. i refer to it over and over, and send my students to study it. thanks again! robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvomonte (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, my piano playing was strictly high school stuff, and I never (knowingly) met Taubman. The genesis of the article was really an Article for Deletion filing on Taubman's Institute, which editors felt didn't meet the standard necessary to sustain a Wikipedia article. I was among them, but after doing a little digging, felt that Taubman herself met that standard, and created the article. Most of the work on the article, visible in its present form, is not mine, however much I like to bask in credit. In any event, on behalf of those other editors, I thank you for your kind words. Ravenswing 11:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
RfC for page patroller qualifications
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Asking for help
Can you please help in this TFD nomination? The author of the template keeps reverting the nomination. The editor in question do not answer talk pages or WikiProject discussions. --Osplace 02:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hurricanes hockey team's origins...
I guess it's all a matter of semantics, but I still don't understand how you can say the Hurricanes were formed in 1971?!! The New England Whalers were formed in 1971, the Carolina Hurricanes were not even conceived at that time, much less existed. The Hurricanes came into existance only when the Whalers team basically folded, and the team relocated to Raleigh, and at that point in time took on the name Hurricanes.
I still believe your phrasing is semantically awkward, the Hurricanes team was not formed in 1971, the Whalers were. Regarding my edit, I wanted to go as far as saying that the team then became the Hurricanes when it moved to Raleigh in 1997. It is a matter of existing, at different points in time, as differently named teams.
Perhaps putting it as such will help... In 1971 a team called the New Englad Whalers was formed (which is true). In 1979, the team merged into the NHL, and was renamed the Hartford Whalers (again true). In 1997 the team relocated to Raleigh NC, and then became the Hurricanes(true).
Or, perhaps explained in this way, why would the Hurricanes be formed in 1971, but be called the Whalers? You prefer this way of phrasing this, but how can the team be formed in one instance of time, but have two names as you imply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AA Pilot16 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's the same franchise, that's how. It's really rather a simple thing. Ravenswing 19:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree, but it's a free world out there. Your meaning is ambiguos at best, same franchise - isn't that wonderful!! You base your argument on a technicality. The Hurricanes were formed as a piece of that franchise, in 1997, and not anytime before that. Why you can't accept presenting this more clearly helps to establish why Wikipedia can be so challenging. A heads up, you have alot of work to do on the Wikipedia Hartford Whalers page, based on your sense of logic. AA Pilot16 (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
New deal for page patrollers
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Ravenswing. Your account has been added to the "
New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 19:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi Ravenswing. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
We now have 327 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
- Breaking the back of the backlog
If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
- Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
- Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote
With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))
- Please help reduce the New Page backlog
This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.
- Getting the tools we need
ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE
Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
Apparently he no longer responds to people and I can't edit his userpage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dolovis "This user is ranked 43rd on the list of Wikipedians by number of pages created." "This user is one of the 1,000 most active English Wikipedians of all time." are not even close to being accurate 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it's not something I'm particularly exercised about, nor given our oft-confrontational dealings over the years should I be editing his userpage at all. For my part, the time I'd spend doing that I could be doing something to genuinely help the encyclopedia, like knocking off another article from the New Page Review backlog. Ravenswing 19:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)