User talk:Ravenswing

If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.

I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead.

Beyond that, I keep my AfD work over on AfD. Don't write me here to dispute my posts or (as is more commonly the case) lobby me to change my vote. Anything you have it in mind to say here is more properly said over there, for all to see.

• Archive #1 - Entries archived from June 2005 through March 2006
• Archive #2 - Entries archived from March 2006 through May 2006
• Archive #3 - Entries archived from May 2006 through December 2006
• Archive #4 - Entries archived from December 2006 through April 2007
• Archive #5 - Entries archived from April 2007 through June 2007
• Archive #6 - Entries archived from June 2007 through November 2007

Ottawa senators retired number 18 "Smitty"

Number 18 is indeed retired at the Scotia bank place. 'Smitty' was a nickname of a broadcastor who was attacked and murdered. I cant get his full name for you yet. But this number indeed hangs in the rafters at the scotiabank place in ottawa and is a fact. Please do not remove it this time. If youd like to help with this you could help by finding his exact name. Thank you for your time and please take care Sayswho (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. First off, the section isn't for "numbers hanging from the rafter of a building"; it's for player numbers retired by the Ottawa Senators. Secondly, any fact posted to Wikipedia must be able to be sourced; it isn't for me to prove that this fellow existed, the date of any such retirement or that there's a banner in Scotiabank Place, it's for you to do so with reliable sources. As it happens, neither the Sens' website nor the NHL Official Guide and Record Book mention anything of the sort.  RGTraynor  23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

By looking up smitty on the ottawa senators webpage youll see that the broadcastors name was Brian Smith and he was a sports reporter for a local ottawa tv station who was killed. Number 18 hangs from the rafters but since youd like some solid evidence of this matter ill be sure to take a photo at the next game I go to. As well 46 isn't a foundation or rather camp that sends children to was set up in his honour. Retired hockey numbers dont have to be players who played with the team (wayne gretzky) they can be anyone associated to the team.Brian smith also played for the los angeloas kings so by this definition the number should be included. For the time being id suggest as a good measure we put a section about brian smith in the article which would be source until there is a bit stronger textual documentation. Would this appease you, or do you think he shouldnt be honoured?

If you would like to read a bit up on this take a read of this http://www.flagstick.com/pastissues/2004_pastissues/august04_fullmagazine.pdf . Ill be out of town going sking with my fiance this week but i look forward to chatting with you about this further I think we can set something up very nicely Sayswho (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Players that wore 18 after Smith's death: Patrick Traverse and Marian Hossa. I don't see any evidence of players changing their numbers in honour of this post-Hossa (3 B-sens have worn 18, but none have gotten the callup). What you need to provide is an article or press release stating the purpose/nature of the banner. The number 46 is up in the rafters of the Wachovia Center, but it's not retired. ccwaters (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "retired numbers" is that of numbers officially retired by the team, and there are four cases in NHL history of numbers being officially retired for players never actually playing for the team in question (Tremblay, McKenzie, Finnigan, Gretzky). The Senators have not officially retired this number. Now if you want to write an article about this fellow, and you think he passes encyclopedic muster, go for it.  RGTraynor  05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Smith (ice hockey). ccwaters (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Edits to Montreal Maroons site

Hi I noticed that you reverted to an unsourced claim on the montreal maroons site and also after visiting this page seen that you are very keen on 'sources' I am wondering if you have a source to claim that the montreal marroons were predominately a anglophone supported team in montreal. I dont feel this needs to be reverted right away or at all providing some source is present but am i missing something????? Ive never seen this claim also outside wikipedia and ive read a few books about the nhl from the early 20s. Did i miss this?, Perhaps its on the hockey hall of fame site? or is this just hear say? let me know Jgale061 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be astonished that any book about NHL history would omit it; it's a universally mentioned fact. I'll have some sources up, if you wish.  RGTraynor  09:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jgale061 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers

I've spent all night harpooning the Hartford Whalers. Does it look any better? Flibirigit (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Busy fellow! But it certainly looks good.  RGTraynor  17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

I'm currently trying to get the page to GA status, would you be willing to help? So far, I've rewritten the induction and criticism sections, although the later still needs some sourcing. I'm still yet to start work on the history and exhibits secion and the biggest problem is the "Operations and organization" which doesn't have many sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

John Leach

The object of an AfD nomination is to test the notability, etc. of the subject and not to embark on some quest to make the article "perfect" as if it is to become a feature.

You made a justifiable complaint about terms like "significant", "major contribution" and the like and those were addressed. But, clearly, nothing is ever going to be enough for you because now you allege that there is original research in the article! That, frankly, is rubbish. Lets look at the sentence.

Besides the references, arranged chronologically like those in Buckley, Leach has expanded his own theories about cricket's early history.

How is that original research? In the book in question, the author has arranged everything chronologically and he has expanded his own theories. Those are facts; they are what he has done and the person who wrote the article has recorded it as such.

Original research occurs when some new theory is included in a WP article and cannot be verified elsewhere.

As for your insistence on citation tags several times per sentence, you need to get a grip. What is the article going to look like to a general reader when every single word has got a citation tag appended to it?

In the first paragraph, the information is summarised from the other article mentioned. If you need a citation then it is the original article that provides it and there is no need to duplicate that in this article.

In the second paragraph of the Sports History section, the two citations already there cover everything in that paragraph. The whole of the first sentence sums up matters that are discussed in the sources given (tag 2). The same sources record what happened in the AGM meeting referred to in the next sentence.

You want a citation about the fact he quotes Cardus? Have you not read the previous sentence and can you really not see that this sentence is merely an illustrative comment following on from the other? Do you know how to write English? Do you ever think about the general readers that these articles are written for?

Furthermore, you have willfully replaced your "peacock" tag even though there is no longer any such POV word in the article.

You are obviously pursuing your own agenda and you are deliberately hindering the process. Frankly, people like you should read Wikipedia's goals and purposes articles to learn that the site exists for the benefit of readers and not for pedants who inhabit deletion discussion pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am, indeed, pursuing an agenda. Unlike yours, it is not to defend to the death any article involving cricket. Now possibly you have not yet reviewed the various Wikipedia rules, policies and Manual of Style (which, given that you have fewer than 300 edits, almost all of them -- and startlingly coincidentally -- focused on cricket and philately, is not surprising), so I'll review a few basic concepts for your benefit.

• First and foremost, Wikipedia articles can contain no statements of opinion that are not attributable to a reliable source. You cannot state "Leach has used a historical approach in his studies of cricket rather than the traditional statistical approach of many earlier cricket writers." You must link to a reliable source that does state it. You cannot assert "As described in Pre-1850s in sports, his In the Mists of Time [1] has helped to clarify understanding of first-class cricket's origins and so contributes to the study of general sports history." You must link to a reliable source that does assert it.

• Secondly, WP:OR and WP:SYN prohibit the drawing of conclusions, however well the postulates are sourced. You can state that Leach quotes Cardus on several occasions. You cannot infer, however, that "Leach is clearly influenced by Cardus." Who says, and how come?

• Thirdly, that all the references are weblinks is a serious problem. To quote from relevant policy: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable" Is, in fact, this Association of Cricket Statisticians generally and publically accepted as the authorities on cricket history? I'm a member of the Society for International Hockey Research, as it happens, but it wouldn't occur to me for a moment to link to SIHR monographs.

• Fourthly, to quote from WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged (emphasis in the original) should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

• Finally, I commend you to WP:CIVIL. Exhortations to "get a grip" or asking if I know how to write English (with over a dozen publications to my name, I'd say that the publishers who've paid me thought so at the time) are at best unproductive, and suggest that you're more interested in picking a fight than in seeing the article you defend passes policy muster.  RGTraynor  09:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to apologise for being less than civil. It was just that I found it frustrating when I had addressed your initial complaint and you came up with more. I realise you mean well and are doing your best for the site. All the best. --AlbertMW (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your inputs to this which have been useful. I'm sorry to see that a ruckus has developed between you and AlbertMW. As I started the AfD, I feel a bit responsible. I'd like this to be finished amicably and without further confusion to other readers so I've arranged for someone to pare the article down to its essentials and, though I've never actually wanted the article, it looks okay to me as it goes.

Just to answer a couple of points you raised and to ask one of my own. The ACS and the Cricket Society are different groups. They are both fairly well known in the cricket world but don't have any official sanction. They are generally acknowledged as reputable sources which are often quoted and for WP purposes they are verifiable as sources. So I would always go with anything they say unless someone else has an equally verifiable alternative view, as I have explained at length in Variations in first-class cricket statistics. Hope you don't have these problems in ice hockey!

The question I have, out of interest, is why you don't recognise anything produced by the Society for International Hockey Research?

Best wishes for 2008. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Simple enough. It is because while SIHR has a number of respected hockey historians amongst its number, and it has been called upon increasingly for its views (by the Hockey News, among others), as an organization, it holds no widespread and acknowledged place in the hockey world. I contrast with, for example, the Journal of New England Medicine, which while no more official than SIHR is the widely recognized gold standard of medical scholarship. So here are the questions I have regarding ACS: if, as you assert, they are generally acknowledged in the cricket world as reputable sources, to the point that they should be exempted from WP:RS's publication requirements, are there any reliable sources stating so?  RGTraynor  23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ACS

I suppose the best way to answer is by reference to the International Cricket Council (ICC), which is the sport's world governing body; and to Wisden, publishers of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, which is the most reputable and authoritative cricket publication. The ICC recognises the ACS to the point that it adopted the ACS List A cricket classification as an official level of limited overs cricket (i.e., for domestic limited overs cricket involving teams officially adjudged "first-class", which are the equivalent of NHL teams). Wisden has always recognised both the ACS and the Cricket Society in its publications and will often quote them as sources, although Wisden once famously fell out with the ACS over what its editor called "rewriting of history".

The ACS is primarily a statistics group that does historical research too. The Cricket Society, whilst primarily a charitable organisation, is noted for historical research.

Reading Society for International Hockey Research I'd say it is probably on a par with the ACS except that the ACS has got the ICC recognition for one of its statistical classifications. I can't tell from the SIHR article but it seems to me that the ACS has probably been more prolific as a publisher; the ACS has been going since 1973 and the Cricket Society since before World War II.

Hope this is useful but let me know if you have any other questions. Always glad to help. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I've been having further thoughts about this and I've decided you are right. The ACS is like the SIHR and I believe it fails WP:RS because it self-publishes on behalf of its members. So does the Cricket Society. They don't publish anything except what their own members have researched, so they fail the self-publish test and are not verifiable sources. As a result, the article fails WP:RS for the reasons you have put forward. I've entered a delete vote and persuaded AlbertMW to do likewise, especially as his Gibbons reference for philately has funnily enough turned out to be the wrong magazine and so has been withdrawn (shame, that). So it looks as if it will be deleted after all. Thanks very much for your help and I do mean that. My very best wishes to the SIHR. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Original Sin

That just made my day! Alaney2k (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah ... I was fishing for something clever to put in the edit summary, but when all was said and done, I was just plain bloody baffled that anyone would draw the parallel!  RGTraynor  03:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, could've been just a silly prank. Funny anyway! Alaney2k (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to laugh at that as well. But I think its not that there is a parallel to be drawn but more likely because it is a reasonable typo. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Language

I'm not sure the antipathy towards Canadian English. As far as I'm concerned, players like Mario Lemieux who were born in Canada should have an article in Canadian English. Really, if the intial article was done in one or the other we have a duty to respect their choice of style not change it because a player is 'playing for a primary american team'. As far as I'm concerned that's irrelevant to the issue. What about Brett Hull who played for the US national team and had dual citizenship? Mario played for Canada in the Olympics, he may like it in Pittsburgh, but he's not an American, not the way that Mike Modano and other American players are. The Americans do have good hockey players, and we shouldn't insult their reckoning by adding players on the list, because then statistics like the best 'American' hockey player become distorted. Benkenobi18 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an antipathy towards Commonwealth English. What I do think is that there is a preference for following WP:ENGVAR. There is no case in which I've reverted someone changing an article to match en-ca where, as WP:ENGVAR requires, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used." If you would like to lobby to change WP:ENGVAR to read that an article must be written in the language of the subject's birth nationality, go for it.  RGTraynor  07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 04:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Goliath crane redirect

Although the crane "scarcely" deserves an independent entry, the story of the shipyard and Quincy's skyline are in the news this week. As the formerly second largest crane in the world, it's deconstruction and relocation are significant. I had planned to follow the story with images throughout the process, and that is why I created a new entry for "Goliath". Since there is not much to say other than we know Daniel Quirk will sell the crane and it will be moved to the Black Sea, I am inclined to leave the redirect for now. However, I would like your opinion regarding a more substantial entry later once the entire process has played out later this year. Goliath is and will be remembered as a rather significant landmark along Weymouth Fore River and the southern Boston Harbor skyline. Sswonk —Preceding comment was added at 01:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's a verifiable tale here, but there's at most no more than a paragraph's worth. That much can be handled in the main shipyard article, which is long on ship lists but short on actual text. I'll absolutely miss the crane - I live in Quincy Point myself and occasionally ride the harbor ferries - but the article would never survive an AfD challenge.  RGTraynor  07:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points abound here in the Point. I had you pegged as being from somewhere far removed from Quincy, as a matter of fact, and was really thinking you didn't "know" the shipyard. The edit you made is correct. I am glad you are seeing the same things I am about the Fore River Shipyard entry, it really is where a lot of work needs to be done, yet also where the Goliath news should stay. The shipyard story has more to it than a list of ships or even a paragraph about its big latter day crane. I hope you continue to help edit the entry. Sswonk 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Springfield Indians logos

Based on the recent discussions to delete logos used in galleries, such as what happened on the Moncton Hawks article (IFD:January 2), would you be able to incorporate some of the Springfield Indians logos into the main text of the article? You seem to know alot about the team's history. Flibirigit (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article discussion

The article that was deleted about one year ago was titled Alicia Miguel, not Alicia Miguel Schüll. MonicaCabaski (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country

Is ONIH serious? Belfast has been a part of the UK since 1801. Indeed, the whole island of Ireland was a part of the UK from 1801 to the 1920's. Thankfully he hasn't spotted the article Calgary Flames where we correctly have Owen Nolan born in Belfast, United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in the vote. Grsz11 (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, gentlefolk.  RGTraynor  12:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

After one more failed attempt to straigten things out, I've chosen to leave the article alone. I'd rather two sections: United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland for simplicity's sake. Applying simplicity to UK & RoI related subjects is impossible though. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration for article

If you know how to request arbitration, I think it is time we need it at List of National Hockey League statistical leaders by country. Grsz11 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Blues captains

We're having trouble at the St. Louis Blues (hockey) article, again. Yep, it's the captains list again. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hartford Whalers

I removed the Arena banners image from the article, as it contradicted the 'retired numbers' section. Was that a correct move on my part? GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Boston Garden edit

The trivia was in the article, in the Flaws section [1], the link I have was before I elaborated further on the part. Whammies Were Here 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont get it. The info is there in the article, and I even fixed it up so there would be no question about it, and it could eliminate the trivia section to boot. Get back to me on this if you can, thanks. Whammies Were Here 02:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Would really like it if you got back to me on this, I want to know how I can be able to edit the one piece of info around so the trivia section could be eliminated, thanks :) Whammies Were Here 11:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello RGTraynor, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant rollback rights to your account? Just remember it's for reverting vandalism, and not for reverting good-faith edits or for revert-warring. Acalamari 18:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please; I do it a fair bit. Thanks for the consideration.  RGTraynor  06:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) For more information on rollback, you may want to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Just remember that if you think an edit may need an explanation for reversion, don't use rollback to revert it. Good luck. Acalamari 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They've broken me

Hello RG. IMHO, you've got more Ice Hockey knowledge, then anybody I've ever came across. I just wanted to say, keep up the good work. The pro-diacritics editors have broken me, I no longer find hockey aritcles fun. Elrith refuses to abide by the Wikipedia: WikiProject Ice Hockey compromise & Djssaso, Krm500 refuse to let me hide the diacritics from the NHL team articles 'current rosters (birth section)'. I've grown tired of their 'group ownership'. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts

Your own Wikiproject consensus, right on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey, says:

"All Player pages: Should have diacritics applied (where required)."

So kindly don't remove them from NHL player pages, and try to learn to read. Elrith (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy to hear that your maturity level hasn't particularly changed much. Of course, I meant pages about the players in question, but that would require reading what I wrote, as opposed to paraphrasing Humpty Dumpty. You go on off and do whatever it is you do, there.  RGTraynor  04:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

"All North American hockey pages: Should have player names without diacritics. Wiki-linked words should have diacritics hidden." Just wanted to put that out there. Therefore, your including them on articles such as Marc-Andre Fleury are inappropriate, and were reverted. Grsz11 (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's less a question of maturity than of tone. You set that the first time we started talking on this issue, so I see no reason to be polite to you. Since the two of you are so smart, why does Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format say that "Diacritics shall be applied to all the player pages (that require them)"? I understand that as meaning that every NHL player page will use diacritics, and so do some of your co-editors. If it doesn't, then maybe you should set your project pages straight? The way I see it, either you (=the anti-"foreign squiggles" crowd) are incapable of writing coherent project guidelines, or you twist them to suit your personal POV.

Quite simply, if when it says "All player pages" on your Wikiproject page, it doesn't in fact mean all player pages, then I plead guilty to not being able to read in your inimitable way. Elrith (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, it's simply the fact that this is English Wikipedia. I fail to see how this has anything to do with anybody's POV. It's solely the fact the the English language (the language in use here) does not use diacritics, thus neither should the pages, other than the title. Grsz11 (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)