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.

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)

Alex Martin[edit]

Admittedly, taking a guess at how to post here. With regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Baird, please note that Jason died last night due to an infection in his pancreas. Reference: Facebook posts of friends. Knew him in highschool. Also, note spike in activity. Would appreciate any delay in deletion that you may be able to afford.Amartin244 (talk) 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • His death -- which I confirmed independently from a Corpus Christi paper -- is certainly regrettable, but unfortunately, I don't see how that impacts his notability by Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and the article would be deleted one way or the other in any event. Regardless, I'm sorry for your loss at your friend's death. Ravenswing 04:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

An AFD you might be interested in[edit]

I see that you are interested in the creations of Dolovis. Based on that, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Carman, a creation by Dolovis. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I do believe that Dolovis is creating these giant heaps (he's created over three thousand stubs and redirects) to bump up his edit count. That being said, though, while I'm completely confident in my expertise in gauging the notability of hockey players, I have no knowledge of Australian cinema, and couldn't have a credible opinion on whether the roles in which Carman appeared are significant enough to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. Ravenswing 03:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit late but...[edit]

Hi Ravenswing,

I just realized now in looking at my talk page that you gave me a barnstar on March 9, 2012 for my hockey contributions to Wikipedia. I know it's a tad late (almost 2 years!) but thank you for that, I do really appreciate it! Croat Canuck Talk 15:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Heh, you earned it, late or otherwise. You're very welcome. Ravenswing 03:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing others' comments[edit]

Regarding this, I hope you are aware of the guidelines at WP:TPO that state not to edit others' comments. The passage in question does not fall under "Removing harmful posts", and even if you think it does, you should "normally stop if there is any objection". Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm indeed aware of TPO, and equally aware of the clause that editing out personal attacks is "controversial," and certainly not forbidden. If that editor -- who has, as to that, had more blocks than I've had (to wit, zero) -- is so very exercised about having his repeated personal attacks redacted, he might consider not making them in the first place. For a newbie editor, that'd earn him a stern reprimand at ANI at least. For a veteran admin with a hundred thousand edits, it is and should be inexcusable. Ravenswing 03:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    While his comment was uncivil, it was not a personal attack. Redaction is not a solution in this case and only aggravates the issue. Be careful not to escalate it further, such as accusing him of being "intentionally disruptive" when he was just adding on to my statement. Your initial reply to him basically asked if he was joking and that an admin should know better about the notability guidelines. Admins can indeed be in the wrong from time to time, but a proper response is to state that while Boston Globe provides significant coverage, Lonely Planet does not provide that kind of coverage, so more significant coverage from elsewhere is needed to determine notability. In other words, discuss the topic apart from the editor. Believe me, Rambling Man isn't above the fray either, hence my general encouragement for everyone to focus on the content. Redaction continues to make the issue personal and maintains the hostility. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mountains on Io[edit]

Ravenswing, I don't know whether you saw Allen3's comment here, but your review was predicated on a misunderstanding of DYK rules, and needs to be redone if you wish to claim QPQ credit for it. Hope to see a new iteration soon! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Fred Stanfield[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Fred Stanfield at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Ravenswing, it's been over two weeks, and you haven't yet responded to the issues raised or made any edits to the article to work on them. We need to hear from you soon if you wish to continue pursuing this nomination. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • New ping, since you don't seem to be monitoring the nomination: a very serious issue was raised a week ago that you need to deal with, along with other outstanding issues. Please respond there as soon as possible. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I only need to deal with it if I'm still fishing for a DYK, which at this point I'm not, given that there's already been one "The attribution isn't solid enough" / "There are too many references on that line" dichotomy. I'm certainly not shifting the refs off of the would-be hook, which is a highly subjective opinion that I'd absolutely challenge if it carried only a single reference: "widely considered the X in all the hockey world" is the sort of statement we've felt necessary to drape with as many as six solid references in the Hockey WikiProject. I said over a week ago that I lacked the time to chase any more tails, especially with what seems to me shifting requirements; please accept that as my response. Ravenswing 01:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maple Leaf goalie in Game 1 quarter-finals Toronto at Boston April 5/72[edit]

Hi Mr. Ravenswing. Jacques Plante was the Leaf goalie for this game. it was the only game he played in the series.

This link is a site with historical NHL game summaries

This link is to a google historical newspaper site. This is to the Calgary Herald of April 6/72 and has the game summary on page 33.

Nice to see another person interested in hockey history.

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmut Hedd (talkcontribs) 01:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to add the missing game 2 data, but if you are interested in doing so, here is the link to the game. I vividly remember Harrison scoring the winner in OT and believing my beloved Leafs could knock off the Bruins..ahhh, the dreams of youth.

DYK for Fred Stanfield[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Ravenswing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC). 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.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Youth titles[edit]

In professional boxing there is and it is problematic. The issue currently came up with an AfD discussion but it is not the first time. BoxRec lists professional fights only and in this case one of those is the WBO Youth title. The issue was raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Denial of COI[edit]

Regarding your comment here, my hunch is that the editor knows the subject in person and/or respects him as a "fanboy" and that he is not doing this for remuneration. It would be the equivalent of a die-hard fan of some marginally-maybe-noable college professor who might have met said professor a few times trying tow write an article about said professor, or perhaps the equivalent of a student or protegee of that professor trying to write an article about that professor, but not at the professor's request or direction. In other words, you have the same editorial blindness that prompted WP:COI's creation in the first place, without necessarily violating the letter of WP:COI and therefore being able to say, without lying, that you don't have a COI. Personally, I think if you have a significant bias in a subject area, you should be very very careful editing on that topic unless you know that you can write neutrally in spite of the bias. This is one reason don't write much about my high school and college alma mater, organizations I belong to, cities I've lived in recently, etc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Mm, I agree. I do edit in some similar areas, but I'm confident in my ability to be neutral, and sanguine about others reviewing my edits and changing them if they feel I'm not. In a couple particular areas, I stay away altogether; I haven't touched an article about a book for which I was the co-author, for instance, and it's not even on my watchlist. Ravenswing 01:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm WilliamJE. I noticed that you made a comment on the page [[:WP:DRV]] that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ...William 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, it's good that you didn't actually edit my comments, which I stand behind. I don't have any questions, and I responded to your comment in the DRV; I don't have anything to add to that other than reiterate that you should take the time to gain a better understanding of deletion policy. Ravenswing 04:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

List of ice hockey countries[edit]

The guy who did Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ice_hockey_countries keeps putting speedy deletion tags on the page and is adding no-hockey countries while removing references I add. Can you help? (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I want this article deleted. How could I make any mistakes in the first place? AaronWikia (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, well, you tried to do that at AfD. Consensus was to keep the article. That is now a done deal, and your only recourse is to accept the decision and move on. Ravenswing 03:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Perry Florio for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perry Florio is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perry Florio until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Coycan (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Expeditionary Force[edit]

I did, and have done so again now, and I still see no issues with translation. Can you point out some specific sentences which are troubling you?--Jac16888 Talk 22:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

  • You genuinely can't see it?
    • Third paragraph, "Command" section, second sentence: fragment, bad use of tense, bad grammar.
    • "The campaign" section, first paragraph, third sentence: poor grammar, just plain doesn't make sense.
    • "The campaign" section, first paragraph, fourth sentence: poor grammar.
    • "The campaign" section, first paragraph, fifth sentence: poorly worded, quite aside from POV sourcing issues.
    • "The campaign" section, second paragraph, first sentence: this is just plain a mess.
    • "The campaign" section, first paragraph, second sentence: poor grammar.

And so on. Now I'm willing to accept this isn't a translation problem, and is instead a mess created by an editor or editors whose command of the English language is -- shall we say -- suspect. Either way, it's not only a mess requiring some significant rewriting, but I'm somewhat baffled that anyone could have read the article through and not seen it. Ravenswing 03:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The grammar is not perfect but even looking at the sentences you highlight there is nothing that stops me from easily understanding what the article is saying. Since these issues don't require a translator to correct, I have replaced the tag with a copyedit one--Jac16888 Talk 10:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Ravenswing. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC). 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.

-- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Could use your help[edit]

I am about to take a machete to Progressive_Labor_Party_(United_States) because the article still reads like a POV essay. Would appreciate a different pair of eyes to make changes to the article as well to insure the article isn't a product of my own efforts. xcuref1endx talk 16:34 18 Sept. 2014 (UTC)

  • Will do. I apologize; I'd planned some machete action myself, but got sidetracked. Ravenswing 02:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

2nd nomination of Victoria Pynchon for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Victoria Pynchon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. You participated in the first AfD discussion approximately two years ago, so I am notifying you of the 2nd nomination. It is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Pynchon (2nd nomination). AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

National Hockey League page[edit]

Ravenswing, I was having trouble with the 'visual editor' function I usually use for pages and to see whether it was working I started typing content on the NHL page in 'normal entry' mode, in what i thought was an experiment, to see if I could get it working properly - and then realized I wasn't previewing stuff, I was actually absentmindedly saving it all on the NHL page. I tried to revert it all to your last edit - but you may want to have a peak to make sure it's not screwed up. Next time around, I'll just use my talk page or sandbox - in hindsight, experimenting on an actual page with a bunch of garbage wasn't bright. I hope it can be fixed. I'm really sorry. GLG GLG (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Nope, you're good -- you got it back to my last edit. Not to worry. Ravenswing 10:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-free content review[edit]

You may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Florence_Green.jpg. --kelapstick(bainuu) 13:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project[edit]

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project

  • Yes, indeed, I can make a comment, and this is it: I'm not interested in spam. Ravenswing 23:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Superfruit[edit]


An article that you have been involved in editing, Superfruit, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 20:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


ravenswing, in notability:icehockey does the reference to "coach" include just the head coach or does it include assistant coaches and goalie coaches? GLG GLG (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Head coaches. I know a couple of the projects seem to want to include everyone up to and including bullpen and strength/conditioning coaches, but I just don't see how we can justify presumptive notability for them in hockey. Ravenswing 08:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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 alleged 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 an attack on your manhood; 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 green 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)


Could you clarify with some specific examples of what motivated you to place this tag? Years ago someone tagged it with {{story}} and I cleaned it up, so if it has some issues I'd like to know what so I can fix them. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • But of course:

    * "... who at that time favored Pepsi and its sweetness by even more overwhelming margins than the market as a whole."

    * "The results of the taste tests were strong – the sweeter mixture overwhelmingly beat both regular Coke and Pepsi."

    * "A small minority, about 10–12%, felt angry and alienated at the very thought ..."

    * "Goizueta defended the change by pointing out that the drink's secret formula was not sacrosanct and inviolable."

    * "... a vocal minority of them resented the change in formula and were not shy about making that known ..."

    * "Most of them saw great difficulty having to promote and sell a drink that had long been marketed as "The Real Thing", constant and unchanging, now that it had been changed."

    * "Bottlers, particularly in the South, were also tired of facing personal opprobrium over the change. Many reported that some acquaintances had stopped speaking to them, or had expressed displeasure in other emotionally hurtful ways."

    * "This populist version of the story served Coke's interests, however, as the whole episode did more to position and define Coca-Cola as a brand embodying values distinct from Pepsi than any deliberate effort to do so probably could have done."

    * "While in the short term the fiasco led Bill Cosby to end his advertising for Coke, saying his commercials that praised the superiority of the new formula had hurt his credibility, no one at Coca-Cola was fired or otherwise held responsible for what is still widely perceived as a misstep, for the simple reason that it ultimately wasn't."

    * "Phone calls and letters to the company were as joyful and thankful as they had been angry and depressed ..."

    * "But confusion reigned at the company's marketing department ..."

    * "Marketers fumbled for a strategy for the rest of the year."

    * "At the beginning of 1986, however, Coke's marketing team found a strategy by returning to their original motives for changing the drink: the youth market so beholden to Pepsi."

    * "In a riposte to Pepsi's televisual teasings ..."

    * "However, Coca-Cola did little to promote or otherwise distinguish it. In a market already offering far more choice of drinks calling themselves "Coke" in some fashion or another, the public saw little reason to embrace a product they had firmly rejected seven years earlier ..."

    * "New Coke had the spotlight for only three months but casts a long shadow, in both the business world and popular culture, that can be seen today."

    There are far too many statements like these, often uncited, short on encyclopedic tone and long on opinionated phrasing. If this is the version after cleanup, I hate to think what the previous version looked like. Ravenswing 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I would quibble that a fair amount of these are cited; they're in the midst of grafs cited to the same source. But you are right that the language is in some cases hypey, still a bit more suited to a magazine piece than an encylopedic article; I will be addressing that at some point in the near future (For some reason the people at OTD, as you can tell by the article-history banner on the talk page, love listing this anniversary (either the introduction of New Coke, or the re-introduction of Classic Coke). Days like those bring a lot of editorial attention to the article, and with the expansion of my watchlist in the years since then it is all I can do just to keep it relatively vandalism-free. There was a time in the past when I had this grand idea about doing even more deep-dive research into the periodicals of the era that aren't archived online and bringing it up to FA status; I suppose that's still possible but it has gone down on my priorities list.

Yes, it was worse when it had been tagged with {{story}}. I won't link to the diff in question, but, as so often happens, I overcame my initial burst of resentment to see that the tagger had a point, just like you do. And to think it got to be a GA for a while—although in fairness that was in the early days of GAs when the standards were looser. It's not the only article I've contributed a great deal to that had that status once and then lost it. Fortunately there have been a lot more GAs I've developed and nominated that have kept it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not saying that the language wouldn't fly in a magazine article; of course it would. It's just not encyclopedic, and that's exactly what that tag is for. Are some of those statements cited? Yes. Is that the language the citations use? Well, short of ordering those books through the library, I've no way of knowing. But if those are the exact phrasings the citations use, then they should be put in quotes, which'd be another way to solve the issue. Ravenswing 00:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Portland Pirates/Sprimgfield Falcons[edit]

Buddy, Arizona's affiliate is the Portland Pirates not the Springfield Falcons you troll. Get with it you scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Plainly your ability to read news reports is impaired; I recommend a stronger prescription for your glasses. Try this, for instance: [1]. And thank you for playing. Ravenswing 06:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

List of fire districts in Barnstable, Massachusetts[edit]

HAHA! I LOVED your response to the AfD. Thanks for that. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

infobox school district[edit]

today, an editor added the above infobox to approximately a dozen settlement articles in one state. I removed one which he promptly restored without discussion or even an edit summary. Another editor removed it and pointed out to him that the template's documentation states it is to be used on school district articles. even without that, adding a big clunky infobox to an article, when the same infobox, complete with graphics that cannot be on it in a settlement article, is available at the wikilinked school district article mentioned in the first couple lines of the section it was added to, is not particularly constructive. Everything I have ever read on infoboxes indicate that they are intended to serve as a summary and a bit of flash for articles. not sections, articles.

The editor that added it has a history of making "innovative" edits to large numbers of articles at the same time creating a mess to be cleaned up.

the way people access the internet is changing. a large number of people now access Wikipedia via mobile devices, myself included. I can tell you from the cleanup process on this mess, with two big infoboxes on already large articles, my phone had trouble loading the page. after the inappropriate infobox was removed, no problem at all.

hope this addresses your concerns. John from Idegon (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Well ... for one, the documentation states that the infobox is intended for school district articles, but nothing in that documentation or in any relevant guideline or policy precludes it from being used elsewhere. That being said, you do understand, I hope, that an article being slow to load on yours or anyone else's smartphone is a completely invalid reason to remove content from Wikipedia.

    As it happens, I didn't revert again because there happens to be a Plymouth Public Schools article, so there's no reason to have the same infobox appear twice. Ravenswing 07:08, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alon Eizenman[edit]

The article that is the subject of the AfD looked like it failed notability re hockey but then when I looked at his 'elite prospects' entry I started to wonder whether he met the notability re college athlete - I don't think so. But responded in the AfD thread that I wasn't sure. Can you double check whether there's anything re college athlete notability and then respond in the AfD thread. GLG GLG (talk) 06:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


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[edit]

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)

Rachel Luttrell[edit]

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)

Push from French admins and related about Asselineau's article, again[edit]

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. 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)

Jerry Sharell article revision[edit]

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)[edit]

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)

Ah ...[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Chicago Blackhawks[edit]


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)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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?[edit]

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. [2] 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[edit]

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)

Louis L'Amour[edit]

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 .jpg
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)

Silver Lake Regional High School[edit]

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. I'll find the courage to live with that. Ravenswing 23:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

user yellowjournalism[edit]

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)

February 2016[edit]

Information icon 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)