User talk:Ravenswing/Archive7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. Remember, only you can stop forest fires. Set your homes ablaze instead.

California Golden Seals[edit]

Agreed. I was just copying the style used on many other similar NHL team pages - including others who never won any of these items.

Again, though, I agree with your undo.

Jmg38 (talk) 04:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Worlds largest round barn[edit]

Hello, I noticed your rather sarcastic comments on your edit summary for worlds largest round barn. I've also noticed a pattern since I spoke on the ice hockey project page of you being quite cynical and rude towards my edits. Possibly send this to WP:ANI? or can we resolve this distaste amicably. Anyways, I am providing links so that you can be certain the title of "worlds largest" is not of my own assumption. Should there be any further conflict, let's please discuss this.Keystoneridin (speak) 18:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The degree to which a threat to take this to ANI fazes me is minimal; where serial edit summaries along the lines of "Go fuck yourself, you vandal" are handled with kid gloves at ANI, I'm afraid that a complaint boiling down to "He's not stroking me as much as I think he ought to" would at best be treated dismissively, if not derisively. "Grow a backbone, will you?" was one response given within the last couple days.

    That being said, perhaps you could rein in your bruised sensibilities and answer the question I posed: what official sanctioning body conferred upon this barn the official title of "World's Largest?" Or, as is far more likely the case, did the locals assume it was, start giving that as a nickname for the building, and the nickname stuck? All that your sources indicate - and I already see that you have had problems with posting sources that did not support the statements you made - is that people call this barn the "World's Largest Round Barn," and that the local fair thinks enough of the barn to use it as a logo. That's fine, but it's worth no more than the article currently states: the name is a nickname. Ravenswing 01:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my sincerest apologies. I took the statement in your edit summary as "I was" giving the name to the barn rather than the locals. By the way, I see that you are from Mass. What is your favorite college hockey team? Thanks!Keystoneridin (speak) 03:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and the Northeastern University Huskies; I'm a NU alum and a one-time season ticket holder. Ravenswing 06:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Site ban[edit]

What should I do to persuade the wikipedia community to not site ban me? I noticed that you were one of the few editors willing to entertain my position in the debate on whether to ban me that's why I'm asking you. --RJR3333 (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Well, having looked over the sockpuppet investigation, I'd say it's looking pretty grim, and I don't precisely disagree with the premise; you *have* been sockpuppeting, and you *have* committed vandalism in your so-called "silly" moods. For the good my advice will do you at this stage, your best tack is to ask that very question on the investigation page: what would the admins there want from you to demonstrate your good faith and your future cooperation, and give you a second chance? Do not qualify this. They aren't going to want to hear, as I didn't want to hear, that yes, you've been a bad boy, but Flyer22 is Out To Get You. Just apologize, and say you'll never do it again, and never mind who else you think is at fault. That investigation isn't about what anyone else has done. It's about what you have done. Ravenswing 22:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Annnnd ... seeing as you were indeffed ninety minutes after I wrote this, it's become moot. Oh well. Ravenswing 12:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hartford vs Buffalo on Whalers page[edit]

I have been looking over recent edits of the Hartford Whalers page and saw that someone claimed Hartford is a bigger metro market than Buffalo. This is in fact true today and was true at the time the Whalers left, take a look at metropolitan census table from the 90's However, it is true that Hartford was the smallest US market when the team joined the NHL. So how should we handle the wording? Should the smallest US market statement just be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whalerguy1 (talkcontribs) 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

  • Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
  • If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
  • Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
  • Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
  • If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI-GeoSwan-AfD Discussion[edit]

I already posted something on the page, but I wanted to personally apologize to you here for my incivility. I wrote what I shouldn't have written, and there's no excuse for that. I'm sorry. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Quite alright, and I thank you for your courtesy in apologizing, which is of course accepted. Ravenswing 09:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Society for the Preservation of Beers from the Wood[edit]

What part of Society for the Preservation of Beers from the Wood do you feel may be original research? I understand tagging it for primary sources, but those sources, such as they are, do support the text. -- Pemilligan (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • And where they all come from the society itself, that's OR; they are, in effect, doing their own talking. Ravenswing 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you've overstretched the definition of original research. Original research would be something created by the person writing the article. I added most of the sources, but I did not create any of them. -- Pemilligan (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email![edit]

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

  • If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at
  • If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edward de Vere[edit]

I am obliged to inform you of my reply on WP:ANI - as my predecessor in the discussion there on the Edward de Vere issue. What I would like to ask you: Would you please explain to me what you mean with my alleged "handful of articlespace edits (being dominated by the authorship issue)"? Have you spent time for adding my edits to a total? It should be obvious that nobody has the right to prescribe me a certain amount of edits in articles on Wikipedia, especially in articles which are so heavily under control as the authorship issue is. You certainly know that a number of editors were banned for a longer time because their editings - as it was believed - supported a so-called fringe theory. And if I say that I also support this theory, and in the same time I perfectly know that any editing in favour of this theory would be reverted and I immediately made responsible for this "misdemeanour" - so what can I do? (I ask: Is such a conduct really fully compatible with the freedom of speech? - I do not think so.) Then I mostly can make only small edits like putting a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence where there was none. Exactly this has been my last editing in the article on Edward de Vere, you can have a look. And this is perfectly OK, or isn´t it??? However, there is no rule on Wikipedia that a supporter of a so-called fringe theory (which has been and still is supported by a number of Assistant Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States) is excluded from any Talk Page on this subject. If you don´t know this fact, please ask someone who knows. And besides this, you have certainly no exact information on the amount of my other editings on English-language and other national Wikipedia pages which have nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon. So what is your point, can you explain it to me? I hope you will do so, because otherwise it would be a little bit strange, given the fact that you addressed me. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

  • There is nothing "alleged" about you having a handful of articlespace edits; according to a useful Toolservee edit counter, in nearly a year and a half, you've managed 164 articlespace edits. (And that being said, if you don't know this fact, your complete edit history is visible to any Wikipedia editor, and it's quite easy to compile a record of where, when and how much you've edited.)

    While you're absolutely right in that you are the sole judge as to how much activity you put into Wikipedia, an average of two articlespace edits a week represents the output of a casual, inexperienced editor, and that inexperience shows in your ANI complaint. You are also absolutely right that a supporter of a fringe theory is not barred from talk pages, absent any violation of Wikipedia rules, but no one has suggested any such thing, and you raising such an absurdity is another of your several strawmen. What I suggested you do is use the Oxford talk page for discussing improvements to the article - a legitimate use of that page - instead of launching out-of-the-blue ad hominem attacks on other editors - an illegitimate use of that page. Ravenswing 22:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don´t agree with your term casual, inexperienced editor for my person. However, I don´t suggest to you that you have a look at my global edits. Have a nice day, --Zbrnajsem (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You really made my day[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar, you really made my day.

Quick relevant story, the article is almost an accident, or at least, it wasn't really my plan. I was working on improving the NCAA Women's basketball tournament pages. I was working on 1990, had added a pile of data, and a bit of text summarizing the Final Four games, and decided it would be nice to have a nice picture. I wrote to the athletic department, no answer. I followed up, no answer. I tried a couple other people there, no answer. I wrote to a fan, looking for help, and she sent me a link to some articles written by a different person in the athletic office. I wrote to him, asked for a picture of the 1990 (and 1992) teams, and, pretty much as an aside, mentioned I had personally taken a picture of Tara, but it wasn't very good, and if he would give me a better one, I'd work on improving the article. He did and I did. I hadn't planned on doing that much, but her career is fascinating, and I couldn't stop. Your post helps make it worthwhile.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I understand how it goes. At least two of my DYKs and one of my GAs came from me randomly wandering through other things and stumbling across stubs that bugged me. Anyway, it's a heck of an improvement, and thanks for your own kind words. Ravenswing 01:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase[edit]

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Revival (sports team)[edit]

I have updated the page. I hope it addresses your concerns. I never intended to mislead anyone. Someone had to write the article. Remember good-faith. Cheers. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1971–72 NHL season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John McKenzie and Ed Johnston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, friend[edit]

I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ECHL "franchises"[edit]

Thanks for getting that. Beat me to the punch! I'm not sure why the "franchise" non-issue rears its head periodically. Cheers!  Cjmclark (Contact) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

More often than not its the same editor. The one who makes the biggest noise is a pretty heavy duty sockpuppet. I have had to block a lot of their accounts. Haven't looked at this editor yet so I don't know if it is them again. -DJSasso (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
But, when all is said and done, we can't really stop a determined enough puppetmaster. Heck, there are eight public WiFi nodes within a couple minutes walk of my workplace, and that's in a small county seat of 17,000. Ravenswing 01:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yup exactly. That is basically how this guy has been getting around it so often. A lot of his editing appears to come from a mobile connection so likely a cell phone or a tablet. But his behavioural evidence and his general geographical region all tend to give him away lucky enough. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Highbeam help?[edit]

Hey! I see you got a recent subscription to Highbeam. Mine just expired, and I've been asked to re-verify a statement I made using an article. See Talk:1988 Winter Olympics#Cost. Can you look at this article and copy up the paragraph I used to cite the cost of those Olympics? Thanks! Resolute 22:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Edits of 2011 Stanley Cup Finals[edit]

I think my edits are correct. They were on a team that made the finals for the first time, although they didn't play. Should I also note that they did not play as well? (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

  • If the players don't play, they don't appear. Should the Bruins make it to the Finals this year, it's not going to be Matt Bartowski's "second" Finals appearance; he's yet to take the ice in one, nor is his name even on the Cup for one. A hard and fast rule is that a player who doesn't take the ice hasn't taken the ice: the game that broke Garry Unger's consecutive game streak saw Unger on the bench, except that his coach physically prevented him from taking a shift. The NHL didn't count the streak as continuing, even though Unger was dressed for the game and on the bench. The likes of Bartowski, Khudobin, Arniel and Hnidy weren't even dressed for any Final games. I invite you to remove these edits before they are, once again, removed. Ravenswing 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The term "finals appearance" can be interpreted differently, and is subject to semantics. When I said "appearance", I did not necessarily mean that they dressed or played; but are simply on a roster of a team that is in the Stanley Cup Finals. I never said they dressed or were in the lineup. And I noted that they did not actually appear, but rather were on the roster for the first time their team made it to the finals. Unger's streak was that of games played. How should I note that they were on a team that made it to the finals? I never said Bartkowski's name is on the cup. Marc Savard's name, however, is on the cup. For example, if the Bruins go on to win the Stanley Cup this year, Bartkowski would get his second championship ring, day with the cup, and team picture appearance; as well as the first time his name would be engraved on the cup. Do you not understand that? How should anyone know that Trent Whitfield and Colby Cohen were on the roster and received rings, held the cup, were included in the championship team picture and get to spend a day with the cup that symbolizes Lord Frederick Stanley's bowl. I know these facts about players' experiences and cite sources to back up my statements. I am just trying to inform people in this article how many times a player has been on the team's roster when his team makes it to the finals. It is not useless to mention how many times a player gets a ring, appears in a celebration on the ice, and spends a day with the Stanley Cup. (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No, it really can't be; it is only subject to semantics from people eager to take inaccurate stances. The NHL very plainly limits recognition of players having appeared in the Finals (or playing on a team generally) to those taking the ice during a game. That players who did not qualify appear in team pictures (as do many non-players) or receive Cup rings (as did over five hundred people employed by or connected to the Bruins in 2011, down to the ushers at TD Garden) has nothing to do with that, and I am quite comfortable with Wikipedia readers having no explicit clue that Trent Whitfield or Colby Cohen did not, in fact, appear in the Cup Finals when, in point of fact, they didn't. If you want to invent new, unrecognized definitions, get consensus on the talk page first. Ravenswing 09:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • But I have noticed before that articles that have sections I didn't write also make the same statements I did, and I was under the impression that on the Finals rosters that the definition was very loosely defined for Wikipedia ardicles, and did not need to be classified by the NHL's recognition standards; as many I didn't write are not defined by official NHL standards. For example, I noticed that Chris Chelios actually did not appear in the 2008 Stanley Cup Finals and the article mentioned that it was his fifth appearance, even though he didn't make a finals appearance that season. I also noticed that it listed that season as Mark Hartigan's second appearance, even though he was only on the roster both times his team made the finals and did not appear. I also noticed the same is true for Aaron Rome. I also noticed that "Category:Stanley Cup champions" has always been full of players who were on Stanley Cup winning rosters who did not qualify to be engraved, and were not engraved by a successful petition; and that this category is also loosely defined. The consensus in these articles always seemed to be loosely defined to me. I must have been under the wrong impression. I even cite sources to back up my statements. I had no idea that articles had to be defined by NHL standards of "appearances". Is that a Wikipedia rule? Others have made similar edits to what I have made. I am not trying to make inaccurate statements. I honestly don't know Wikipedia's standards for articles. (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
          • If the Chelios article asserts that he made a Finals appearance when he didn't, the article is wrong. If Hartigan's article asserts that he made Finals appearances when he didn't, the article is wrong. (You, in point of fact, made that change for Rome on the Finals article.) I'm unsure why it's such a hard thing for you to understand that in order to be credited with having played, you actually need to play, and bringing in irrelevant side issues such as whose name is or is not engraved on the Cup doesn't help. Once again, if you want to change the definition to your liking, then seek consensus on the appropriate talk pages, but I can't see any reason for you to seek further debate here. Ravenswing 21:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my rant[edit]

I think you're better. Don't prove me wrong. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • At ranting? I certainly have a great deal of experience at it. Whether I'm better at it than you is quite subjective, of course. As to your odd rant on that AfD, I shan't respond there -- it's close enough to a NPA violation to warrant redaction in any event. I'm happy to have become acquainted with a number of talented and dedicated colleagues over my nearly ten years and 35K+ edits on Wikipedia, but no: this is neither Facebook nor Myspace, and if we were all in some manner of popularity contest, no one would ever revert an edit, advocate deleting a page, or vote "Oppose" on any RfA or indeed any issue whatsoever. The thousands of volunteers who seek to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines -- as opposed, say, to making new ones up to suit our amour propres -- is what keeps this from turning into Urban Dictionary.

    Now if you consider opposing your POV on an AfD "burning bridges," oooookay; it's a free world, and I promise not to snarl if you decide that you're not a buddy of mine. I will say this much, though: what the hell are you doing with the mop with such a fundamental flaw in your understanding of the encyclopedia's notability guidelines?

    There. That's *my* rant. Ravenswing 06:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL Hiberniantears (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Succession on Majipoor[edit]

Nice catch! Your wording is clearer and takes in account episodes like Voriax's untimely death. Rivertorch (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you kindly! Ravenswing 02:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

§Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

NHL relocation speculation is getting funny[edit]

Wow, this speculation on Wikipedia is getting nuts [1]. Earlier tonight I put a CSD tag on a Seattle Totems page [2] that some guy created because, according to him, that's where the Coyotes are going and that's what they're going to be named. (He had all the info boxes and everything.) Sigh. Taroaldo 08:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Mm, it's been like this for years. The pages for defunct teams -- the Whalers, the Nordiques, the original Jets, even as far back as the Kansas City Scouts' article -- are routinely spammed with Hot Rumor Of The Week That Our Team Will Return, generally bolstered by a source from a local bored sportswriter. The articles for teams thought to be vulnerable to moves -- the Coyotes assuredly, but also the Penguins, the Predators and others -- likewise. Ravenswing 21:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

More funny NHL stuff[edit]

So, today's fun activity is dealing with Ottawa's announcement that Scotiabank Place will become Canadian Tire Centre on July 1, 2013. Of course, less than two hours after it was announced on TSN, someone had moved the Scotiabank Place page to "Canadian Tire Centre" and the name was changed in the NHL page, etc. *sigh -- Taroaldo 23:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  • One of the elements that -- if I had my way -- would feature prominently on WP:PILLAR is this: there are no prizes on Wikipedia for being the first person to scoop the rest of the world and make a change to an article. Another syndrome we see all the time here, as you can see with the ongoing edit war over Alain Vigneault's name appearing in the Rangers' article. Ravenswing 01:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I try to keep good humor about all of it, but now I find someone issuing very subtle threats about either ANI or 3rr regarding the repeated redirects that are getting added to Scotiabank Place. I've been trying to get Canadian Tire Centre moved back there and the page move-protected until Jul 1, but admins have been slow today. I finally posted a comment on WP:AN asking them to do the move, because it's starting to get a bit tedious.
You are absolutely right about the competition to be first with the scoop; this is supposed to be a collegial project, not a competition. Taroaldo 02:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Pembroke, MA Wiki Page[edit]

Hello Ravenswing, I am unsure why you would remove the information that I added to the Pembroke page about Pembroke Community Media, and refer to it as vandalism. The information that I added was true, and correct. Please explain yourself.

Thanks (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Cathie

If you happen to look at the reversion -- [3] -- I didn't touch the PCM info you added. The reversion I made, back to your revision, was of an anon IP who was screwing with the census data. Please exercise more care. Ravenswing 03:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Your stance on eSports[edit]

I'm sorry can you please explain to me your stance on eSports? I fail to see why these players are not considered athletes even when the US Government(among other governing bodies) themselves consider them to be athletes. It is because of your rather ignorant stance on eSports that we are not allowed to add our players into your Wikipedia site for others to see. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Huh. Go figure. The last time I chimed in on any debate on so-called "esports" was nearly two years ago, where along with dozens of other editors -- nearly unanimously -- we determined that they formed no part of sports notability criteria. (I definitely have no authority to make such rulings unilaterally, as you seem to presume, and I'm not egotistical enough to imagine that my rhetoric swayed the masses to vote against their beliefs.) Writing any of the others to demand explanations of them? No, I see that you haven't.

    That being said -- and no, the US government does not consider video game players to be "athletes" -- sure, I'll explain again here, seeing as it seems to have been too much trouble for you to read that debate and see the reasoning presented there. Those aren't "sports." They're games. Sure, there are professional tournaments, and their most prominent champions are celebrated within their own communities, but that doesn't make them sports, any more than chess, blackjack, Magic: The Gathering or Monopoly are "sports" just because they, too, have professional tournaments and world champions. I recognize that a lot of video gamers were scorned in high school gym class and yearn in their souls to be seen as "athletes," but I neither invented nor defined the distinction.

    Beyond that, why do you care? The decision of some sports Wikiproject editors never did ban video game players from having Wikipedia articles; we just declined to include them under WP:NSPORTS criteria. They can still qualify if they meet the requirements of WP:GNG, which applies Wikipedia-wide. Perhaps you can read the links at WP:PILLAR and correct your ignorance on how Wikipedia works. Ravenswing 03:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


A short question - is this your account - [4] ? Greetings, Sir Lothar (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • (blinks) Can't imagine why it would be ... Ravenswing 10:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, a mistake. Sorry for bothering you. Sir Lothar (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


Thanks much for the barnstar! — Hunter Kahn 00:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Eh, thanks for minor league work. I was a season ticket holder in Springfield for many years, and I dislike the prejudice against minor leagues that operate in a lot of the sports WikiProjects. Ravenswing 01:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Tim Horton[edit]

I believe Buffalo retired Tim Horton's number 2 and Toronto retired Tim Horton's number 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Not quite. The Leafs don't retire numbers, but they "honour" them. Horton and King Clancy (who wore #7 in an earlier time) were added to that list, but it's still in circulation. A number of Toronto players have worn the number, the most recent being Ian White and Garnet Exelby in 2010. Ravenswing 23:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

1632 series[edit]

Could you offer some substantive suggestions as to how the article might be improved, prefereably at Talk:1632 series? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Ravenswing. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Kevin Fiala[edit]

I trust that you will do the right thing and withdraw your nomination for deletion of Kevin Fiala as it has now been shown that he meets Criteria #1 of WP:NHOCKEY as a Swedish Hockey League player. Dolovis (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Absolutely ... when you strike each and every one of these bogus Keep+Redirect votes you've made in these AfDs, and apologize in making them when you know full well you've been knowingly going against consensus, except in cases where you've actually lied about a player's qualifications or the text of the criteria. I'm afraid you've established far too much of a record of bad faith and obstructionism to be making unilateral demands. Ravenswing 00:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that while you can withdraw your own delete !vote if you like, but the existence of other delete !votes negates the possibility of simply withdrawing the nomination itself. Demonstrating in the article that the player meets GNG is the easiest and fastest way to a keep result. Resolute 01:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious notability of a player, who by WP:NHOCKEY is to be presumed notable by the very criteria that you both have so actively campaigned for, is laughable. Your inability to change your deletionist position, even when the verifiable evidence clearly demonstrates to all observers that your initial position is no longer supportable, only goes to undermine your own credibility in this and other AfDs, and within the WikiProject Ice Hockey in general. Despite your constant accusations, I have never edited in bad faith, and your continuous attempts to bully me is pitiful. Dolovis (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that under the current terms of NHOCKEY, he is presumed notable. And you are correct, part of my position was no longer supportable and was appropriately struck. But "presumed notable" does not automatically equal to "is notable", which is a point that you have steadfastly refused to get. The presumption was challenged, and now you must show that the player actually is notable. Theoretically, now that he has played in the top tier of Swedish hockey, that should not be difficult, right? So get to it. Resolute 01:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You just can't bring yourself to do it, Dolovis, can you? You're asked to do something in good faith, and you just can't do it. You ignore -- or defy -- the criteria when it doesn't back you up, only to wave it like a bloody flag when the black-letter guidelines do back you up. You claim that articles satisfy the GNG, but you haven't once actually proven it. You demand that others do the right thing, but refuse to do it yourself. Sorry, but I'm just not as invested as you are in protecting your edit count or your total of new articles created. And that being said, the notice at the top of this page about being disinterested in rants really does apply to you too. I don't foresee any need for you to continue to post on my talk page. Ravenswing 11:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)