User talk:Ravenswing/Archive10

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it, or you will surely sing your next solo decidedly flat.

Dispute at Gilead Sciences

• Gilead Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey Ravenswing. I notice you recently edited this article, which is now reported at:

WP:AN3#User:Zefr reported by User:71.213.189.18 (Result: )

Do you have any advice to make on how to resolve this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Actually, @EdJohnston:, let me strike my previous comment, because I went over to the talk page again to look in, and not only has another editor chimed in with the IP, but they've dug out some serious sourcing backing up their POV. IMHO, Zefr and his two cohorts are utterly out of line here. Ravenswing 22:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter Frei

Peter Frei was nominated for proposed deletion last summer. It was deprodded on the ground that it then meet the olympic inclusion criteria. I am thinking about maybe nominating it, but with my limit of 1 nomination for AfD a day, I am not sure when I will get around to following up on it. You may want to take a look at the article and potential sources, or not. I have to admit I am surprised at how hard it is to get some of these olympic related AfDs to close, and the extent to which some will try to argue for redirects over both a lack of clear indication that the olympics was the most non-close to notable thing the person had done, and over the fact that the person under discussion is not clearly the most close to notable person to have had that name. I just opened another AfD discussion on an olympian, which seems like an even more compelling case that the olympian in question is not the most close to notable person to have had that name, we will see how that discussion goes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Manfred Kersch

I just came across the article on Manfred Kersch. This is one of more 1913 born 1936 only competing non-medaling olympians than I have any idea how to get my mind around. This one seems an especially bad case because we are not even told what event Kersch participated in. I checked his German-language Wikipedia entry, and that article looks to have no sources at all. This is not looking like it meets the revised inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well ... you'll forgive me if after the Frei trashfire I'm not jumping to file, and look: I understand that you want to file more AfDs than your current restriction allows. But I'd advise slowing your roll. You have way too extensive a history of bans, blocks, restrictions and the like, and no one on ANI is going to look kindly on you reaching out to other editors to file AfDs for you. Accept that you have these limits for good reasons, and don't seek to push envelopes. Ravenswing 16:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, apologies if I am not following the etiquette of the ANI. But I am genuinely puzzled. How does this ANI page work. Folks are making false claims about me and when I respond, I am being called as violating BATTLE and BLUDGEON. If the expectation is that the accused should not respond and just be a mute spectator while others (who probably did not even bothered to read the entire thread or linked discussion pages) make all sort of claims. If this is expected of the accused, then it sounds pretty much like a Kangaroo court. Where else am I supposed to respond to these accusations. Venkat TL (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• The principle at stake here is what will do you good and what won't. What won't do you good is to characterize every statement made "against" you as "false." What won't do you good is to pile on the hyperbole and claim that the expectation is for you to stand mute, which is not remotely the case. What won't do you good is to accuse everyone who says something you don't like of failing to read the thread or the discussion pages. What won't do you good is to claim faux "rights" (like that claim that you have a "Right of reply"). What won't do you good is jumping all over the statements of everyone who you feel is opposing you. What is being discussed now at ANI is your behavior and your repeated insults, and if you don't see anything wrong with repeatedly describing another editor as a "snowflake" and a "fool", then I'll reiterate my comment about digging your own grave. All you're doing right now is giving uninvolved editors -- myself included -- more and more of an impression that WikiCleanerMan's got a measure of justification for his statements against you.

  Where else are you supposed to respond to these accusations, you ask? That's easy: nowhere. WCM's last word on the matter was "I think it's best we bury the hatchet and move on. If what I did was considered bludgeoning, then fine. I accept it and won't do it again. Simple as that." He's dropped the stick and stopped talking. Several editors have now suggested you do the same. That remains good advice. The more you ignore it in insistence on getting the last word, or "defending" yourself, the less likely this will end well for you. Ravenswing 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply.

You have said " You can be mad all you want that people keep on daring to comment on your behavior", I am not mad at all. Roberst and the couple after him have made comments/observations that are not inline with the facts, So I felt it was important to note my objections, as these threads are archived for "eternity".

Look, this is a pretty simple, cut and dry case. And yet folks are making strange claims, that somehow giving a warning is a sanctionable offence etc etc. Pretty sure they are smart people. So what explains this strange behavior. I could only think of the reason that they probably have not read the linked discussion pages and are taking Wikicleaner's comment on its face value. Since you and everyone one commenting today, wants me to not respond on that thread, then I will not respond anymore. Anyway thanks for taking out the time to reply here. Have a nice day or evening. Venkat TL (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What explains this "strange behavior" is that in an instance where you proclaim that you're right (or that ANYone has told you that issuing a warning is a sanctionable offense, which they haven't) and that several other editors are wrong, it's far more likely that you're mistaken than that everyone else is. Not responding any further is a good idea. Ravenswing 18:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

They have. I am quoting Robert, "Both User:WikiCleanerMan and User:Venkat TL have been out of line, but neither of them should be sanctioned yet other than with a warning. User:Chess is right that User:Venkat TL should not have given a Level 4 warning, but a Level 2 warning would have been in order, and a discussion, such as they have provided here, would have been even better." Clearly he is implying that I by giving a level 4 warning, I have made an offence for which a warning for me is due but a sanction will be too much. I will be very surprised if this is not what Robert meant in the quoted line. Yes. I have unwatched ANI. It has already given me a headache. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

See, this is part of the problem right here: you seem to be responding to some conversation going on in your head that's divorced from what people are actually saying. Go back and reread my previous paragraph, where I state, and I quote: "or that ANYone has told you that issuing a warning is a sanctionable offense, which they haven't." I have no idea how you got from Robert McClenon's statement to the exact opposite of his explicitly stated meaning. Wikipedia is going to be a very difficult environment for you if you insist on ignoring the words people are actually saying in favor of what you imagine they must really be meaning. Ravenswing 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. May be I read it wrong. In your opinion, what is the intended meaning of this line? Both User:WikiCleanerMan and User:Venkat TL have been out of line, but neither of them should be sanctioned yet other than with a warning.Venkat TL (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That Robert believes that both of you have been out of line, but neither of you should be sanctioned other than with a warning. His words and phrasing are quite clear, and your English seems good enough that I'm a bit baffled that you don't get it. Ravenswing 19:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Answer to you cut off when the discussion was archived

I never asked for people to support or oppose, just to discuss this, and the fact that so many people treated it as if it were a formal proposal is to me quite telling.

I would also refer you to my answer to Doug Weller, which I also had to post at his talk page after the discussion was archived. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Then you should have chosen different language for it, not prefaced it with musing on the injustice of a potential admin being shot down because of her age, not responded to my first posting with "But I still think if we are going to deny people the tools on "too young" grounds, we cannot then dismiss offhand any idea that there might also be a "too old," and not posted on the Village pump (policy) talk page in the first place. It's not a coffee klatch, airily discussing matters without any particular goal. To quote, "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss proposed policies and guidelines and changes to existing policies and guidelines." We had every expectation that even if you weren't opening with a concrete proposal, you were looking for one to come out of the discussion, and you had several opportunities to correct our impression ... and that's what's leading some of us to feel that we were played.

  Reading your comment to Doug, I appreciate that it's a provocative issue, and there's nothing wrong with raising it. But you ought to have known that the VP(p) talk page was the wrong venue for it, and playing "gotcha!" with us compounded matters. An apology would not go amiss. Ravenswing 23:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't think of where else to bring it up (I did look for other fora, and how discussions play out there, but none for just batting the idea around, and at the time I made that one-word reply I was distracted and short on time. In retrospect, I should have said nothing and let it go, or waited till later when I could think more clearly (probably, "OK, so how do you think TLC and the many other users who've been denied the tools largely for the same reason feel?")

But maybe for now we're all better off that the discussion was cut short.

I will apologize, and perhaps find some gesture I can make as a way of penance. Do you think I should post it on VPP, or some other forum? Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

VPP works for an apology, I'd think. As far as where would be a fitting place to raise such a discussion generally, hm. I haven't been involved in the toxic RfA waste dump for a number of years now (my longstanding view is that RfA is hopelessly compromised, that it's nothing more than a straight popularity vote, that many able editors want no part of it, and that the only solution is to take it out of the community's hands), but would the RFA talk page be a good start? Alternately, hang an independent RfC off of Village pump and ping various locations (such as policy and RfA), as well as participants in that recent thread. Ravenswing 07:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Women's ice hockey section needs more sources

Women's section in article "ice hockey" needs more verifiable sources. Otherwise someone should build a separate article exclusively for "women's ice hockey". Please feel free to create one if possible. CheckersBoard (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• I don't disagree. Feel free to stop jamming more bytes into the article -- the article doesn't need to be as thoroughly and ungodly bloated as the ringette article, for one -- and start sourcing the facts you feel need sourcing. Ravenswing 13:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your direct manner. Now it's my turn. Go ahead and write the "Women's ice hockey" article yourself since you are a women's ice hockey expert and are throughly educated about, as you once implied, how hard done by women in ice hockey are by men. Or just take the women's section out completely because it's worthless and won't impact the article whatsoever. At this point, the second option is probably best. Have at it. Have a nice day! CheckersBoard (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Hm. Answering that forthrightly wouldn't come out very civil. So I'll restrict myself to a statement of intent and a suggestion. The statement is this: I'll work on what I feel like working on, when I feel like working on it, to the degree that I think is (a) proper; is (b) in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, policies and the MOS; and (c) unprovoked by anyone's snark. The suggestion is this: check out blogger.com or Blogspot if you'd like to write whatever you want, in whatever amount you want to do so, and free from interference, comment, revision or reversion by others. Ravenswing 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Diff

I never called them pathetic. I called their tactic "pathetic". As you know, the guideline is, as was reminded to me by them, to comment on content and not contributor. The content they were directing towards me, I found "pathetic". And I elucidated on why. I never resorted to characterizing them as such, as an individual. Thank you. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It was stupid how far it went nonetheless. Thank you 🙏 Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

H2ppyme

Thanks for reverting - there's also other edits from today, being 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (that should be all of them). GiantSnowman 15:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fair enough, just got those. I'm entirely comfortable with vandalism rollbacks, given his edit summaries and actions. Ravenswing 16:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hello,

There has recently been a discussion among the members of WP:KICK about updating the kickboxing notability guidelines, as certain organizations have ceased to exist, while champions of others no longer pass the WP:GNG. The proposal I submitted to other members and their replies can be seen here. Although the members that chose to participate in the discussion agreed an update is needed, I'm unsure how to actually formulate this proposal for WP:NSPORT or how to seek comments from people outside of the kickboxing task force. As you are a more experienced editor, and as I've noticed you comment on proposals for policy and guidelines changes, I've come here to ask for your advice and guidance. What can/should I do next to further this discussion?

Thank you in advance, GameRCrom (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

(self-justifying ranting from permabanned asshole) 08:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• My "gang?" If someone had paid you to come up with nonsense more likely to prove that you've got a vendetta against BM and all his works, you'd have been hard pressed to come up with better. (Or, for that matter, the sheer immaturity of the declaration on your talk page of "DELETIONISTS ARE NOT WELCOME HERE" followed by the hypocrisy of "If you have come to make a WP:POINT, take it somewhere else." My gut reaction upon seeing that was "What, is he twelve years old?" except that I'd be defaming twelve-year olds, most of whom having outgrown that level of behavior long since.)

  In any event, the easiest way to self-impose an interaction ban would've been -- wait for it -- not to spam my talk page in the first place. The one thing about which you were right is that I don't respect you, based upon that innuendo-choked ANI complaint paired with two false SPI accusations against the same editor on consecutive days, yoked to that "I'm sorry if you were inconvenienced by my attacks on your character" non-apology. You can't have imagined that this immature outburst on my talk page (defying, by the bye, the bit up top about flames) would have any result beyond confirming my opinion of you. Ravenswing 14:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Senators

Howdy. Heads up, because here we go again. An editor (tomorrow) is going to be contacting WP:HOCKEY, to try & have diacritics added to Tim Stuetzle's name at Ottawa Senators & 2020 NHL Entry Draft, as well as other North American hockey non-player pages (like the Canucks' Hoglander). The pro-dios side won't ever be satisfied until they control it all. No doubt, it was inevitable, concerning the Senators. PS: The guy (AFAIK) has never (or very little) edited hockey articles in the past. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this debated frequently or something? GoodDay here would not elaborate really at all when they talked to me on my page. I have no problem with when issues are argued frequently that they need rest before being brought up again. The way I understood what was explained to me was that this consensus came about ten years ago, and nobody has talked about it since. But then they used the term "hornet's nest", so I'm confused. I didn't want to be painted to be the bad guy, but surprise, that looks to me like what's happening here. All I had was an honest question, and what I got was a response suggesting that this discourse was forbidden, which seems ridiculous without context.

Also, I literally have Auston Matthews at GA. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Well, of course discourse is not forbidden, and I would have hoped that GoodDay would have actually explained matters, if you're the editor to whom he refers. Allow me ... and you're allowed to take my comments with a grain of salt, since I was then a strong partisan of one of the factions involved. Basically, the two sides in the diacritics debate run as follows: on the one side, that whatever the custom is in a player's home language should prevail; on the other, that WP:COMMONNAME explicitly specifies that names should be rendered in the fashion which predominates in English-language sources, and that this is, after all, the English Wikipedia, and not the Czech, Finnish or Swedish Wikipedias.

  The subsequent edit wars -- which led to multiple editors getting varying levels of topic ban -- were prolonged and painful, and so we came to our compromise: that the home-language faction would get its way on player pages and on hockey pages specifically dealing with non-English subjects (the various Euro league pages, for instance), and that everything else would run per COMMONNAME. Since Stuetzle -- for instance -- does not generally have his name rendered with diacritics in the English-language press, it would not be rendered with diacritics on any page other than his own article.

  As is often the case with compromises, no one was particularly happy with it, but there it stands, and it's kept down the edit warring a great deal over the last decade. Ravenswing 11:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Never at any point had it been brought forward to me that this subject had brought about TBans, that's actually mind-blowing to me that people went to that point over a little symbol. I do have a few more questions just for some due diligence, though. Has the change in attitudes like Nils' and Tim's cases ever really been brought up? Do you think it would really change anything? What were the main arguments beforehand? What I had imagined was the case was that we were simply following the League's conventions, but as you can see, that is changing, which is why I brought it up in the first place. I get that COMMONNAME says we should be predominant in English-language sources, but how I always understood it was the League was THE predominant source and had a final say in the matter that sources were supposed to follow (doesn't mean they always do, but still). dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Hey, just checking in and following up - I truly did want to know a little background on the issue, so if you did have a place(s) for me to read on previous discussions, that would be great. Before I would go suggesting anything be changed, I would at least want to know if there were answers to my background questions. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Honestly, there weren't particular arguments beyond the basic stances -- it got to be more of an amour propre thing on all sides than anything else. (If you really want to dive into them, just hit the talk page of the ice hockey WikiProject and type "diacritics" into the archive search box.) As far as the NHL goes, it's far from the only league out there, and whether or not it genuinely counts as a "source" at all for the purposes of COMMONNAME -- being, after all, a primary source -- could be debated. At level best, of course, it's one of many, and we no more slavishly follow the NHL's conventions (which are often wrong) than any other.

  Are attitudes changing? Obviously; diacritics are finding their way into media articles, stat databases and the like. But right now, any confrontation will just lead to another tiresome edit war, and I question what possible benefit (say) depicting a name with an umlaut over it as opposed to not that's worth it. Ravenswing 11:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• So, if I am understanding your explanation correctly, in summary, this could be something pursued later down the line when it is encountered more frequently, but it's too soon for much of a productive discussion? dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oh, of course it could be; there's no policy or guideline on Wikipedia that's immunized against discussion concerning a fresh consensus. Ravenswing 10:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you confused my edits with the another editor

Hi, Ravenswing - this was my initial edit, not this revert which is a mix. What you and I both are opposing is this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Updating the Equestrian section to be consistent with the RfC and the rest of NSPORT which has nothing to do with what I proposed, the latter of which is worthy of inclusion because so many editors simply don't understand the scope or magnitude of western equestrian sports. There are more competitors showing in 1 or 2 classes at a single NCHA or AQHA event than the total competition at the Equestrian Olympics, which the N guidelines limit. Please give it another look when you get time. Atsme 💬 📧 22:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

a point of linguistics

Is your username pronounced "raven's wing" or "raven swing"? cheers :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Heh. How I pronounce it in my head is the former, but I can't see it doing me much harm for people to think of it however they prefer! Ravenswing 18:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Accuses

Hello. I would like to explain me, why you accused me of nationalism? Are you aware of the situation in Eastern Mediterranean to understand who is the nationalist and who the defender? Also, have you seen the reasons I make the edits or you just concluded that I am a nationalist because you just have seen that openly discuss the situation in Cyprus. Also, in order to inform you, the Greek Nationalists support the Greco-Cypriot Union, so if I was one of them I would have deleted also Cyprus from the states where Turkish are spoken. But as you can see I support that both Greek and Turkish are official in Cyprus, that actually is not my opinion but the UN opinion, so my edits are defending the status of Cyprus by both the far-right Greek extremistic side and the Turkish neo-Ottomanist Taxim supporters. I would like to know your opinion after you see more carefully my edits and after my exolainaton above. Thank you... Greek Rebel (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is there some reason why you're asking me this same question all over Wikipedia: on ANI, your own talk page, the Turkish language talk page ... ? I have answered you elsewhere. Kindly take that answer as being what I think. Ravenswing 14:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Korean nationalist editors

See the timing of: [1] [2] ([3]) and [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.17.33.134 (talk) 04:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom notice

An editor has submitted one or more edits that were made by you or relate to you as evidence in an ongoing arbitration case. Please note that the editor is not requesting that the Committee add you to the case as a party. You may review the evidence submission here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy summer/winter

		Sunshine!
		Hello Ravenswing! Interstellarity (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Interstellarity (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Happy first day of summer (or winter) wherever you live. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Why thank you! That was a very thoughtful gesture on your part. Blessings be upon you. Ravenswing 22:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Centuries?

Can you provide sources for your contention that Da Vinci has been used "for centuries" as Leonardo's surname? Mpaniello (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• I just responded to the medieval technology talk page. To quote myself from there, "This is not merely a nonsensical argument, but a sloppy one. I advise you to drop the stick." Ravenswing 00:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
• ... but that being said, here's the Just!One!Source! you demanded, and rather an authoritative one: the 1911 Britannica, which routinely uses "Da Vinci" to refer to the chap. [5] And you can even view it while you're on your block for edit warring and personal attacks. You're welcome. Ravenswing 07:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Fyi, I'm taking the Leonardo da Vinci argument to the Dispute Resolution board, for which I'm supposed to give you the following code by way of notice:

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding Dispute over the proper way to give Leonardo da Vinci'. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Medieval Technology.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Mpaniello (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've done that correctly, so apologies in advance if there's any issue with the code. Please let me know and I'll endeavor to amend it. Mpaniello (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

How?

How did you put your username in a box and color both the box and the username? Atomic Sphere, talk to me, block button: O 13:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• Fairly easily! Take a look at the editing codes under the hood, so to speak. You can change your user signature at the Preferences tab at the top. Mine runs [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]] -- nothing more complicated than that. (You'll see other editors working with multiple colors, changes of background, suchlike). The Web colors article displays the "hex triplet" codes for various colors. Good fortune! Ravenswing 16:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Medieval technology

Really? C'mon. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It does seem to be a good bit of "Everything WE do is justified, and everything THEY do is wrong!wrong!wrong!", doesn't it? Ravenswing 20:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've walked away from that cesspool. Mpaniello got blocked and went straight back to it. Go figure. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Signings

Hey Big guy who made you the king of editing NU Hockey? They signed with new teams and have always played in the NHL. I didn't change Bitetto's teams since he has been in the minors. Gaudette and Benning have both been consistent NHL performers. Ealax2 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• It is a longstanding principle on Wikipedia that until someone has done something, they haven't actually done it. Either player could be sent down to the minors (neither one, after all, being any threat to play in the All-Star Game), be traded to another team in the offseason, suffer career-ending injuries in training camp, or get run over by an E train while visiting their old alma mater. This is why we don't credit a player for having played for a team or in a competition until they actually take the ice. Nor does Wikipedia award any medals for being the first person to get an edit in; there is no reason in the world not to wait until October for such changes. That being said, that chip on your shoulder isn't very becoming. Ravenswing 17:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

And hey, look at that: Gaudette's been down with the Marlies all season, and hasn't played so much as a minute for the Leafs. Go figure. Ravenswing 20:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And hey, look at that: never did play a minute for the Leafs before the organization traded him. Go figure. Ravenswing 07:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Really?

For someone who professes not to be interested in flaming, I’m puzzled as to why you’d rock up to Giano’s page, over a month after the last post there, and start throwing insults around. You’ve listed Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery for FAR, and it will almost certainly be delisted shortly. Your work is done. KJP1 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was at Giano's page to see if he'd been actively editing since that discussion, since that'd be indicative of whether he was planning to address the concerns. What I was doing was responding to Ritchie's screed. Beyond that, what puzzles ME is your claim that I was throwing insults around. Giano threw out several ad hominem insults which he neither retracted nor redacted, nor apologized for making. Calling a namecaller a namecaller is an observation, not an insult. (Hell, I would've been well within my rights to drop a warning template instead. Would you have complained about that?) For someone implying that he's got a problem with snark delivered to someone else's talk page, what are you doing here?

And hey -- if you're that concerned about the Rosebery article, why don't you seek to improve it or correct the issues raised? Doesn't look like you ever have. Ravenswing 21:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Joseph A. Spadaro

I reverted your edit to his user page as the discussion I closed, closed as a community block, not a ban. There is a difference, in that a ban means a person is no longer a part of the community, and a block means they still are, which gets complicated, but they are different. Both must be appealed to the community, although Arb may sometimes get involved with a community block but not a community ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Though I appreciate the distinction you are drawing, and some in a May 2017 RfC on this topic did see a difference between a community indefinite block and a community ban, the end result of the RfC was to alter Wikipedia:Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions so that the two are formally considered equivalent. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

In any event, thank you both for your input. Ravenswing 23:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

St George's, Hanover Square - Rectors

Hi - I saw that on St George's, Hanover Square, you removed the crosses against the list of rectors as undefined. They did have a consistent definition - those rectors died in post. Perhaps I should have added a legend when I did it, but I've used the same notation (without legend) on several similar lists - for instance, the rector lists for all the ancient churches in the City of Westminster, the top line in this template (except St Martin-in-the-Fields, whose rector list isn't my work). LookLook36 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• With there being over six million articles on the English Wikipedia, and no such standardized, universally recognized notation, such a legend is necessary on each and every such article. The average reader should not have to guess what the crosses meant. Ravenswing 16:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, hopefully to your satisfaction. LookLook36 (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

    All that was needful, thanks. Ravenswing 02:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings

I think you have made some very helpful comments with regards to sports notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Baltic SSRs

Howdy. My spidey senses are telling me that editor Plingen Plungen might be a sock of H2ppyme or Klõps. Also, have you noticed that Nug, hasn't been around the 'pedia, since Feb 2022. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

And small loss, there.

Eh, Plingen Plungen MIGHT be a sock, but it's not that there haven't been many revisionist editors frothing at the mouth on the Baltic (and many other such) issues over the years. It does no harm to take it at face value. Ravenswing 17:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Now a signed out IP shows up, to defend using Estonia. Certainly, the place & timing, are just a coincidence. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I just went to amend the sockpuppet investigation to include the IP, which geolocates to Estonia. (Big surprise.) Ravenswing 01:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You were right

You were right on the facts at ANI. I was likely wrong to call out your comment about the ARS. Apologies. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

(nods quietly) Accepted. I've had one too many fights as it is tonight. Ravenswing 01:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I am better when I keep my head down and work on content. I hope to work with you some time. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a burst of content yesterday. I've had too few of those of late, and it isn't as if there's not plenty to do. Ravenswing 02:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Requesting your help: COI edits on Daryl Katz

Hello Ravenswing. I see how much you love hockey, and that you are active on WP:HOCKEY. I am hoping you'd be willing to help me out: NHL team owner Daryl Katz has been in the news recently, the details of which I would like to clarify in his article. I opened an edit request to revise the text which a different editor closed prematurely, at least in my opinion. A different editor brought the issue up on the talk page of Project Ice Hockey, but it hasn't gotten much attention there. Modifying the current language about the dismissed allegations is important to give the whole issue context, maintain NPOV, and advance readability. Can you please review my request and proposed language and make the necessary changes if you think it is appropriate? My COI obviously prevents me from doing anything directly on the page. Thank you. DJ for Katz (talk) 15:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. That being said, thanks and kudos for recognizing your COI and acting prudently in accordance with it. Altogether too many people don't. Ravenswing 19:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ravenswing for your help. I appreciate your thoughtful review of my suggestions and the changes you implemented. This encyclopedic venture is better for its collaborative nature; the transparency and clarity provided by the COI directives clearly have value. Thanks again. DJ for Katz (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, and I encourage you to participate in the encyclopedia in the many areas where you can edit freely. Ravenswing 15:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

ST1849

Won't they be surprised.. . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Judging from the title of what that asshat posted to Worldly Voice's talk page, that Bbb23 revdel'd, I daresay they were. Any time someone with that kind of attitude is pitched from Wikipedia, that's a positive win for the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP and denied names

Hi, I'm not sure where to start with this. I looked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, and saw that you had replied an a DEADNAME post, and thought you might be able to help get me started. First, this isn't a transgender issue, so DEADNAME is probably not applicable, but BLP certainly is. What do you do when it's claimed that a notable person's middle name is "Adolph", but he has specifically denied it publicly on multiple occasions? The source for this claim in his article is a genealogical survey. Do you know if this type of issue has been dealt with before? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It unquestionably has been, and on many occasions, and certainly well before trans and "deadnames" were an issue. But surely this isn't a hard thing. Articles routinely use language like on Lady Gaga's page: the lead starts out with "Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, known professionally as Lady Gaga, is an American singer, songwriter, and actress," and the infobox leads with "Born: Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta."

In your example, what I'd do is address it in an "Early Life" section. Something along the lines of "Sources differ as to Joe Blow's middle name; some state that it is 'Adolph'" -- citations listed -- "while Blow himself has denied it publicly" ... citations listed. We know enough by now, after all, not to automatically take the word of a subject on details of his or her life that they'd rather suppress. Ravenswing 23:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a genealogical survey", but a lot of online "genealogical" content isn't worth the pixels it's printed on, and would be dismissed as failing our requirement for reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

(nods) Thanks for the tipoff, Mike. BilCat, what's the article involved? Ravenswing 00:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The article in question is Neal Boortz, and the source used is The Macgill-Magill Family of Maryland (PDF). Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 1948. p. 131. BilCat (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Hm. I dunno. The LDS makes a major effort with their genealogical records, and speaking as a layman who doesn't work in such areas, I'd normally be inclined to take their word for it. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genealogy isn't very active, but I'd try there as a starting point and hear what they have to say. Ravenswing 00:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I may just leave it alone. If Mr. Boortz cares about it, he deal with it on his own. BilCat (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Greenfield MA page

Hello -- Im contacting here because you are listed as the top editor of the Greenfield Ma page-- I came to the page to see what the mayoral and councilor election cycle for the city was, and found no indication -- Im not able to make edits myself (cannot invest more time than what it took for me to get here) but thought perhaps to make a suggestion to the top editor of the page -- cheers 73.238.57.192 (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, but I don't know myself; they used to be on a two-year cycle, but then again I haven't lived in Greenfield in eight years. Have you tried contacting Greenfield city hall directly? Ravenswing 20:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A note

		The Socratic Barnstar
		In appreciation, ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Why thank you! And a pleasant week to you. Ravenswing 06:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

NHL All-Star team voting

Hi, I'm new to this and not sure if you're the right person to talk to, but I'm trying to verify some information from this page. I saw you've edited it recently and may at least be able to point me in the right direction.

Each All-Star team (First and Second) includes a pair of defensemen with no explicit ranking between them. However, there is a public record of the voting results, at least for recent years. This is significant because a defenseman getting the most All-Star votes is highly correlated with winning the Norris Trophy, meaning that we can infer who would have won a Norris from 30-31 to 52-53. Unfortunately, Hockey Reference does not have a record of All-Star votes prior to 74-75, and their All-Star team page just lists the defensemen in alphabetical order. Fortunately, the Wikipedia page does appear to be listing All-Star team defensemen in order of vote totals all the way back to 30-31, but I don't see any reference or source for that ranking.

Can you confirm that Wikipedia lists the defensemen by vote totals, or point me to the source for that information? Thanks very much. 20feet (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, but I'm afraid I'm going to be of little help. Hockey Reference doesn't have that information because the NHL never released it; historically, the league's been very antediluvian when it comes to such things. (For instance, stats like save percentage and plus-minus were compiled back into the Fifties, but always unofficially; the league didn't admit to official plus-minus before 1968.)

Your only hope would be the Society for International Hockey Research, which some years ago did a collective project to choose unofficial trophy winners for the years before the trophies existed. I know they ran projected "Conn Smythe" winners back several decades; they may have done it for the Norris as well. Good fortune! Ravenswing 20:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the SIHR! I wasn't aware of that resource but it looks promising. I do believe that the All-Star defensemen are listed in order of votes on Wikipedia - they're not in alphabetical order, and the first name is typically the Norris winner in the Norris era. I assume the person who put the list in its current order would be able to confirm that, but it looks like there have been a lot of edits. I'll see if the Society can help me. 20feet (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

HugoAcosta and AfD Review

I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence on the ANI with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [6] , [7], and [8]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame. Yes, I know Hugo needed a step back. Hopefully, they take some time off and come back when they learn a little bit more diplomacy. Inomyabcs (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Eh, no problem. I started off against, as you can see from the ANI, but while he shot himself in the foot and refused to stop digging the hole deeper, he really had a point: this was a raft of egregiously bad filings. Given The Banner's experience and putative sports background, an editor with far thicker skin than Hugo's could quite reasonably conclude that he was being targeted. I really would like to hear an explanation from The Banner, and it really ought to be a damn good one, for his antics. Ravenswing 02:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

On WP:RWL

How did you get a custom redirect to a section of your userpage? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 14:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

No great mystery; just established WP:RWL as a redirect. You could do the same with WP:GRIMMCHILD if you had the notion, for example. Ravenswing 15:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Laurel Coppock

What do you think of the current state of the draft? I would note that my rough count is that the subject has appeared in over 300 different nationally televised commercials, although some are recuts or minor variations of others. Cheers! BD2412 T 20:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Right off the top, before a close examination of the sources, I'll put this out there: appearing in lots of commercials doesn't meet NACTOR. 0 0 0 0 0=0. So therefore, Coppock's notability stands and falls on the GNG. And I don't think she passes based on the sources you've provided. The high quality sources you include (Los Angeles Times, TV Insider or Adweek, for instance) namedrop her at best. The sources that give any kind of detail don't really cut it as reliable sources. You've certainly done a lot of work here, and no one would fault the writing in the draft, but I wouldn't vote to pass Coppock at AfD. Ravenswing 23:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I would think that commercials constitute the "other productions" specified in WP:NACTOR, if they receive sufficient coverage; I would also suggest that the various reviewed Groundlings productions are stage performances. However, I also remain on the fence about this subject, just leaning more towards notability than not. BD2412 T 01:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

    Yeah, I don't feel hugely strongly myself; should this come out of draft space, I'm certainly not charging to AfD over it. Ravenswing 21:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Strong keep?

Does the closer weigh that assertion more heavily? If so, I'll need to heed that more often. Made me chuckle. Have a terrific holidays. BusterD (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think closers may well want to consider the intensity of opinions: if I was an admin doing closes, I'd certainly consider "THIS IS INSANE AND HERE ARE ALL THE REASONS WHY" above wishy-washy "Meh, this doesn't do Wikipedia any harm, I guess" responses. But ironically, I don't feel all that strongly about it ... a closer should close according to his or her own lights! Anyway, happy holidays to you as well. Ravenswing 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas, Ravenswing
	Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you and yours nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 20:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you kindly; that's very generous of you! And the same back to you. Ravenswing 20:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

colored names

how do you get the colored names? Hunter b1107 (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Click on the "Preferences" link at the top of your talk page. About halfway down, you'll see a "Signature" section, where you can set up how your signature will appear. Mine displays [[User talk:Ravenswing|'''<span style="background:#2B22AA;color:#E285FF"> '' Ravenswing '' </span>''' ]], where the strings of numbers and letters after the pound sign are hexadecimal color indicators; take a look at the Web colors article for a list of some of the possibilities. You can also go into the edit screen to see some of the coding other editors use, and WP:SIG and WP:Signature tutorial goes into more details.

One caution, though: make sure to review WP:SIGAPP and WP:SIGLEN for things you're not allowed to do with signatures. Good fortune. Ravenswing 20:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Pings ...

... have no effect unless you sign your post, so you might want to redo these pings. Cheers,- Tom  ✓  | Thomas.W ^talk 12:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Thankew! Hope that one works. Ravenswing 12:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal attack

Hi Ravenswing. The user with whom I had a dispute has changed their UP to a personal attack. Please address as you see fit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Justinw303&action=history Thanks NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

An answer

Hi, I saw in WP:ANI your question How stupid do they think we are? based on edits like Special:MobileDiff/1135086686, I think that very. Also nobody has explained it in WP:ANI which suggests all editors who saw it knew that I’m right. -Gueshutbjk (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. At ANI, a lack of response means considerably more often than otherwise nothing more than that no one cared enough to respond. All those who participate regularly at ANI see a lot of drama, there's very little new under the sun, and sometimes we just shrug and move on. Silence does not suggest that people agree with you.

With that, seeing as this was putatively your first edit on Wikipedia, demonstrably you're operating a sockpuppet account, likely to evade a block. Would you like to know how many admins watch my talk page? Ravenswing 21:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I just thought I ought to answer you somewhere. This doesn’t change the fact that the community decides to write Odesa, but the admins insist on using the wrong name Odessa in this article. -Fnursvjuedvhy (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

So does Wikipedia's Manual of Style, which holds that names are rendered according to how they are predominantly done in English-language sources. In this case, that's "Odessa." If that's too much for you to swallow, no one forces you to use the English Wikipedia, and you're free to do your business on Wikipedias that render the name more to your liking ... except, of course that you and your other random-letter friend have both been indeffed for socking. Buh-bye. Ravenswing 09:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

EEng

Apologies for stepping on your toes there, but I think the discussion could do to run a little longer. I don't think haste was called for in closing it. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to raise a fuss over it, but every single editor who's commented so far other than the OP reflected the sentiment of the close: that EEng should behave better, and that there was no call for action beyond that; a classic case of SNOW. Do you anticipate a sudden surge of calls for sanctions? Ravenswing 21:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions? No, that's quite impossible. Some day I'd love to see a gentle acknowledgement from EEng that he at least realizes the burden he places on the rest of the community. I doubt that's happening either. Mackensen (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Emergency backup goaltender and first games

I saw this edit and thought of looking at older season pages. Such first games are also present at 2019–20 and 2017–18. I remember the last discussion at WT:NHL about first and last games, but cannot seem to remember if the addition of emergency backup goaltenders was discussed... – sbaio 16:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, I mean to tackle them all. As far as EBUGs go, those are ephemeral novelty acts that the press plays up in the moment, but emergency goalies aren't anything new. The lines of Claude Cyr or Julian Klymkiw aren't mentioned in Debuts either. Ravenswing 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

First/last game tables

I want to make it clear I’m not necessarily opposed to your changes, as consensus can certainly evolve over time; my issue is primarily with how you’re going about these changes.

The tables w/ notability qualifications are how first/last games have been handled for upwards of a decade and a half, with seemingly no other users (especially those who frequently edit season pages) having issues with their inclusion; when I see them removed by a lone editor with an infrequent history on hockey season pages and no discussion at WP:ICEHOCKEY, I’m obviously going to revert them as it seems like a unilateral interpretation of guidelines rather than a consensus one.

As such, I’ll be reverting your edits for now, but I encourage you to open a discussion at the WP and invite frequent editors (Sbaio, Ho-ju, Deadman, and others, for example) to comment on what should be done regarding the tables/lists. Until then, please hold off for the time being. I hope this clears up some of the supposed tension. The Kip (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ummm, no. Using tables is a relatively recent thing, only over the last couple of years, done unilaterally, and that much only in recent NHL seasons. And with that, you are displaying some extraordinary nerve claiming anything about my editing history; I was active on hockey topics on Wikipedia a dozen years before you registered, and have over ten times your edits. (Never mind that it's mindboggling that you're "encouraging" me to open a discussion on a talk page you have never frequented, and on which I've just short of a thousand edits.) Your condescending tone concerning what you will deign to permit or not, to put it mildly, is quite uncivil. Ravenswing 01:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

ANI and WPTC

I was going to make an individual post to this thread on WP:ANI, but I felt generally indecisive enough as to whether it would actually help or hinder the discussion. So I decided to solicit advice from someone who's become increasingly experienced with resolving disputes on the drama-boards. (Hey, that's you!)

My concern is thus: As much as I feel the points being made about Fleur's conduct are valid, this has the unpleasant connotation of a pile-on, particularly the fact that WP:WPTC members are calling for someone to be topic-banned from all weather topics broadly construed. That makes me very uncomfortable. I don't know why I feel that way, but I do think it would be useful to have uninvolved admins making that call. We very recently had a huge Arbcom case about this very matter.

Let me know if you think it's a point worth bringing up there. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Well ... the fact on the ground is that the community is allowed to levy such sanctions at ANI, and that's not changing any time soon. Indeed, pile-ons happen, and I readily admit to having participated in them. (Then again, I've also opposed any number of pile-ons, and a catchphrase I've repeated an uncomfortable number of times at ANI is that if we at Wikipedia dislike the slur of the radical right echo chamber casting us as running left-wing woke witch hunts, it's best not to have them.) I wouldn't change that if I could; I have seen way too many people get away with murder for way too long -- the Lugnutses and MickMacNees of the world -- to want to take this tool to remove bad actors out of the community's keyboards.

  But I'll buck the tide in another point. Admins are not consecrated elites; they've just gotten through a broken process where the path to success is often to have been as inoffensive as possible and have nothing to hang Opposes from, because let me tell you, ANI has nothing on RfA when it comes to lynch mobs and pile-ons. There are many of us out there who've been on Wikipedia for decades, have many tens of thousands of edits, and seem to have enough respect to have strangers solicit their advice ... (grins) There are some admins I wouldn't trust to fold party favors, let alone with the mop, and a lot of community members I trust to make such judgment calls.

  And you're allowed to make them as well. I haven't delved into that particular dispute so as to have an informed opinion, but you have. If you think a tban is an overreaction, say so! And certainly doing so now, as opposed to after a half-dozen pile-ons get into the game, is good timing. Your voice is as valid as any others. Ravenswing 15:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Aaaaaand ... it looks like your statement had the result you wanted. Good on you. Ravenswing 09:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting, the more I lean on my gut feeling nowadays, the more I seem to be rewarded by it. Thanks for your feedback! I'm not sure I would have gone ahead with my post otherwise. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Achill Island

Hi @Ravenswing: I was wondering why you put an advert tag on Achill Island. I was looking at the All articles with a promotional tone cat and picked this article at random. What is promo in it exactly? scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Simply put, it's just riddled with "local color" items that are poorly or unsourced, and which I'd expect to see in a locally-produced walking tour guidebook rather than in a Wikipedia article. Take a peek at the Mission, Monastery, Railway, Valley House, Deserted Village and Other Places of Interest sections in particular. Alleged prophecies? A couple sentences on a NN pastor's wife who died over 150 years ago? A monk seemingly notable only for writing a bio of an alleged murderer (and multiple paragraphs on that)? Several sentences on farming practices in Ireland? "The Great Western Greenway, created during 2010 and 2011, follows the line's route and has proved to be very successful in attracting visitors to Achill and the surrounding areas." And so on and so forth. The article's full of such fluff. Ravenswing 10:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion

I might be misremembering, but at some AfD I recall you mentioning something about Rank and File not being a sufficiently SIGCOV source for GNG. I'm curious what your thoughts are on this AfD (already closed)? JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think these catchall encyclopedias just do bulletpoint writeups about the size and indepth coverage of a Topps baseball card. I also think (as has been discussed elsewhere) that the likes of BeanieFan and Cbl62 are part of a cadre that are -- with a fair bit of success -- subverting the changes in NSPORTS by just finding some reason, no matter how threadbare, to vote to Keep any sports bio at AfD. It's just exhausting, is all. Ravenswing 06:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It's just exhausting, is all. Tell me about it. There are currently multiple editors arguing that an article can be based almost entirely on quotes from the individual (and objecting to that is BLUDGEONING with my "interpretation of policy" that "other users disagree with") and defending a user who has dumped 15 -link refbombs of club announcements, transactional announcements, blogs, and passing mentions into 100 AfDs. And these articles get kept because the same group who oppose NSPORTS2022 make it a point to !vote in almost every AfD while the rest of the community, who made their opinion clear at the RfC, don't participate in sportsperson AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you please justify your assertion that I am "subverting the changes in NSPORTS by just finding some reason, no matter how threadbare, to vote to Keep any sports bio at AfD." The facts are that (i) I vote "delete", "merge", "redirect", or "userfy" in 65.3% of AfDs (see here), and (ii) I have cited WP:SPORTBASIC #5 dozens and dozens of times since its adoption last year as a basis to delete sports biographies. Cbl62 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Craig Anderson

Could you check Craig Anderson's page? The Sabres still have one more game tonight, and although he won't be suiting up for the game, I don't think he's retired yet, even though he said last night that he was retiring. Could you look into this and let me know if it's all good or not? Thanks,

-B D A *A very wise person once said, "I woke up in a new Buga'i!"*

BubbaDaAmogus (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sportsnet confirmed it, and the link to the source is on the page. Ravenswing 07:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Speed typing

Regarding this edit: it's impressive if you were able to type the sentence in 1/15th of a second :P isaacl (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Gah! I meant the other way around, of course -- thanks for pointing that out! Ravenswing 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Algeria at the 2024 Summer Olympics

Hello, Ravenswing,

I see you tagged this redirect as being discussed at an RFD but the link goes to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 19 and I don't see that you have posted an entry on this page. This is part of the process. Did you mistakenly post on the June 20th log page? If so, please change the link on the redirect page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I pulled it once I saw that you'd deleted the original. Ravenswing 01:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

AfDs, ANI

I'd hoped that, by giving it a few days, the situation would resolve itself. I don't want to drag people through TBANs if it's not necessary. The ANI thread in question has been quiet; in the meantime, most of the AfDs (7/11) have been closed, some discounting number in favor of quality of arguments. I think that's fine and is what I was hoping to achieve. In the meantime, though, the user in question has continued to evade direct questions about notability criteria and about the use of alternate accounts (the original post on ANI uses the plural and might imply the use of several accounts to edit in special areas). Given that, I'm no longer sure about my previous private position to just leave a community reminder. If you're up for further action, I'd be willing to consider it given leniency. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 16:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm up for supporting it, but I shouldn't be the one to instigate it; aside from that it'd be seen as headhunting given the number of posts I've made on the subject, I recently proposed and got through a community and topic ban on another editor. If I don't want to be accused of being the Madame Defarge of ANI, I shouldn't be instigating those very often. If you're willing to do so -- and while the sum of MIAJudges' actions might not be too egregious, their stonewalling of every inquiry is -- I'll be marching right on behind. Ravenswing 17:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I currently would not support a TBAN pending tangible results and replies to my inquiry on the Gupta AfD. I think that it's obvious that they're newer to AfD, and they definitely seem to have taken inquiries as bites. I do think that they are very constructive outside of deletion discussions, and I don't want to lose that. If I did propose a TBAN, it would at the very least see leniency in the form of a brief ban period. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 18:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Thing is, the real concerning thing is the falsification of the headline in the Garnett article. Nothing else would, on their own, garner more than a slap-on-the-wrist day or three block. But the bogus headline, paired with all the stonewalling, points to the unfortunate obvious: we cannot trust this editor, and they are giving us no reason to do so. I really don't want to go over every one of their articlespace edits to see what else they've falsified. Ravenswing 19:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I'm satisfied with this explanation for the multiple accounts thing; it's not incompatible with the (diff revdeled) statements made at ANI. In any case, if there are other active accounts, behavioral evidence would be obvious. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 01:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not, myself; with MIAJudges' repeated stonewalling, we just seem to be taking his unsupported word for everything, and after the Garnett business, he's just not to be trusted. Nothing much to be done about that, though; either an admin demands some answers, or none do. Ravenswing 02:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I understand. But I prefer to not sanction when it's not needed. I'd prefer to get involved in some different drama at this point. I have projects to do and a life to live. If they're not to be trusted, their actions will bear that out, and it'll pop back onto ANI. For now, though, it's a dead (unconscious?) horse. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 03:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Not quite so unconscious now; MIA shot themselves in the foot big time. Take a look at the thread now. This is going straight to community ban, do not pass Go, do not collect $200. Ravenswing 13:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Lou Barlow

Lou has lived in Greenfield for 9 years- I have tried adding a link to a Recorder article here and it will not let me. A google search will offer quick proof ABar72 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I do know how, found the article to which you might have been referring, and added the link: go take a look to see how that's done. Ravenswing 19:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you- I looked at how you linked it- that is really helpful ABar72 (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You'll notice in the edit screen that there's Cite listed at the top. That opens up a drop down screen where you fill in various fields, and that generates the appropriate citation template. Please feel free to drop me a line if you need further/more comprehensive tips. Ravenswing 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy Holidays
		Hello, I wanted to be the first to wish you the very best during the holidays. Glad to know you. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Hah, as it happens, you are! Thank you kindly, and happy holidays back atcha! Regards, Ravenswing 17:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas, Ravenswing! Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 02:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, and the same back at you! Ravenswing 04:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Masterhatch (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep up the great work! You're one of the best editors on Wikipedia. Thank you. Masterhatch (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Aw, thank you kindly, old comrade! And may your own Christmas be merry as well. Ravenswing 04:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you! Thank you for all your help with writing better articles. Have a nice Christmas. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 21:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

And the same back at you! Ravenswing 02:21, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Lucy Letby#RFC on Lead sentence

@Ravenswing: Hi there and merry Christmas! I'm just messaging as, quite a while ago now, you were party to the discussion about the COI editor Richard D. Gill who was reported on ANI for advocacy in trying to portray Lucy Letby as wrongfully convicted: [9]. As you absolutely correctly said at the time: Between that and your curious belief that being found guilty at trial is not held to be synonymous with being guilty, you will perhaps forgive us for not as confident as you are that your expertise trumps all other considerations and facts.

But now some editors want to replace the first line that says "British serial killer and former neonatal nurse" to "is a British former neonatal nurse, convicted of the serial murder of seven infants and attempted murder of six others". So basically, they want to get rid of her being called a serial killer, on various grounds including "I don't think we can assert in Wiki's voice that she is a murderer". But surely, the place we decide where someone is guilty of a crime is in court, and having been convicted it is perfectly reasonable to describe her as a murderer in Wikivoice? I might understand it more if there were massive and consistent doubts about her conviction, but there isn't any any such wider doubts.

What I also think is quite improper is that the whole debate was started when the already-blocked Richard Gill apparently appeared again(!) to evade his block and suggest the whole intro be changed to claim she is just an "alleged" killer: [10] - EXACTLY the same wording he'd suspiciously been asking for on his own Twitter account!: [11]. So basically a blocked advocacy editor has got some people persuaded that we shouldn't call her a killer. It really just smacks of pro-Letby editorialising to not allow her to be referred to as a killer, surely that is the norm on Wikipedia, to refer to serial killers like Fred West, Steve Wright, Peter Sutcliffe and John Duffy and David Mulcahy as serial killers? 213.31.104.198 213.31.104.198 (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Banned editor canvassing for an RfC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind talk page messages along the lines of "You were a participant in X conversation, and it's started up again, let us know what you think." I very much mind talk page messages that pitch a strongly partisan POV, such as this one, and invite me to jump on the bandwagon. That just earned you a block. Don't do it again. Ravenswing 11:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Pope Benedict XVI, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Return of a topic-banned user

FYI, Dolovis created an ice hockey biography at Yan Kuznetsov. It seems as if his topic ban expired some time ago? Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It did. Gah. And we've been working under the happy presumption that we'd seen the last of Dolovis. Well. If he gets back to his usual tricks, time for another ANI thread. Ravenswing 18:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate you correcting my error on the block length at ANI. I should have looked closer at the text, I think it's just a general habit of mine when it comes to closing discussions since most of the ones I close have ended in that fashion. Sorry about that, and thank you for correcting me. JeffSpaceman (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Quite alright! Bobbles happen. Ravenswing 22:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hockey Mountain

Hello there. I haven't talked much about this, but I have been working on a revamp of Hockey Mountain, expanding it to be a bit larger than what it currently is. I'll leave the link to it here. I'm not done making this new version of Hockey Mountain, but if you could go over it and give me some feedback, that would be very much appreciated. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the work you've done with this, and thank you for highlighting that there are team, history and award topics that need love too. (Also, thank you twice, because you've reminded me that I need to make updates from the end of this past season, and the new HHOF inductees.) My immediate thought was "sure, dump your work into the existing Hockey Mountain," but that would make a very long page indeed and be a bit much for anyone to curate. Seems like it's time for a Hockey Mountain Range, wouldn't you say? Bring your project live when you feel it's ready, and then post it next to mine at the various Project spots.

As far as feedback on it goes, what struck me right off was the rank columns. I'd eliminate those, just by way of them being pains to update, unless you don't mind the ministerial task every year. Other than that, I don't see a thing wrong with your work. Well done. Ravenswing 20:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval! I've been creating this for the past month, but only today did I realize that I probably should have talked to the Hockey Mountaineer himself. I might not do to much with HM apart from this redesign (and the occasional Bruins player to GA). Also, I just realized that you have a Bruins userbox on your user page. Feel free to check out my Bruins page sometime! Once again, thanks a lot. XR228 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Another thing — Having Hockey Mtn. be one of your user subpages works, but it would feel more official if it was a subpage of WikiProject Ice Hockey itself. I suggest moving HM to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured Topic Drive, because a Featured Topic Drive is pretty much what HM is. XR228 (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Continued conflicts on Tom & Jerry (2021 American film)

Hello,

Tensions on Tom & Jerry (2021 American film) with another user continue to escalate. Rather than blow this up into an edit war, and seeing as the user has summoned an admin’s presence, could you review the latest topic on the article’s talk page?

In the interest of transparency, it is true that I have a bit of a history with this individual on other platforms (I have elaborated on the talk page), but I will say that the edits I have made are designed to be productive and in the article’s best interest. I don’t expect my contributions not to be malleable, but I am working to curb it from any sourcing or bias issues, which seems to be the case here.

Thank you in advance. Ciscocat (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to Carney Hospital

Hi, thank you for your edit, however the original date was correct as is stated in the reference. Further, my edit was also made after the hospital closed, so I don't believe I jumped the gun in any respect. Mangocove (talk) 07:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The original date was WRONG; your reference was from an out of town newspaper a month ago. The several references I added were from the Boston Globe, local TV stations and the neighborhood newspaper, all referencing the correct date and time of Saturday morning, and I could have included numerous others were bludgeoning called for. Ravenswing 08:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The reference I cited was from August 31, 2024, not a year ago, and is a local source - MassLive, the Mass stands for Massachusetts. Here in your reply you correctly say it was Saturday morning, but in the article you are editing it to say September 1st - which was yesterday, Sunday, and incorrect. Mangocove (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Blah, you're right, and my bad; for some reason I had my head turned around to think Saturday was the 1st. Ravenswing 14:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made that mistake before. Happens to the best of us! Mangocove (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ottawa Senators (original)

Ottawa Senators (original) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)