User talk:Ravenswing: Difference between revisions

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)]][reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Epass (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thank goodness for that....lost far too many editors because of those discussions. :P -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. What's my standard advice about consensus? That sometimes you're on the losing side of it, and if you are, lose gracefully and move on.  Ravenswing  18:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't so blatant I don't think anyone would mind...but he put up that second Afd after there were already 5 keeps on the first one...clearly he knew consensus was against him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just think the guy's got a complete tin ear. Doesn't really get it when people disagree with him, doesn't really get consensus. He's far from alone on WP, that's for sure.  Ravenswing  18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he certainly is not. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Heh. Can I trade it in for a good cup of tea? (grins)  Ravenswing  16:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As my edit summary said; Gene had listed the AfD twice, so I removed one of them.  Ravenswing  00:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, I missed the style guide info on appropriate flag use. For future reference, what is consensus criteria for ranking NHL goalies? Most tables I see are using GAA, but I find this problematic because I haven't found criteria that states the minimum required number of games played during the season. Wins would be a better candidate in my opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubilium (talk • contribs) 11:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wins are a poor candidate; Dominick Hasek won six Vezina Trophies with a relatively mediocre team. Goals against is the historically acceptable standard, for which for most of the league's post-WWII history a minimum of 25 was the official NHL standard.  Ravenswing  15:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Cheers! GAA it is then, I will use it going forward, and amend my earlier contributions accordingly.

Jubilium (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia article on the House of Burgesses. In 1619 there were 11 settlements in Virginia that sent representatives to Jamestown for the meeting, making 12 Virginia settlements that year. Plus there were others not represented. The English population of Virginia was over 2000 by the time Plymouth, Mass was settled in 1620. There were even black slaves in Virginia by then. For you to claim Plymouth is the oldest English settlement is preposterous. Somebody read Jamestown was settled in 1607, but was evacuated in the 1680's, and thinks it means Plymouth mass is older, But this is just a myth taught in public schools in Massachusetts. Sort of tooting their own horns. Plymouth, like the Mayflower, are more legend than history. Not really a myth, but definitely trumped up by Mass. historians distorting the truth. Pocahontas, from Virginia, moved to England, married and had 2 kids, and died, before Plymouth was settled. The pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620 and found Squanto, and Indian who spoke English because he had lived in England, not once, but twice, before then. But most American school children are taught the Mayflower was first English ship. Plymouth is around the 20th permanent English settlement in the USA. What a joke. DigbyDalton (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The "joke" here is in the various Virginia settlements pretending that they have had continual - "continual" being the key word - settlements with unbroken municipal governments in all that time, which is of course not correct. No one disputes that Virginia, as a colony, had Englishmen before Plymouth Colony did, and the pertinent articles do not claim otherwise, but that has nothing to do with the statement in question. In any event, if you want to overturn a reliable source making a statement of fact, you'd better come back with significantly more than a tourism website for a source, and you'd better come back with better than that a settlement was later incorporated into a town founded much later (and which in fact relocated across a river).

  Beyond that, though, I believe I expressed my disinterest in parochial soapboxing at the top of this page. Those editors wishing to discuss how to improve articles are welcome. Those looking to pick fights, not so much. Find some other place for your rhetorical spins, would you please?  Ravenswing  04:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inre this diff. While certainly Wikipedia grants that those you listed are significant without argument, WP:ANYBIO does not require "notable"... it that it simply states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"... and to meet that requirement of being "well-known and significant", we would then look to the GNG toward such awards to see if any award might be determinable as "well-known and significant", and through significant and enfuring coverage and sourcability of the DVD Exclusive Awards,[1][2][3] they appear to be suitably "well-known and significant", even if only to their industry. Just saying. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with your premise that because you can find Google hits for a particular award it therefore means that a particular industry considers that award to be "well-known and significant." That's the kind of award creep that's bedeviling the hockey project now. Y'see, when I drafted the notability criteria in use now, I put in the line "Achieved preeminent honours (all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American) ..." thinking - somewhat foolishly - that people would understand that "major award" would have to be on a par with those other honors mentioned: a MVP award, best defenseman, playoff MVP, that sort of thing. No, not a chance, because now people are hotly arguing that ANY award issued by a league must be "major," and so we're getting arguments of presumptive notability rotating around Rookie of the Month and Unsung Hero citations. I stand by my characterizations of what awards consensus seems to find important in the film industry - Academy Awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, BAFTAs, Golden Palms - and don't feel that we should find EVERY award that has an active publicity committee pushing it notable for that reason alone.  Ravenswing  04:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Bobby Orr article. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why thank you!  Ravenswing  02:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Someone else edited out the proposed deletion of Matt Puempel's page almost immediately after it was posted but I'd like to discuss its notability. It has now been posted on Talk: Matt Puempel. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should really be more careful... i have known a few to WP:HOUND one's AFD noms if you piss off ;-) The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it's not as if the DreamFocuses and Col Wardens of the world don't reflexively haunt AfD anyway, voting Keep on anything and everything regardless of the merits.  Ravenswing  17:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good thing you're a deviantArt expert. You squashed Daniel's claims of "notability" quickly and with sound reasoning. I am willing to be he never thought someone with knowledge of dA would ever find his AfD. He needs to wake up and realize that he's no special rose in between the sidewalk cracks. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't say I'm an "expert" at dA, but I've been there for several years and know the score. Daniel's certainly attracted a little bit attention over there - 20,000 page views and a hundred-plus favs on pictures he's had up for a couple years is more than a mere lurker gets - but it's nowhere remotely close to what the name artists get. No ... it looks like Daniel's another one of those vigorous self-promoters who hopes that his superficially well-sourced article flies under the radar.  Ravenswing  11:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like Daniel knew the writing was on the wall and {{userreq}}'d it. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, I'll give the guy a small bit of credit; most of these self-promoters who get caught out fight a lot longer and nastily.  Ravenswing  15:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an endless edit war for months and months. I have simply removed the nationality from the lead altogether. I realy think per the MOS there is no need to mention his nationally in the lead at all - plus sounds odd hes a retired Canadian? We cant keep edit Waring over this silly point.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion, per inconsistancy at the HHOF sub-section & Retired numbers sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me that. I also removed Wade Belak, since he retired last week. --17px|Talk|link=User talk:Puckingham Puckingham 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi RG, just FYI, User:Peruvianllama is not the editor who created the page on the band, he just moved an earlier page for the phrase "oh snap", the true creator is User:Lejam (who is no longer active, and this page is his only creation). Robman94 (talk) 04:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing eh? I was like how did this guy get on my watchlist.... -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yeah. As soon as I get reupped for AWB I'll start renaming sigs, but I was startled enough with a Google search of my name that I felt I needed to get a little more anonymous.  Ravenswing  13:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah people forget how wide open you are on the net with google. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request to change too. How do you get AWB permissions? TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you access. You will just need to download it at WP:AWB I believe it is. -DJSasso (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Access granted. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, AWB is pretty easy to use. Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage  Ravenswing  14:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit the switching thing would be easier if I hadn't (a) racked up nearly 30,000 edits and (b) been so bloody active on AfD.  Ravenswing  15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thank god I don't have the hockey Afd's I've participated in on my watchlist anymore or you would be spamming me even worse than you already are lol. But its all good. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I'm deliberately flagging all the edits as minor ...  Ravenswing  15:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still show up on watchlists unless you change your settings to default to hide minor edits, which I don't so I can catch vandalism. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, is that you, CC? Funny thing ... we've been "CC" and "RG" for what, seven years now, only to flip on the same day?  Ravenswing  05:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the moniker change? GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to get my real name off the Web as much as is feasible for reasons of privacy; here and RPGnet were the biggest offenders by volume.  Ravenswing  22:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, congratulations on your rename and I understand why you want to rename your signatures but my watchlist is flashing red hot with all your changes. Any chance you can run the changes as minor or use a bot to avoid the collateral watchlist notifications? Cheers Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be running them as minor. So you would have to hide minor edits to not see them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AM using minor changes, but I'm using AWB to avoid having a bot do it ... my experience with them is they wreak all manner of calamities. I'd rather deliberately authorize any one change, especially where I'm changing other people's talk pages.  Ravenswing  15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, in that case I'll disable view of minor edits for a few days then. Simple. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was coming to make the same complaint, but I find it all rather humorous. I don't think I'll ever forget your username after seeing my watchlist fill up with it!  :) Resolute 15:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is somewhat disruptive and unnecessary. Why not just redirect User:RGTraynor→User:Ravenswing and User talk:RGTraynor→User talk:Ravenswing and be done with it? Then, if anyone clicks on an old signature, it'll go to your new username. —SW— ^babble 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is trying to hide his real name. So it is necessary to change all the signatures. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What DJ said; I can't imagine going through the trouble of a name change just because I liked the sound of another one better. The necessity of it, I believe, is my privilege to decide for myself. As far as "disruption" goes, the vast majority of these edits, so far, has been on archived AfD discussions and the talk pages of anon IPs who've received warnings, pages which I doubt should be on many watchlists.  Ravenswing  05:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... this is my 30,000th edit. Here we go, Bruins, here we go!  Ravenswing  16:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go is right....Here we go to another first round exit at the hands of the Canadiens. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see. I'll remind you of that in a few weeks! (prepares a healthy dish of salted crow)  Ravenswing  16:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am with DJ on this one... Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted two sentences that were both accurate.

The sentence cited "plans" for the Springfield-New Haven rail, which is accurate --the project has been fully-funded on the Massachusetts side. I see no reason to delete the sentence.

Also, you deleted another sentence about the realignment of the Vermonter. That is scheduled to begin construction this year. Again, I see no reason to delete the sentence.

I will restore the original edits, with the White House .gov as the source JWM83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Neither statement is, in fact, accurate, and the sources you've proffered to back them up either do not say what you claim they do, or else are outright broken. We are not allowed to infer a statement from a source; we can only report accurately what the source says.  Ravenswing  01:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate on what I wrote on the Phoenix Coyotes plage that was constituted as "vandalism".

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.115.31 (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I rather think that this diff [4] - which is, come to that, nearly a year old now - is all the elaboration that's needed on the issue, thanks. Wikipedia is for statements of fact, not editorializing on why you hate a certain team. If you'd like to become a genuine contributor to the site, I strongly recommend reviewing WP:SOAPBOX and WP:PILLAR for more information.  Ravenswing  05:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why you changed my edit on the California Golden Seals page? The franchise originated in the WHL. The club that played in the WHL is the same franchise that entered the NHL. This is no different then the Vancouver Canucks.

When Barry Van Gerbig was awarded an expansion team for the San Francisco market in 1965 (for the 1967/68 season) he purchased the WHL club that year. He wanted to use that club as his expansion team. He decided it would be better to put the team in Oakland because the arena was brand new versus the venerable Cow Palace in San Francisco. This is why he moved the team from San Francisco to Oakland in 1966/67 (and renamed them the California Seals). He wanted to prepare the club for their transfer into the NHL. When he brought the Seals into the NHL the following year as an expansion team he even kept a chunk of the roster intact. This included Charlie Burns, George Swarbrick, Gerry Odrowski, Tom Thurlby, and Ron Harris. Not only is this mentioned in the official NHL publication from 1991 called The Official National Hockey League 75th anniversary commemorative book, but its also noted in Brad Kurtzberg's great book Shorthanded: The Untold Story of the Seals: Hockey's Most Colorful Team. Heck in the 1967/68 NHL pre-season the Seals wore their WHL uniforms. I've seen pictures of them playing against the LA Kings with the WHL uniforms. They unveiled a new design prior to the start of the NHL regular season. So the fact is the franchise originated in 1961 in the WHL. To remove that info is to remove established fact.Giantdevilfish (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, looks like you're right; van Gerbig purchased the team in the run up to the expansion just as happened with the Canucks.  Ravenswing  18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, I've restored the info. I gave you the two books mentioned above as evidence to support this. Kurtzberg's book is probably the most indepth tome out there on this franchise.

And you're right about the Canucks. I think it was the Plexicor company (from Minneapolis) that owned the WHL Canucks. When they were granted an NHL expansion franchise they simply brought their WHL franchise into the league via the 1970 expansion.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed your comment about not noticing a prod on a page so you had to take it to Afd. Just thought I would let you know that BLP prods are a bit different, they don't use up the one prod rule, if an article has had a BLP prod it can later have a normal prod as well. The two are considered seperate processes. Just to save you any issue in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhh ... thanks for the tip. I think it's more prudent to take such things to AfD - an objection being an objection, IMHO - but it doesn't hurt to have a better grasp on the process.  Ravenswing  13:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing a BLP prod isn't really an objection because a BLP prod can be removed with a reference that supports a fact but not necessarily notability and isn't really a comment on notability. But I do see you point. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that in any of the refs, but I might have missed it. Where did you get that info from? bahamut0013^words_deeds 20:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]