User talk:Ravenswing/Archive3

This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. Also do not set your pubic hair on fire; it is bad for you.

Spelling

Before you freak out, I am going to tell you I agree those pages should have the american spelling. The reason I reverted was because in alot of cases you changed a capitalized version to an uncapitalized version, and because you changed non-redirects into redirects. I figured it would be easier for me to fix by reverting and then going through them again from their original state. I am going to do that as soon as I get to work in about an hour, so I just wanted to make sure you knew that this wasn't a war on spelling if you came along while I was commuting to work. I completely agree that the visible spelling should be the american one.-Djsasso (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't trust that sneaky Canadian, he's trying to trick us. :) Serious though, my watchlist just went crazy: thanks for the explanation. ccwaters (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its just easier to say if its a capital D leave it a capital D...than for me to have to scan each article and decide which should be capitalized and which should not. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

And there we go, all the american defenceman have the american spelling with proper caps and no redirects. -Djsasso (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wasn't going to freak out; I saw that the redirects were getting changed too and was going to fix that myself, at least until I caved in because I'd pulled an allnighter and needed to crash in a heap. Just to warn for crazy watchlists though, I'm going to likewise go over the American ice hockey center cat.  Ravenswing  18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I should mention is watch the categories, as the categories went through a coupld cfds in the past and there was no concensus to change to the american spelling since their parent cats (Ice hockey defencemen & Ice hockey centres) were spelled using the other spelling. -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I must have missed fixing a few as well. Guess my equation had some holes in it. -Djsasso (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No biggie, so did mine this morning.  Ravenswing  18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

?

Hi! I am sorry, but according to WP:Stub there must be "two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it". Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the creators of AWB should adjust the program, then, if that is the case, because that is the default application.  Ravenswing  18:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It actually says is desireable, doesn't say necessary. -Djsasso (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My, thanks for the tip, DJ. I just read it myself, and I can't conceive of a situation where I'd go onto someone's talk page to say "must" where the guideline says "usually desirable."  Ravenswing  18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in, just happened to have you still on my watchlist from when I commented yesterday. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no, no trouble at all. I also don't mind you keeping an eye out; you've probably been seeing me do another carload lot of edits in the reverse of what I was doing yesterday, making sure the centre (ice hockey) link is there without redirect, etc. I've a few hundred more to go, on form.  Ravenswing  18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was confused! Because I learned to add two blank lines... So I have now no idea what to do in the future. Thanks for being so patient with me. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Caught ya!  ;-)

Please do be careful with AWB and the hockey spelling fixes -- in Mike Ricci your global change of "center" to "centre" changed all the <TD align=center> tags too... (Not sure if it caused any browsers to barf, but the official HTML spec does specify the spelling "center".) What's funny is that Ricci's position was already listed as "centre" in his infobox. (Being an American of Canadian parentage, I express no opinion on the substantive spelling issue.) Happy editing, MCB (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too, but decided that the HTML seemed to be designed to handle it after looking at a couple of previews, so I let it slide.  Ravenswing  08:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Christos Kyprianides

Hey I noticed that you'd made an AfD for Christos Kyprianides, but hadn't put a notification in the article itself. In any case, I felt the article was an obvious candidate for WP:CSD#A7 anyway, so I re-nom'd it for that. Just thought I'd let you know! --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I did put the notification in ... I bet the same people blanked it who blanked out the CSD I filed earlier on it.  Ravenswing  03:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

Hey RG,

Looks like you're busy messing up wikipedia. Sounds to me as though you need a little more training on AWB... or perhaps the wiki community should ban you from using it altogether. ;-p

Sometimes I wish I had your word-skill to deal with nuissances, but alas. Anyhow, just seeing what's up with you seeing as you and I haven't crossed paths for quite some time except when I'm deleting vent-fests from your talkpage. Later, pal! — Dorvaq (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd figure that after the first two or three people said something, people might figure out that the issue had already been raised. Go figure. Why me, I just did something truly bizarre yesterday and did a global switchback ... what are the odds? (grins) That being said, eh, anyone active enough for long enough here is going to draw some heat; it comes with the turf. Be good, or else be good at it!  Ravenswing  15:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Squirrel's Heath

I think that it deserves inclusion because it is the second oldest surviving school in the London Borough of Havering, and was the first free primary school in the borough. I know this to be true because I own the book by V Hood, cited in the article, but I cannot find citation of this on the web.

I hope that you will allow the article to stay up because I feel that the schools historical atributes make it noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraarnold (talk • contribs) 13:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Squirrel's Heath

Also, I forgot to mention, I think that it would be unfair to delete the article on this historic primary school, when Wikipedia is allowing one on Clockhouse Junior School, another Primary school in the Borough, which is neither as old as SH, nor has it ever had a book written about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraarnold (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that in order to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, subjects must follow specific policies and guidelines. Chief among them is WP:V (which requires articles to be based "on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.") and WP:N ("A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."). You seem quite correct in your assessment of Clockhouse, and I've merged that to the proper locality.  Ravenswing  15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Centre de réadaptation de l'Estrie

If I understand correctly what happened, I think that you delete the page, I edited, wich is call Centre de réadaptation de l'Estrie because the article seems to be blatant advertising... Well, it is true that I work for the Centre as a communication agent, but I don't think I have written an ad about the CRE. I only wanted to put an information page about who we are and what the Centre is doing. Note that we are a non profit organisation and that we have no interest to put an ad-like on wikipedia. Can you put my text back please ! Thanks a lot SimonSimlaprise (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an adminstrator, and have no power to do that. Secondly, I recommend you look over Wikipedia policies and guidelines so you can better understand the requirements we have for articles: WP:PILLAR, WP:V, WP:ORG and WP:RS. Finally, another policy is WP:COI, where employees of an organization are strongly discouraged from writing or editing articles about their organizations. Since Wikipedia is not a webhost, you are better off relying on your firm's own website to put out information about the Centre, unless you can come up with reliable, independent, published sources demonstrating why the Centre passes our notability standards.  Ravenswing  21:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Princess Sikhanyiso Dlamini

She's notable in that while she was being educated in Britain she became a prominent critic of her father's style of governance, especially his extravagances -- it made a bit of news. Sorry, got sidetracked. --Stlemur (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, looking over Google UK's news archives, it looks like you're right; there are a number of cites. Good on you.  Ravenswing  22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, did a rewrite with some quick sources. A lot of good ones seem to be behind subscriptions though. -Stlemur (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you simply removed my comment and that of IrisKawling. Please respond this time, or at least correct your mistakes. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I already responded to a similar inquiry above, and frankly, I don't feel the need to respond to each and every person who raises the same question. Beyond that, like any other editor, I am quite at liberty to remove any or all of my user talk page. Perhaps you might wish to review WP:BLANKING.  Ravenswing  03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:R2D

Just letting you know: per WP:R2D, there's no reason to make a change like the one at this diff. Croctotheface (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is. The issue of diacriticals has been a very contentious one at WP:HOCKEY, and it's better to change from the redirect to the target link than provoke editors to slap diacriticals onto visible text.  Ravenswing  21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

RfA review

Inexplicably, I chose to throw away a few minutes of my life reading several editors' questionaires over at the RfA discussion thing. Your comments appeared to be quite far off the path of the conventional wisdom, and as such, I found them refreshing (if such an adjective can be applied to anything written purely for the benefit of bureaucrats). I don't think that there's a cabal, but groupthink has the same effect, and I salute you for avoiding it, while at the same time not coming off as a wack-job eccentric (which is what at least some will probably think of some of my comments). Good show! Unschool (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, thank you. I'm sure some would write my comments off at sour grapes over my own RfA, but that foundered on two readily identifiable issues (however much I disagree). I took an interest in RfA after that, give it a glance once a week, and have been increasingly bothered by how terribly shallow it is. There doesn't need to be a "cabal" for there to be a small horde of folks looking for some excuse, any excuse, to Oppose, and with the likeminded small horde who bullet Oppose any candidate, no matter how able or qualified, who dings their personal hobby horses ... well, I agree with the editor who said darkly that we needed fifty new admins a week, not three or four, and we're not going to get it with the current system. Here's hoping.  Ravenswing  23:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What the hell???

Why is Christian Kebbel an obscure actor? You don't know him and have never seen him in his videos or movies. Christian deserves his own resume, his own profile of some kind and he deserves to be found in an encyclopedia. It think you'd best leave Christian's resume. It goes good with his sister Arielle Kebbel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maikyboy4leesy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• He's an obscure actor because he's only appeared in three minor roles, two in direct-to-video productions, and no one would have noticed him if he didn't have a more prominent sister. Whether I "know" him or have seen his videos, or what he may or may not "deserve," has nothing to do with whether he fulfills WP:BIO, which Wikipedia requires. The criteria involve (a) "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions," (b) "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following," or (c) "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Kebbel does not yet qualify in either. Since you are new to Wikipedia, I recommend you review WP:PILLAR, WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:RS to begin to learn the criteria for articles in this encyclopedia. Good luck.  Ravenswing  22:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Umlaut removing?

Why on earth are you removing umlauts off people's names like [1] or [2]? Or in edits like [3], why have [[Éric Bélanger|Eric Belanger]] instead of just plain [[Éric Bélanger]]? You are not cleaning the articles up, but making it more cluttered. --antilived^{T | C | G} 11:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the current consensus of the Wikiproject is that diacriticals are to be used on player pages, while they are not to be used on more general articles which pertain to North American hockey. When the Flyers start putting umlauts on their jerseys, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution starts printing accents in their articles on Belanger, then that probably will change.  Ravenswing  11:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

More diacritics discussion!

Noticed you changed [[Nicklas Lidstrom]] to [[Nicklas Lidström|Nicklas Lidstrom]] on the Pavel Datsyuk page, however wouldn't [[Nicklas Lidström]] be most correct as this is a player page? Cheers Rejectwater (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah, you're absolutely right. That slipped through my cracks. (mutters curses)  Ravenswing  05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships is not a North American hockey page, so there is no need to have Jean-Sébastien Giguère's name without diacritics there, is it? LarRan (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If Team Canada put an accent on Giguere's name on his uniform, in their press releases and on its website, I'd agree with you. Judging from the Hockey Canada website, that isn't the case. By contrast, I didn't touch the non-North American teams playing in the Worlds.  Ravenswing  20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe he's just used to NHL constantly mis-spelling his name, and didn't react. If asked, what do you think he'd prefer? LarRan (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Beats me - come to that, do you figure he insists on "Jean-Sébastien" to everyone with whom he's on a first name basis? - but that isn't the point. The point is that this is the English Wikipedia, and that following the Wikipedia-wide convention that the form in most common use is employed, the most commonly rendered version of Giguere's name in English-language usage is without accents. Current consensus is for the use of diacriticals on player pages and European hockey pages, and that's as far as it goes.  Ravenswing  21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to evade the subject - the first name basis issue has nothing to do with the discussion on diacritics. If he had to choose from "Jean-Sebastien" and "Jean-Sébastien", I'm pretty sure that he'd prefer the latter. But if you say that the consensus is like that, then I'm ok with it (as long as the links are piped). LarRan (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was trying (however indirectly) to emphasize the sheer pointlessness of speculating on Giguere's personal preferences. They are irrelevant.  Ravenswing  17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still peeved, over diacritics being user in the current rosters of the NHL team articles. But, I've given up trying to remove them (due to exhaution). GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright; since I've been working on AWB passes, I'm fine with doing it. Heck, I'll go over the team rosters today.  Ravenswing  18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying; I'm speaking of the birth places of course (the players names are alright). GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh ... but that's a different matter. The whole objection to diacriticals comes from that they're not used in the English language, and specifically on the most-common-usage clause. If we're talking about Notenoughvowels, Czech Republic, though, it becomes a lot harder to demonstrate that the town is widely known in English language sources without diacriticals. It isn't even a matter of letting it go; I think we don't have legitimate grounds to object.  Ravenswing  18:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It still stinks though; Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

PS- recommend you don't try to hide the dios on those 'birth places'. It'll only be a headache for ya (as it was for me). GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

GemStone article

Hey, do you think I am wasting my time by writing up descriptions of all the different GS professions? I'm not sure why I thought copying and pasting was a good idea, but I'm wondering if my own descriptions would be worthwhile or not. I'm already mostly done, so I guess at the very least I can post them and then you can delete/edit them if you feel they're bad or "too much" for the article. Also, I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so I'm not very good at NPOV but I'm learning. I'm not sure if my descriptions read as much like an encyclopedia as they should. Zedarius (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're wasting your time at all, but obviously you have to put things in your own words, rather than violate Simu's copyright. As far as how best to phrase things, the manual of style is WP:MOS, and just looking at the style of other articles might help you a bit. Good fortune to you!  Ravenswing  03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

7/1 DYK

On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Beerhouse Act, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford ^Pray 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Great job on starting Beerhouse Act. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh, thank you kindly. Truth be told, I just surfed over to a Wanted Pages section (and I can't seem to find it again) where article requests had been languishing for years, and the "Beerhouse Act" redlink caught my eye. Legal articles I can do, thought I, dove right in, and figured I'd have a factoid worth DYK. I'm quite pleased how it came out.  Ravenswing  22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Etc

Why would you want to delete my page? what harm is it to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamogle1986 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which article would that be?  Ravenswing  03:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in Hec Fowler we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.

Please assist with any ongoing requests

You might like to take an extra interest in our To Do list

Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject

Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 04:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

Chicago Blackhawks

Was there a reason why you changed "Chicago Blackhawks" to "Chicago Black Hawks"? Team is officially called the "Chicago Blackhawks". Where your edits referring to their title during the period when the were actually called the "Chicago Black Hawks" (Pre '86)? --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. The team was called "Black Hawks" until the end of the 1986 season, and all references to it in that day and age - including season articles, award citations and player pages for those players with the team pre-1986-87 - must properly be to "Black Hawks." What the team is called now doesn't change that any more than we ought to claim that (for instance) Bill Goldsworthy played for the Dallas Stars just because that's the current name of the team for which he did play.  Ravenswing  07:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Geoff Hargreaves

If you have a chance, can you explain why this entry was deleted? Thanks! Lizwolfe (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I filed for it in the first place because Hargreaves not only failed to meet the criteria of WP:BIO, but the article did not assert any grounds for notability. It was deleted because an administrator, User talk:Anthony Appleyard, agreed with the assessment.  Ravenswing  16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Eno River Media Production

Is there any way I could put the Eno River Media Production article back on wikipedia without it getting deleted?Alliejulli (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

First off, I strongly recommend you go over some of the links posted to your talk page explaining the various policies and guidelines which govern article creation. In this particular case, you must pay attention to WP:ORG, which holds that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." This means newspaper or magazine articles, or other significant media coverage (not blog posts or Youtube clips), about ERMP (not about any products it makes, but about ERMP itself). Some kinds of coverage are specifically excluded: "Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people" and "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." Moreover, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found."

To be honest, I don't think it's likely; otherwise I wouldn't have filed for a CSD on the article. There aren't any such sources cropping up on Google, nor on Google News.  Ravenswing  03:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know

[4] This is certainly a stub article, and the CSD has been addressed already (i.e., tag removed). However, you might want to consider whether or not a building really qualifies under CSD-A7. Is there a way for your Twinkle to be programmed to skip new articles by long-established editors? (Genuine question, I don't know how any of the automated tools work.) Risker (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That would presume I was using Twinkle to automatically review new pages, which it can't and which would be improper in any event. All it does is allow certain actions to be automated under direction. I'm perfectly happy to file an AfD instead.  Ravenswing  13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This page isn't going to be speedy deleted, so I would suggest that's your only recourse if you still think this article fails notability. Daniel (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I figured that out already when Risker stated that the tag had been removed, which by definition disqualifies an article from speedy, thanks.  Ravenswing  14:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Triple Crown

I, Casliber award Ravenswing with the Triple Crown Jewels for exceptional content improvements to Wikipedia. Thank you for all you do. Cheers, Casliber (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I'm constantly stumbling across your edits, and they are, without fail, shrewd, constructive, and sorely needed. On behalf the internet users of the world, thanks for all your hard work! Fullobeans (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Selanne -> Selänne

Why did you undo my contribution [5]? --Rivazza (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the standard on WP:HOCKEY pages are that diacriticals are used only on player pages and in articles about European teams and leagues; since they are not used in the English-language press nor by English-language leagues, they are not used in articles pertaining to North American teams and leagues.  Ravenswing  15:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. As a Finn, it is hard for me to accept that his name is written incorrectly :) --Rivazza (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As has turned out in research on the inevitable linguistic debates, a number of English-language proper names aren't spelled on the Finnish Wikipedia the way they're rendered in English. It all events out in the end, I suspect!  Ravenswing  06:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

AWB diligence

Hello Ravenswing,

Your edits using AWB have changed some legitimate uses of "[January, February, March, …] of foo", for example, "In March of the same season" and "in March of the 1944–45 NHL season". I have switched those two examples back, but I have a sense there are more. Please be diligent when using AWB. Instead of replacing "January of" → "January", you could do "January of 1" → "January 1" and "January of 2" → "January 2". This will cover all instances where the years are concerned, and will not cause errors like "In March the same season". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Which I already corrected and have been doing with the next batch, as well as variants to cover the occasional "march of X" citations.  Ravenswing  21:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Freckles_and_His_Friends copyright problems

Hi. I noticed that at one point you listed Freckles and His Friends for SD for copyvio. User:NawlinWiki removed the SD tag and made some changes to the text. This means that instead of an exact copy, it is a derivative work... and still a copyright problem. I have listed this article in copyright problems so that it may be correctly handled, thought you should know. samrolken (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your Opinion Please?

Hello, can you take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_breese and put in your vote to keep or delete, I am rather outnumbered by some non-spiritual people, could use someone who has a co-operative energy to look into the matter on a spiritual teacher article. Also please look into another article that was deleted that has been there for years at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_metaphysical_sciences but was deleted by a user as soon as I linked to it. Thanx (SpiritBeing (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)SpiritBeing)

Well, in the second case, you make the argument that because that article had been up for a long time, it shouldn't have been deleted. In fact, the length an article's been up has no bearing on whether it passes the various policies and criteria to stay afloat. With nearly two and a half million articles, it stands to reason that there are hundreds - if not thousands - of articles that fail any potential deletion criteria, only no one's noticed them yet. As currently constituted, it's a bare stub that doesn't even assert notability, let alone demonstrate it.

In the case of the Breese article, I'll put my comments up on the current AfD. That being said, I strongly urge you to ratch the belligerence down a couple notches. It's a definite violation of WP:AGF to claim that the only reason anyone could oppose this article is that they don't like her religion, or that they are "non-spiritual;" you have zero basis for that belief. Filibustering isn't going to save the article; only concrete evidence on how Breese meets WP:BIO does, and that is with solid, reliable sources, not with free handouts and podcasts. Has she been featured in the Bay Guardian or the SF Weekly? Appeared on KQED or KALW? Not so far as I can find.  Ravenswing  09:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect reverted

I'm unclear as to why you changed Turner Falls Road Bridge into a redirect to something only peripherally related to the subject. I invite you to explain, please. - Denimadept (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine why one would think the town to which this bridge leads and after which it is named would be only peripherally related to the subject. That being said, I could just file for deletion on it instead. Heck, it's speedy worthy, really; there is absolutely, positively nothing notable about this bridge, and the article even said explicitly it was "nondescript," which as I've driven over it (my wife is from Turner Falls) I concur. As I see you've reverted the redirect, I'll go do just that.  Ravenswing  15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's named the "White Bridge", as noted in the article. I do wish you'd get your hackles down; this isn't that important an issue. We'll see what happens in the AfDs you've queued up. Generally speaking, large articles don't occur fully-formed. The bridges you've listed haven't been covered in any detail yet, is all. - Denimadept (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect and deletion of David Carrett page

Hi Ravenswing,
from the history log of this page [6] I found your following note:

---

13:57, 17 July 2008 Ravenswing (Talk | contribs) (36 bytes)
(In fact, there is only ONE cite on Google News,
and that just mentions the fellow's name.
Per WP:BLP1E[7], no notability beyond the event) (undo)

(...)

---

I would like to remind you that also Gavrilo Princip was "a notable person for ONLY one event":

the starting of World War I.

But even so he has a wikipedia page about him.
Of course I do NOT want to help starting any "World War III, but I would like to help internet surfers (you as well) to focus on this captain of the U.S. Navy Forces, this David Carrett and I think everyone has the right to know more about this person in a structured "wikipedia way" in order to understand better this War on Terror, and what terrorism is all about.
You cite Google News for allegedly having "ONE cite" about him.
Well I didn't find even that "ONE cite".
But THAT is NOT the point.
In the article that you deleted there were:

1. three links to news articles from La Repubblica italian national newspaper,
2. one to "Guardian" a U.K. based newspaper, and last but not least...
3. one to the "Annotico Report, A commentary by Richard Annotico on current news of interest to those of Italian ancestry, that appear in US, Italian, and International publications[8].
   

IMHO I don't think you have the right to cancel like that an article that has involved two users in writing it:

1. me... and;
   
2. Storkk
   

I am not an english wikipedia administrator but I believe that before cancelling it you should have placed at least a speedy deletion template.
That should be the normal procedure.
Anyway if you google "David Garrett" Cia Piazza Fontana bombings [9] you will find two results (Garrett is another way he is known);
If you google "David Carrett" Cia Piazza Fontana bombings [10] you will find 53 results but you will also notice that the at the end of the second search page there will be a note telling you the following:
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 53 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included[11].
This will prompt you 283 results.
Should I go on about the "notability" on this folk?
Are you sure you understood who we are talking about?
Please note I am note mentioning what you will find googling with italian keywords "David Carrett" "Strage di Piazza Fontana" [12] (hmmm or should I? Well yeah: 905 results!) This talk will be placed on Storkk page and on David Carrett discussion page.
Tomorrow I will revert the page you deleted and I will try to attract some administrator to our discussion.
Nothing personal with you.
Please keep up your good work on wikipedia: I saw you own a lot of barnstars
Thanks for your attention.

Absolutely Trustworthy (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC) P.S.: I am going to the gym right now.

• No, a template was not required; in fact, WP:BLP generally requires editors to be aggressive in dealing with violations. Having gone over your search results, I see that your numerous hits are studded with personal sites, Wiki mirrors and repeats of the same phrasing over and over again, suggesting that the same material is being copied on site after site. What I do not see, as WP:BIO requires, substantive non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject and about the subject. Not a single one of these sources treat Carrett as anything other than a trivial mention of a name in the list; not a single one is about Carrett. Mind you, I certainly can't prevent you from reverting the redirect, but the article will go to AfD at the first opportunity thereafter.  Ravenswing  18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... just a comment for clarity, I do not endorse, and have not endorsed, any claims to the person's notability. If the article is recreated as such (i.e. your redirect edit is reverted), however, I think it should undergo AfD rather than re-reversion. Just my 2 cents, and wanted to distance myself from the whole shebang after some mess was posted on my talk page seeming to imply that I disagreed with your actions. --Storkk (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Wonder why? In any event, yeah, of course I'd take it to AfD rather than edit war over it ... and we both know consensus would be to merge to the bombing article.  Ravenswing  03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to contribute to the inevitable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Carrett. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dawson City

I read his book. Since it is fictionalized, you can't really use it for citations. For the Wiki articles, I had to scrounge from a few sources. I joined SIHR last October. I am impressed with the organization. Alaney2k (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I know the book itself can't be used as a cite, but Don is very knowledgeable about the incident and has a wealth of sources. Heh, he was the one who got me into SIHR, come to that.  Ravenswing  03:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Germantown AfD notes

I have posted a "Keep" comment on the AfD page for Germantown, Quincy, Massachusetts. As I mention at the AfD page, I saw the original article early Thursday when it was in its initial state. Now, Polaron (talk · contribs) has quickly updated that article to an appreciable degree. I implore you to add a "Keep" to the several others that have been added. Your authority and thoughtful commentary will add weight to the notes already added today.

I was bemused to learn that Polaron had made his edits during my errand. I had also taken some time today to snap some photos of the Goliath crane in Fore River Shipyard from the deck of the Fore River Bridge. Please check them out on Flickr. You were helpful earlier this year when I attempted to start an article about Goliath. I agreed then that the subject was better confined to the shipyard article; now I am hoping that you will add to the several recommendations against deletion of the Germantown article. Thanks again - Sswonk (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Irony; I was over the bridge a couple times myself today, and may have been doing so while you were snapping. I'll poke my nose in, thanks.  Ravenswing  03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Article: Promotion_City

Hi, you recently deleted my article due to section G7. If you noticed, the top of my post (in red) was a message asking for help regarding making my article noteable for wikipedia. Could you help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil-One (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem so, no. First off, it's a definite offense to recreate a deleted article, and you are at risk of being blocked if you do so. Secondly, several editors now have found the subject just plain not notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article. The website has an Alexa traffic ranking of just under 700,000, and doesn't have enough page views to crack its graph. The only way an article can be sustained is to demonstrate conclusively that it meets one or more elements of WP:WEB; to wit:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
     • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
   • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

I couldn't turn up any evidence your website had met any of those criteria. Good luck.  Ravenswing  16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer some useful advice regarding the noteable criteria. I noticed that one of the points mentioned was regarding winning an independ award. I can proudly say that Promotion City have been nominated every year since 2004 in the Urban Music Awards (http://www.urbanmusicawards.net) which is a well known UK 'urban/underground' award ceremony that rivals the UK's popular MOBO awards (http://www.mobo.com/). And more importantly Promotion City were winners of the Best Website award back in 2005 (pic: http://www.promotioncity.co.uk/images/UMA-Winners1.jpg - if you look clearly, you can see www.promotioncity.co.uk sketched into the award that I am holding). As previously said, Promotion City were nominated in the Best Website category in the following years (2006, 2007, 2008) alongside Myspace.com and Facebook.com in 2007 (of which Facebook.com won). There are many published articles on the internet about the UMA's in 2005 which list the winners of each category - and show Promotion City as winners, here is an example on an archived page at the UMA's website: http://www.urbanmusicawards.net/_index.htm - Finally, Promotion City have also been nominees in another music/clubbing awards ceremony entitled Musik 4 You Awards (however Promotion City did not win this).

Although all these facts are based around "Awards", would this be reasonable enough reason for having a Promotion City article on wikipedia? Neil-One (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say not. Being nominated for an award almost never confers notability (unless we're talking about the level a Nobel or an Academy Award nominee). Beyond that, one rule of thumb for whether awards are notable enough to be the sole prop for WP:WEB is whether the awards themselves have a Wikipedia article (see Category:British awards). As far as I can tell they do not.  Ravenswing  08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

chelsea darling

I have spent so much time writing this article for Chelsea Darling for you to come up and just nominate it like that, I'm very upset. I am not hating, threatening, anything of the sort.. I'd really like to get to the bottom of this. I am trying to become a better writer, I would like to know where I went wrong and what I can fix. Deletion seems pretty extreme if its just something I can edit or change. Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylecmdftwe (talk • contribs) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It was obvious to me that you did spend a good bit of time on the article, and in terms of meeting proper style and format, your goal of becoming a better writer seems well in hand; that wasn't the problem. The problem is the subject. This young model is obviously a go-getter and good at self-promotion; the world just hasn't noticed yet. WP:BIO specifically holds that a model must:

• Have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;
• Have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;
• Have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions;
• Have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; or
• Have made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

From what my own researches have turned up, she's done none of that, and so far the consensus of all other editors who've chimed in are unanimous. I'd certainly like to see a writer of your skill continue to contribute to Wikipedia; my sole advice to you is simply to verify with the appropriate criteria (WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:RS) whether a subject is notable enough for an article before proceeding with creating a new one. Good luck.  Ravenswing  16:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello RG, I think the article Paulina Gretzky, needs to be nominated for deletion. But, it probably wont happen. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

She probably passes in that independant articles have been written about her (possibly a side effect of her dad), though they should be referenced on her page. -Djsasso (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There are just enough credits that I doubt a consensus would be reached. In looking a bit further, I see a feature article on her on CTV.ca, the writeup on the Flare cover shoot, a couple others.  Ravenswing  22:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Francis T. Bowles and his role at Fore River. Arthur Busch's role building IJN first five (Holland Type VII) at Quincy.

For some reason, neither men are mentioned as being present at Fore River during the Russo-Japanese war. Mr. Bowles is not even acknowledged on Wikipedia. This whole entire story is distorted and (biased) no thanks to the mismanaged company known as Electric Boat. People like Lawrence York Spear and Frank Taylor Cable lacked integrity and "conspired in silence" to keep certain crucial information (about the origins of Electric Boat) at bay and concealed. Much, much more to this somewhat politically incorrect story that was never honestly rendered to begin with. The truth will not always be what "they" want us to know, nor can it always be Kosher, as "they" would prefer to have it be. It... (what is correct) will also (many times) be offensive to those who are. Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea of starting a new article about Admiral Francis T. Bowles, President of Fore River Shipbuilding Company.

Maybe you would see fit to start an article about this man... (Admrial F. T. Bowles) who once complained to Congress over the high cost of the A-class/Adder-class submarines developed at Lewis Nixon's Crescent Shipyard in Elizabethport, New Jersey. He didn't whine and complain over that fact that Rice moved "his" submarine operations to Bowles shipyard in 1904. Got Fore River "out of the red" at this time. Middim13 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources relevant to the Electric Boat article, they may well be pertinent there. That being said, if you have reliable sources stating that Japan commissioned Fore River to build it submarines, I have no problem with that being in the article. Where I differ is in your inference that there was something sinister in this; the IJN had to have had the subs built somewhere, and that was during a time when relations between the Americans and the Japanese were good. Furthermore, I am unsure what is notable about Bowles' or Busch's alleged presence or "role" at Fore River or anywhere else ... the shipyard has always had superintendents and project managers, after all.  Ravenswing  20:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Nixon and Arthur Busch

A great majority of the works of these two men (and the contributions they made to advancements in U. S. Naval Seapower) were downplayed and overlooked in the Naval community and (in some cases) by the companies they used to work for. There are reliable "sources" in "contricdiction" to other versions but one must know where to find these facts. Much of these mens story have been overlooked and underappreciated. I will say that the United States Government remained "neutral" during Japan's war with Russia in 1904/05. As far as having "good relations" as "allies" with Japan at the time; you could say they opened their doors to the west by then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middim13 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you do have reliable sources, and they don't place undue weight on the accomplishments and actions of notable subjects, I'm sure the information can find its way to appropriate articles ... perhaps articles on themselves.  Ravenswing  23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Article concering Timothy Hodge

i dont think the article should be deleted, regarding Timothy Hodge he is in fact a real person and have done all of the jobs that are listed in the artcle. Informations is on the world wide net and listed on various websites. I think its wrong and disrespectful for u to have deleted the article the first time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daisy404 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to read WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:RS for information on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and verification, but to phrase it more briefly, it's not our job here to "respect" the subjects of articles, but to apply the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. No one's suggesting that Mr. Hodge doesn't exist. He just does not meet the criteria listed above, and does not qualify for a Wikipedia article.  Ravenswing  00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge

I was wrong about exactly what happened here. They just re-created the same article without the "W" to dodge the AfD, then blanked the original article. I have tagged the new one as a speedy, but I thought you'd like to know what was up. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple Line stations

Please explain your justification for redirecting every single WMATA Purple Line station stub to the central Purple Line page. Doing so is inconsistent with other planned Metro stations such as on the Silver line. In future it would be much less antagonistic to propose your changes on the talk pages instead of merely plastering over pages with a redirect.

Dkendr (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple: they are stations that at this time do not exist, may never exist (these are, after all, stations on a proposed line), won't for a minimum of seven years, have no notability or verifiability beyond the proposed line, and about which nothing is extant other than that they are proposed stations on the proposed line; this is a WP:CRYSTAL issue, and preferable to them being AfDed outright. If indeed there are other projected stations on other projected lines with similar articles, they ought to be redirected as well.  Ravenswing  00:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, inconsistent with other planned WMATA articles, and certainly not for you to implement unilaterally. What's more I find your argument "if I can't have my way by redirecting them I'll just have them deleeted" to be unconvincing and arrogant. Dkendr (talk) 11:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the purple line green lighted yet? Its still in the proposal stage right? ccwaters (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed my opinion, and whether that opinion is consistent with the way you've put together WMATA articles (which would be your opinion, would it not?) is irrelevant to deletion policy and whether these articles meet Wikipedia-wide notability and WP:CRYSTAL standards. I'm sorry if you've forgotten WP:AGF in the mix.  Ravenswing  15:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Very well, more in point: Don't assume you're the sole authority, because you're not. And don't assume you have the right to set standard, because you don't. And don't assume that just because you've memorized policy tags means you have the right to decide what applies. My opinion was that the articles could be stubbed in and later if found irrelevant by the usual jury process redirected or deleted. Your idea was that they were irrelevant and you didn't need no jury to back you up. Now stop blathering about policy; if you have an AfD nomination or two in mind, make them, and quit pretending the rules don't apply to you. Dkendr (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If what you want is for them to be taken to AfD, fair enough. In the meantime, perhaps you should take a peek at WP:OWN. Plainly you want to pick a fight, but I can't much be bothered.  Ravenswing  23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Plainly, looking at your talk pages, your MO is to delete or alter pages, then quote policy you don't understand, then wave off complaints about your autocratic behavior as "bothersome." Grow up and stop playing with Wikipedia. Dkendr (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In looking at your talk pages, I see you have a history of vandalism and personal attacks, including at least one block for the same, and I even see that you've redirected pages without warning. I strongly recommend that you spend more time on learning more about Wikipedia policies and guidelines and less on insulting other editors.  Ravenswing  15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ross Singers should not be deleted

The ross singers pages should not be deleted, do your research on them. --Daisy404 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)daisy404--Daisy404 (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show us the results of yours. What elements of WP:BAND - and meeting one or more of these elements is required - did this group fulfill? -

• It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries except for media reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves, and advertising for the musician/ensemble, or works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report performance dates or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.
• Has had a charted hit on any national music chart or has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.
• Has released two or more albums on a major label.
• Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award.
• Has won or placed in a major music competition.
• Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network, or has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

And so on. Wikipedia policy does not require anyone to prove they are not notable - it requires the editor wishing to save the material to demonstrate that the subject is. So far the unanimous consensus is that these subjects are not.  Ravenswing  04:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge

You nominated Timothy W Hodge for deletion but it got speedied. It has now popped up again as Timothy Hodge but I couldn't delete it G4 because the previous AfD had been superceded by the speedy so it is at AfD again. This is a courtesy call to let you know that I shamelessly stole your original nom statement (with due attribution of course) - it was too good to waste and was better than anything I could have come up with. :) kind regards nancy ^talk 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff!  Ravenswing  23:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Hodge, The Ross Singers, Musician artist agency]]

did u take the time and do ur reasearch on them , if u did i dont think u would be putting them up for deletions, and u talking about news paper articles, awards its all over the internet, i search for hours. --Sunpop (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2008

I have a better suggestion. You do the research on them. Several editors, myself included, have spent time researching these non-notable people and groups, and we have found nothing: no newspaper articles, no magazine articles, no movies or TV appearances, no released albums, no nothing. The premise upon which I am working is that no such sources exist. If you have found any, please feel free to include your sources in the article and let us know where you found them; nothing and no one prevents you from doing so. Until then, I'd appreciate it if you and Daisy404 stopped spamming my talk page unless you have new and concrete information to add.  Ravenswing  23:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning - inappropriate edits

Please do not delete article contents especially reference citations, especially after an AFD and Deletion Review, and the "dust has not even settled yet". When you have a concern, please ADD appropriate "Clarify" or "Fact" tags/templates rather than deleting content and references. LeheckaG (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not inappropriate to delete references that do not pertain to the subject of the article. If you can point out any references I have so far deleted that do contain direct references to the subject, I will be happy to revert them myself.  Ravenswing  21:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You might want to see

...Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bridges#What is notable?, where we're discussing the notability issue relating to bridges. - Denimadept (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff; I've made some comments.  Ravenswing  20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hockey nicknames

Regarding the removal of nicknames; I had no idea the discussion was happening, since it occurred on the project talk page, and not on any articles I edit. It seems the decision was made with only project editors in mind. Asher196 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the consensus was determined on the Wikiproject, but that's the case on all the Wikiprojects; we presume, not without cause, that the editors involved in such projects constitute a quorum for discussions based on them. In this particular case, the ice hockey player infobox was created by a WP:HOCKEY editor, and has been edited and maintained by WP:HOCKEY editors; it's not particularly unreasonable for us to discuss what's to be included on it amongst ourselves, as has always been the case. You're certainly welcome to put your oar in, and try to change consensus to your POV if you wish.  Ravenswing  22:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean I can create and use my own infobox and replace yours, including fields I want? You have no special authority over articles just because you participate in a project. Asher196 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No we don't have special authority, but the members of the project can revert your edit unless you have a consensus of other users to change it to your version. -Djsasso (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat surprising, since I see that you belong to a Wikiproject. Looking through that project page, it sure sounds like some folks are causing quite a stir by unilaterally changing the name of "Lighthouse" articles to "Light." Seems like WP:Lighthouses works with consensus as well.  Ravenswing  02:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here. My issue is that nicknames were removed from the infoboxes with no warning unless you were a member of the project. I have no problem with consensus. I also have an issue with having properly sourced infomation removed. Asher196 (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The template was changed, and the warning came where the template was generated, which is out of the project. If your point is that we failed to notify the tens of thousands of editors who haven't gone out of their way to display an unusual interest in ice hockey articles -- and thank heaven we didn't, because no doubt ArbCom would have some very serious words with us if we spammed the system on such a scale -- I'd have to agree with you; so stipulated.  Ravenswing  02:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notifying individual editors, but putting a notice on the talk pages of the articles that use the infobox. Is that a practical possibility? I don't know enough about Wikipedia in that area. Asher196 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be several hundred articles, anyway, and people updating just one or two individual articles without coming near the project page are far more likely to come in with WP:OWN arguments defending their favorite players anyway.  Ravenswing  03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

3800 or so according to AWB, just for an idea of how used it is. Which is why if people are that concerned about whats on a template its probably easier to just watch the template itself. -Djsasso (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oooof. THAT many? Well now.  Ravenswing  04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

why are you deleting virginia association of counties?

And how do I create a page of my association without you deleting it? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gharter (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

By submitting proof of how your club fulfills the criteria of WP:ORG and WP:V. Good luck.  Ravenswing  17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelley Gulledge

It seemed pretty clear to me. While the counts were similar, Brmo's rationale for his deletion basically trumped their arguments about the all-star appearances being notable. Plus, minor leaguers are not prima facie notable, even at the AAA level, they have to prove something else. Note that after Brmo explained his side as well there were no more people that voted keep. AfD's not a vote, and the delete voters simply had much stronger arguments. Wizardman 13:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor league debate

They have reopned the minor league notability debate on the Baseball project talk page.. You might want to participate. Spanneraol (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanneraol, would you please go to the delete voters on the various AFDs and let them know about the discussion as well? Otherwise, this and this are an egregious violation of Wikipedia:Votestacking. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to direct that to the proper user page. This is my user page, not Spanneraol's.  Ravenswing  18:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Help with possible deletion entry

Please see The Karlz. I am concerned that this new article, although well intentioned and somewhat well formed, is not in conformance with various style and copyright guidelines. I initially thought of posting an AfD. After reading the policies there, I thought it would be better to add a WP:PROD template to the article, which would have included the following reason:

The entire article consists of material copied verbatim from other sources. The "Biography" section is copied entirely from the band's Myspace profile and the "Set List" section is copied entirely from the band's official website, both subject to questions under WP:COPYVIO. The "Members" section is nearly entirely a copy of the Todd Bowie article. The entire article is also subject to WP:BAND issues.

However, I am unsure that either method is appropriate. Please look over this article and either take an appropriate action or let me know what you think should be done, if anything. This would be my first deletion action on Wikipedia and I would rather have a little more guidance before proceeding. Thanks - Sswonk (talk) 15:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Heck, this is a slamdunk; I wouldn't hesitate in AfDing this for a moment. This is a local garage band duo that haven't come close to meeting any of the criteria of WP:BAND. They're not notable individually, either, and I'd AfD both their articles as well. If you don't AfD them all, I'll do it when I get home from work. (grins)  Ravenswing  15:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead when you get home, I am interested in learning from the debate. I will definitely add comments to the AfDs. Sswonk (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll make sure to notify you. One reason for waiting for me is that I have Twinkle installed on my WP setup at home, and it makes slogging through the process a bit easier and faster.  Ravenswing  16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Karlz

Looks like Twinkle didn't finish the afd for you, it's still red linked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, I fixed it. P.S., do you really contribute to Wikipedia nekkid, or is that userbox just there for giggles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

(grins) I do when I'm at home, at least. Possibly a TMI moment.  Ravenswing  14:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Col. Adelbert Mossman House AfD

You said you were surprised that a veteran editor with over 9000 edits wouldn't know of alternative notability criteria. I would say I was surprised that a large number of editors were using the guidelines of a Wikiproject to over-rule the Wikipedia policy at WP:V. But hey-ho, --JD554 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be surprised were that the case as well, but surely you're aware that WP:N and the various sub-level notability sections have a wide range of criteria to establish notability beyond WP:V.  Ravenswing  13:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the myriad of sub-level notability sections, but I have yet to find one that would cover Col. Adelbert Mossman House. I'm not saying one doesn't exist, just I have been unable to find it. I would be grateful if you could point me to a policy that would cover this so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks --JD554 (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gemstone IV

You reverted my edit for this entry as "inaccurate/POV". First of all, nothing that I said was inaccurate. If you've ever played the game, (and I feel fairly confident in assuming that you have not), you would know that the GMs do indeed monitor player actions constantly, and do get involved in the instance of ANY sort of conflict. As to my edit being "POV", the only statement that could possibly be construed as such would be the last sentence saying that this policy is a major negative of the game, but this statement is no more in the realm of opinion than other remarks in the subject, such as "Among others, the reason that GemStone continues to thrive is because of the interacting between different characters, each with their own developed personality, creating a world full of excitement and enchantment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.70.60 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having been playing the game for over fifteen years now, I feel fairly confident that you know a good deal less than you fancy. I also know for a certain fact that GM intervention in player conflict happens far less often than you seem to believe - more often than not, they sit on their hands unless they catch someone redhanded, and even then bend over backwards to try to find some way to blame the victim. (Heck, let's just start with that if every single GM on Simu's staff logged in during prime time hours, that'd be around one GM for every thirty players; monitor everyone's actions? Unlikely.) That phrasing would likewise be a POV violation, as is of course the sentence which you cited, which has been removed.

Beyond that, other statements of yours such as "Even instances of verbal conflict are not allowed in Gemstone" are flat out wrong. I recommend looking over WP:SOAPBOX for a better understanding of why Wikipedia is not an advocacy forum. There are certainly other websites and forums where you can complain because a Gemstone GM cut you off at the knees; good luck there.  Ravenswing  14:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, there is no "edit war" going on in the Gemstone IV entry. You people are hypocrotocal, and I fixed the problem. Period. Secondly, don't think you can threaten or intimidate me by name-dropping as to where I work. I'm not foolish enough to use my computer there at any time other than scheduled breaks, which is all they would care about. If you think a Fortune 500 company would care that you don't like the edits one of their employees made on Wikipedia during their off-time, you're very much deluded. I will make whatever changes I see fit, to whatever article I see fit, whether you in your arrogance think it's "warranted" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.70.60 (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that you refuse to wrap your head around the various policies and guidelines governing conduct on Wikipedia, but there it is. In my experience, large companies don't care about their employees looking over websites during their breaks, but care quite a bit about their computers being used to vandalize websites to the point of provoking multiple blocks.  Ravenswing  11:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lazerblast & Darien Lake

While I totally agree with you on the point of "Lazerblast" not needing its own article, I find your additional comments regarding the Darien Lake articles annoying.

which doesn't merely have its own article, but a List of attractions at Darien Lake, a number of which have their own articles. No doubt there's an editor or three who think that this park is the greatest place ever, but not even its own website goes into that much detail.

For the record, the "List of attractions" article was split off from the main article simply because it was getting pretty long to be aesthetically pleasing on the main page, (you'll note, this is commonly done... hence the {{SubArticle|}} template on its talk page.) As for the information listed in the "list", I see nothing wrong with it, its accurate, and I've certainly seen articles with more info than that, so its not bad.

As for the rides "which have their own articles" - there are 9 rides there that have their own articles (Wow, that's a lot! Soon I'll have to start counting on my toes!) - over half of those are generic ride articles written about rides of the same name/design at multiple parks (The Mind Eraser, Skycoaster, Shipwreck Falls, etc). Any other wikilinks are to articles about companies, ride types, etc.

While I admit I am one of the major editors to this article, I only do so with the intention of keeping things accurate. I'm sorry if in your book that automatically means I consider Darien Lake "the greatest place ever", but those are your words, not mine. BTW, Walt Disney World has nearly hundreds of articles dedicated to it. Do those primary editors automatically think that its the greatest place ever? Do they deserve to be slammed for wanting to have an accurate article regarding the largest park in its "chain"? →ClarkCT^Talk @ 05:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Short of Disneyland itself, Walt Disney World is the most famous and notable amusement park in the world, and it is the world's largest such resort; that there are seventy-one associated articles makes a certain degree of sense for a resort with over a hundred times as many Google hits as Darien Lake. I wouldn't figure that to be a valid point of comparison.  Ravenswing  06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to complain that a fairly notable park anyway (in that it used to be one of the larger Six Flags parks, and has had numerous "firsts" in the amusement park industry) has 5 articles directly associated with it or its rides? Its a regional park, not an international one, so yes, its going to get fewer searches than Disney. That doesn't mean it should be banned to one article, which is what I got from your original quote. Just because it doesn't have a name like Disney or Six Flags associated with it (anymore) it means its worthless? →ClarkCT^Talk @ 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was one of the larger Six Flags properties (I've been to 3: Great Adventure, "...over America" and Darien). Its a midsize park: not in the class of Disney, Busch, or Cedar Point, but its no Seabreeze. What do you aim to accomplish with this discussion? ccwaters (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one who started comparing Disney World to this local park, sir. If it suffers big time in the notability department by comparison ...  Ravenswing  19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francoism (Gaming)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Francoism (Gaming), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francoism (Gaming). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MuZemike (talk) 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Northeastern v Huntington News

No big deal... but I disagree that it shouldn't be included. They themselves said that they were changing their name. It clearly falls under the first exemption noted: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." But for sake of avoiding an edit war, I'll wait until the first edition comes out. Jheiv (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not an "event;" it's what a thing is called. A couple weeks from now, it'll be called something else.  Ravenswing  22:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ray Carver (dart player)

My edit to this article is in no way, shape, or form, vandalism. Your favorite thing to do here is to throw away WP links; however, you never seem to understand what they actually are. Quoting from the policy itself:

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism.."

Not only is a personal opinion clearly stated as NOT vandalism, but my edit doesn't even fall under the category of "opinion". I stated several FACTS, which anyone who knows Ray Carver would confirm. I am a member of the darting community myself, and have played Ray Carver on several occasions, in addition to seeing him play and others, and listening to others views on him. Have YOU done any of this? Do you even know who Ray Carver is?

I am tired of your constant tactic of arrogantly deciding what YOU think should or shouldn't be on Wikipedia, quoting policies that you clearly don't understand, and then counting on the quantity of your edits and contributions here to see your way through to "victory".

If you continue your crusade against me, and most especially in this particular article, I will make you show cause on your reverts to the powers that be here.

Feel free. Look at the very words you quote: "harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith ..." and "adding a personal opinion to an article once ..." Did you understand what you were quoting? You have not added your personal opinion - which Wikipedia does not allow - to that article only the once but many times, enough for you to get reverted by five seven editors multiple times; have you at any point stopped and considered that we genuinely meant that your edit violates Wikipedia policy against original research and defaming living people without ironclad sources?. You've ignored relevant policies, such as WP:BLP, which holds explicitly: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." (emphasis in the original) You have been blocked three times already for vandalism and repeated violation of the civility policies, and are editing from other computers illegitimately to evade that; have you at any point stopped and considered that your repeated blocks mean that you are wantonly and repeatedly breaking the rules here?

What you are or are not tired of is not my problem. Your constant and willful ignoring of civility, vandalism and content policy is ours, and happily, there are means to deal with that. They are in the works right now.  Ravenswing  03:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

65.216.70.60

• Now ... possibly with your fourth block now on two separate accounts, we might have enough of your attention to put across some basic premises:

• (1) WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are not optional. Calling other editors "pathetic," exhortations to "grow up" or vandalization of user and talk pages are unacceptable behavior, period. Further violations of this will get you blocked.
• (2) WP:BLP is not optional. Posting disparaging and insulting text on a living subject's article without ironclad sources is unacceptable. Further violations of this will certainly be removed and can lead to you being blocked.
• (3) WP:RS and WP:NOR are not optional. The definition of a reliable source is not "I saw this happen in a bar one day." It's "A Boston Globe article said so, and here's the date, title and author of the article."
• (4) WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR are not optional. A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is consensus, and if you are constantly editing in the face of consensus against you, it is far more often the case that you should back away than to proclaim that everyone other than yourself is wrong. "Blocks are preferred when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior. It is common for repeat offenders to face escalating blocks, and decreasing latitude for uncooperative behavior."

If you persist in editing against these and other policies, you will continue to be blocked for such behavior, and claiming that other editors are arrogant or don't understand the policies they quote hasn't done you any good so far and won't do you any good in the future; obviously we understand quite well enough. It has been suggested to you before that you take the time to go over WP:PILLAR and the other policies and guidelines quoted to you. This remains good advice.  Ravenswing  14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 16:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame photos

• Hello, I would like to know if we are allowed to upload photos taken at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto to some of the wikipedia article. Nhl4hamilton | Chit-Chat  10:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, if you're the photographer.  Ravenswing  11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Merril Kent

Hello, Ravenswing. You have new messages at Alexnia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WitteBros Exchange

RG:

I am the network Administrator for WitteBros a trucking company headquartered in Troy, MO. I noticed that you deleted my content yesterday. Did I do something wrong? Would you please send me back the deleted content and explain what I did wrong? Thanks in advance.

Michael Kern Network Admin WitteBros Exchange Inc mkern@wittebros.com 314.219.4248 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkern45 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator and don't have the ability to access deleted articles, although any administrator can, and I'd go to WP:Help desk for that. That being said, the article failed the criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD), specifically G11, which prohibits "[p]ages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." More generally, a company does not merit an article on Wikipedia unless:

A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject ... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

The complete text is at WP:ORG. Furthermore, WP:COI strongly discourages editors from creating or editing any article for an organization or company of which they're employees. As a general rule, I'd consult WP:PILLAR for links explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines in detail. Good fortune.  Ravenswing  17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Clique (film)

We just bumped at the AfD. Check my comments and add the sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Good on you.  Ravenswing  19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You first

I'm likewise curious as to the basis for your assertion that Richard Stover is "notable" in removing the prod there, without further explanation, and likewise will be happy to take it to AFD lacking the same.  Ravenswing  13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Your rationale for deletion was just an assertion that the subject was non-notable. If it's not worth your time and effort to explain this claim, it's uncivil of you to demand that people who don't share your opinion be held to higher standards on the same point. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would be more swayed by your argument if (a) it wasn't the case that the burden of proof is officially on those editors who wish to claim or establish notability and/or verifiability; and (b) you didn't habitually deprod articles with "notable" as your sole reason for doing so. Never mind the deprod you did with the edit summary "potentially notable." Are you serious? Either he is - in which case you should have some reason to think so other than a casual glance at the article and a predeliction towards disliking prods - or he isn't, in which case deprodding is a WP:POINT violation.  Ravenswing  13:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is both uncivil and disruptive of you to misrepresent the applicable policy. The standard for removing a prod notice is "If you do not agree that the article should be deleted without discussion," and nothing I did conflicts with that standard. I would note, however, that your prod nomination which I challenged was out of compliance with the prod policy in all but the most technical sense; the policy states quite clearly the prodder should "Tailor your reason to each individual article; generic messages are not helpful. Use an informative edit summary." Your explanation was not tailored to the individual article, and could not have been more generic. Most of the rest of your comment is little more than a surly violation of WP:AGF. And if you are the middle-aged paralegal you describe yourself to be, I'm sure you are aware of the importance of accurately and properly citing rules you invoke; you should do so here with regard to your rather eccentric descriptions of supposed burden-of-proof requirements. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

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 should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation ... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Were we to talk seriously about "misrepresentation," I would ask you about your uncivil conflation of my curiosity as to why you deprodded the article into a "demand." I demanded nothing, and do not now, although I'm quite bemused at someone cited in the past for uncivil and tendentious deprodding having the chutzpah to wave the AGF and civility bloody shirts.  Ravenswing  01:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You may find this discussion of interest with respect to the above user. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Psst

You pretty much duplicated your comments on the Latino Afd. Thought I would let you know cause I didn't want to touch your comments. -Djsasso (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. Did I? I'll go peek, thanks.  Ravenswing  17:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics

I think the source of the confusion is this sentence "Wiki-linked words should have diacritics hidden." That appears to apply to all words, not just player names, but I don't understand where it comes from. It doesn't seem to arise out of the discussions on diacritics. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I'm going to go clean up that language.  Ravenswing  17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, DJ beat me to it. Faster 'n a speeding keyboard ...  Ravenswing  17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Beat ya to the punch. Unless you can think of a better way to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that looks fine.  Ravenswing  17:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I have started an AN/I discussion concerning the dispute over the Calgary Flames article here. Maxim (☎) 20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tipoff.  Ravenswing  21:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've started another AN/I discussion here and it is apparently courteous to inform people when their nick is mentioned. Yours is, but only in passing. --Kizor 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I might put a word in.  Ravenswing  12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

deletion Jomaine Article

they asked for me to give reasons why Jomaine was a notable person and i did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomaine23 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Because you fail all elements of WP:MUSIC, which you must meet in order to qualify for an article about you.  Ravenswing  18:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Springfield, MA uniforms

This is very notable, because it makes HISTORY in Springfield. This is the first time in Springfield's recent history that it is mandatory to wear uniforms. It may not seem like a huge deal, but never before was this made a requirement. Most school districts in the US dont require them, except for private school of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.114.188 (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And if you can make a case - with reliable sources, of course - that in the entire history of school education in Springfield, this is one of the four most notable things ever to happen, sure, terrific. Unfortunately, it's not. Many school districts DO require uniforms, and many have changed to uniforms in this day and age.  Ravenswing  05:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

NHL

Check your contributions - you warned one anon and reported another. Ian Cairns (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I did, because it's patently obvious that with very similar IPs, the exact same edit, and a similar time frame, both IPs are the same person.  Ravenswing  15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Bikini disgrace

Please be advised no pictures of Emilia Dalby are posted in a bikini. This is a classical artist and your comments about her being creepy are a disgrace. The picture you might have seen was a head and shoulder shot in Goa. She sings Handel and Sibelius to a ridiculous standard and sings in six languages. She is also a normal and balanced kid if a little advanced for her years. Are you even qualified to comment? I have seen your details and I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahamdalby (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a head and shoulder shot of her in a bikini is a shot of her in a bikini, although I'm scarcely going back to the site to verify that. That being said, that I was singing Handel and Sibelius decades before your daughter was born, have sung in ten languages and have judged juried classical performance and early music competitions is quite irrelevant ... because all that is relevant is whether your daughter qualifies under WP:MUSIC for a Wikipedia article. In this stage of her career she does not, and nine Wikipedia editors unanimously concurred; their own backgrounds (or lack thereof) in classical music or performance are equally irrelevant to the issue. As has been posted to your talk page, this is why editing where you have a clear conflict of interest (WP:COI) is heavily discouraged. I recommend you review WP:PILLAR for detailed links on our policies and guidelines for articles, and wish your daughter luck in her career.  Ravenswing  19:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anent Samuel Kinkead

Thank you for your courteous note notifying me of the proposed deletion.

````George J. Dorner, 18 September 2008, 1950 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gjdorner (talk • contribs) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, but I can't claim it's courtesy as much as those filing AfDs are strongly encouraged to do so; it's considered a major breach of Wikietiquette not to accord article creators the opportunity to have their say.  Ravenswing  08:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Your notification did not have be such a courteous one, and so is still appreciated. I invite you to take another look at the article, now that the first draft is done. Thanks to your heads up, I paid attention to the matter of notability.

````Georgejdorner, 20 September 2008, 0149 hours PST```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejdorner (talk • contribs) 08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My First Series of Posts

I realize now that my first posts included some articles I should not have added, and I understand why you marked them. I believe I understand the rules better now and do have some information to add that will be usefull and will follow all the rules. I would like to ask the favour that if you see anything wrong in my future posts please do let me know, since I am trying to do things the right way here. Thank you. GCA-Info (talk) 05:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite alright. If you haven't seen WP:PILLAR yet, and the linked policies and guidelines there, I recommend you do. Above everything else, I recommend rather than creating new articles starting right off, you look over existing articles in your fields of expertise and interest and see what you can do to improve them. That way, your work stands a much greater chance of passing muster ... but in any event, feel free to flag me down in case you've any questions. Good luck.  Ravenswing  08:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks.

Please remove your personal attack against me that you have placed on your user page. Wikipedia:No personal attacks--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What personal attack would that be? Has your user name been identified? Have you not, in fact, stated that you believe college football at any level to be the "highest level" of amateur sport? Is it not, in fact, your position that anyone who has ever coached a college football game at any level is notable? Did you not, in the discussion referenced and using that phrase, accuse the nominator of "forum shopping?" Possibly I'm missing something here, but what element of WP:NPA is being violated, and what's different about that than the AfD from which I took it?  Ravenswing  04:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll spell it out for you. You called me by name in your bragging rant on your user page. Totally inappropriate. Others can click on the link and quickly find my user name, but that's not the point. The point is that I am offended and I understand who you are attacking. It's downright rude and you should remove your bragging rant against me immediately. A user name does not have to be given for a personal attack to take place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I also said "please" and I'll say it again: please remove your personal attack against me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks there ... unless you are retracting the positions which I ascribed to you, in which case of course it'd be inappropriate to continue to claim you held them.  Ravenswing  07:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured you wouldn't get it. I'm not retracting the positions, I'm asking you to stop repeating the argument in a place where it doesn't belong and bragging about it on your user page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are not getting is that by mischaracterizing this as a personal attack (and pretty incivilly, by doing so on the user page itself and with repeated nasty jabs both here and in edit summaries), you're acting quite incivilly. There's a legal concept known as "equity," where a party in a dispute isn't entitled to consideration he hasn't chosen to extend. This is no "personal attack;" you can't even bring yourself to claim I've wrongly stated your views. You just don't like that I've, in effect, written an editorial against your position, and removing it would be for no other reason than a favor to you out of the goodness of my heart. Your demeanor throughout hasn't been anything of the sort which would entitle you to ask me for friendly favors.  Ravenswing  17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Kinkead redux

Ravenswing,

As a followup to your proposed deletion of Samuel Kinkead, I painstakingly finished the first draft of the article, only to see it vanish when saving. Someone else was working on it at the same time. Instructions on screen said I had to recopy my changes, and I gave it up due to exhaustion and ignorance.

Still, I would urge you to take another look at the unfinished article and the deletions debate.

In the former, you will find that you leaped to some erroneous conclusions about his notability; even without a VC, he won five major medals--a DSO, 2 DSCs, and 2 DFCs.

In the debate, you will find an extensive screed on my thoughts concerning the importance of military decorations as a measure of notability. I did that not to bolster my own case--I voted "neutral" on my own article--but as a learning process. Your feedback on this might be helpful to me.

In the vanished ending to the article, I noted Kinkead's influence on the Russian Revolution and his involvement in developing the prototype of the Spitfire.

````Gjdorner, 20 September 2008, 1455 hours PST````

Harry Huston

I don't get this nomination with the group. You chastise me for AFD'ing minor league players, yet you AFD a major league one? Wizardman 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In defense of the truth, the connection was not made in the article that Huston was also a major league player at the time of the AfD. But yeah...--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

True, and of course I've no problem with indications of notability coming up after the fact; sure, why not? Where the problem is in what Paul's basis for thinking these are the same Harry Hustons, something I'll address at the AfD so we can get a wider discussion.  Ravenswing  02:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Addendum: Of course, should conclusive proof that any of these fellows played pro ball turn up, I'll withdraw any AfD I filed on that person at once.  Ravenswing  03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't check the history on him to see that it was added today. No problem then. Wizardman 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod template on Auditory agnosia

I've removed your prod from that article, after wikifying it and finding real sources, since it's not made up and is quite verifiable. I think the article is roughly stub status now. If you review it and think it still needs to go, go ahead and prod it again. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 14:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nope, that looks good. My principal concern was that edit summary, and if it's in fact paraphrased from the DSM, that takes that problem out of play.  Ravenswing  14:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a good prod, if I wasn't already familiar with the term I wouldn't have caught it myself. Happy editing. -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 15:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Joe Palmisano

You might want to check some of the changes at Joe Palmisano. I've also put together a List of Malone College Football Coaches. Input?--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Palmisano playing for Iowa State in the 1970s is a free pass, I think; I'm pretty sure they were Division I then. As far as a list of coaches go, I'm not sure that's an articleworthy list at that level of competition (as opposed to it being folded into a general Malone College Athletics article), but I wouldn't file an AfD over it; it's a compromise, anyway. Seeing as you're digging into uncovering notability for those folks, want a full week for it?  Ravenswing  15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A week would be good, but I'm actually more interested in coming up with an acceptable layout/arrangement/style for the 500 or so head coach articles that already exist so that they can be translated into a more acceptable format/list/whatever rather than have 500 AfDs.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not hard. I feel that no NAIA/Div III/Div II coach is prima facie notable, and plan on filing on anyone in that category absent independent notability through WP:BIO and WP:V. I'm leaving I-AA and up alone. I'm not bothering with any lists of coaches or with XX College Athletics or YY College Fighting Spider Goats articles. If you or someone else on the Wikiproject want to whip up the appropriate tables or lists, go for it.  Ravenswing  16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to still be a lot of college football cruft still around. Have you had a chance to take a look? Stifle (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I intend to; Paul's user page highlights many, many such. I also did promise them a week so they could do some legwork on a new batch I notability-flagged, as above.  Ravenswing  14:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Any chance we might get them to do a nice big revision of WP:CFBN? Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. Paul believes what he believes, and there's no doubt that this project is his baby, lock, stock and barrel. The only way that mess is going to be revised is by a number of editors crashing the party sufficient to change the "consensus" there, and that'd be disruptive for anyone not genuinely intending to be active in that Wikiproject.  Ravenswing  13:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly

I believe your removing of the dispute tag on the Stalin article was foolish.

To begin with a very strong case has been put forward reguarding the lack of evidence to support the supposed millions killion in the famed Holodomer. Mass graves have been uncovered in the former Ukraine but many of them have been attributed to Nazi death squads, theres no real way to prove that the Holodomer existed to the extent the article suggests.

The atricle says that there is "No dispute" that the economic growth in the former Stalinist soviet union came at the cost of "Millions of lives" which is clearly a crock of shit, because even if some solid evidence could be put forward of such a claim, the statement that there exists "No dispute" on the matter is clearly false.

The article is clearly light years away from achieving any level of neutrality. There is clearly lots of support for Stalin, alot of people rise to his defense.

Numerous books and articles have been put out on wikipedia for editors to review and consider, yet sitll the article lacks neutrality.

Now look, I'm not in favour of a Pro- Stalin article. What i would like to see however is an atricle that at least adresses both sides of the issue, and lends all arguements at least a cent of credibility.

I mean really, even when an article does mention the other side of the arguement over stalin, it's never:

"The popular belief is that as many as 7 million people were killed in a Ukrainian famine in the early 1930's, however supporters of the former Stalinist government contend that this figure is grossly exhagerated."

It's always worded more along the lines of

"Under the brutal Soviet regime upwards of 7 million of Ukrainians died of Starvation, in what is now called the Holodomer. Supporters of Stalin deny this however (See Holodomer Denial)."

How can you look at an entire article that follows that line and not admit it lacks neutrality?

The tag should go back up, and if theres any justice in the world you'll be the man to help get it that way.

Oookay, I'll bite. What the devil are you talking about, and who are you?  Ravenswing  04:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Article: Citizen Chauvelin

Pardon my ignorance - I'm completely new to this side of Wikipedia. However, my correction stands - Orczy's Triumph of the Scarlet Pimpernel comes after Mam'zelle Guillotine, and nowhere is it mentioned or implied that Chauvelin is for the chop.

--AdonisGuilfoyle (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

1926–27 Boston Bruins season

On 26 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1926–27 Boston Bruins season, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Canucks captain Luongo??

Hiya RG. According to TSN, Luongo can indeed by named captain (but he can't wear the C); I'm confused. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Rule 14(d): No playing Coach or playing Manager or goalkeeper shall be permitted to act as Captain or Alternate Captain.  Ravenswing  07:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, rule says no to goalies. Canucks say yes to their goalie & the NHL approves of Canucks appointment. Being as we're in the Bettman era? it all makes sense. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

read a little closer...it says "act", not "be". So, luongo just can't "act" like a captain ei argue with the ref. i think that is the loop-hole. Masterhatch (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear from you agaoin RGT. I see you are still playing around on wiki. Actually, I am not living in South Korea anymore. I haven't lived there since november '05. I am back in Canada. I ended up marrying a Korean girl and she moved back here with me. cheers! Masterhatch (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just passed 20K edits. Plainly I have time on my hands. That being said, congratulations!  Ravenswing  16:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF)

Thanks for uploading Image:AlbanyChoppers.GIF. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joshua T. Harris

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Joshua T. Harris, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Out (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Non notability

You made unassailable points at the various AfD's, and apparently I am confused about WP:GNG. However, you missed nominating quite a few others written by Sandra persch... all with no awards or notability in senior level sports events. Why not combine them all into one massive AfD so these matters can be dealt with once and for all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not particularly. Let's see, for instance, on her recent articles ... Isabel Drescher's competed in senior nationals, and thus passes WP:ATHLETE (which, since of course you read its text, you know mentions nothing about awards or how notable within one's sport one is). Yang Chou's competed in senior nationals. Denis Tan was his national champion. Alisa Agafonova and Dmitri Dun ... senior nationals. Katharina Gierok ... senior nationals. Philipp Tischendorf was a medalist at senior nationals. Alexander König competed at the Olympics; so has Rico Rex. I assure you I took a look at a few dozen of her skating articles. Those who failed to qualify under WP:ATHLETE I prodded, then AfDed as she removed prods, but obviously many of the subjects either do qualify or are close enough that consensus to delete would not be reached.  Ravenswing  04:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I was tempted to go and check if some of these things happened for a few of these skaters, as I prod'd one which she removed and then just changed the sentence to read competed in senior when it previously said junior or something to that effect. But in the end I assumed good faith. -Djsasso (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
    • So did I; where we differ from Sandra is in her belief that novice and junior skaters can be notable, but I've seen no reason to dispute her knowledge or methodology, and going back to vette her list to see if the skaters she claimed competed in senior nationals actually did would be gratuitous. Life's too short, and no one appointed me Wikipedia's traffic cop. (grins)  Ravenswing  04:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wiisly Incorperation

I made this incorperation i have searched wiisly nothings there i want my corperation to be a hit stop —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew thacker (talk • contribs) 14:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend you review WP:PILLAR and WP:NOT so you can get a handle on Wikipedia policies and guidelines governing article creation and editing, which is always a good idea. In particular, a subsection of WP:NOT holds that Wikipedia is not a web host. Since it isn't a publisher of first instance, and since WP:SPAM forbids Wikipedia to be used for advertising purposes, your company needs to become well known in the outside world before it qualifies for an article, and the way that happens is to fulfill the following: "A company [or] corporation ... is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject ... Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability."  Ravenswing  14:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi there, good work on your new page patrolling. I wonder if it's possible for you to mark pages that you nominate as patrolled so that it helps other patrollers be more efficient? --Deadly∀ssassin 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When Twinkle does so, it's all to the good.  Ravenswing  20:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I use Twinkle too, and mostly it does not. I usually wait until the popup box shows that the task is complete and then click on the Mark page as patrolled on the main page. It really would be helpful you know so that we're not all checking over the same ground. --Deadly∀ssassin 20:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Drama Club (New Article)

Can you please tell me why you have marked my article with a speedy deletion tag? As written in the article, the band is notable because "this band originated in the same area as alternative rock group Breaking Benjamin.", "The sextet is currently signed to Choir Fire Records.", and "Both "November" & "Brand New Day" receive a fair amount of play on Sirius Satellite Radio." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davis Junior (talk • contribs) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Originating in the same area as another band is utterly non-notable, being signed to a label does not meet WP:MUSIC (one must have had albums released by a notable label), and there is no evidence that those songs are in national rotation.  Ravenswing  02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the citation in the source for the article, but it won't show as reference 3, could you help fix this? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davis Junior (talk • contribs) 14:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sprfal95.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sprfal95.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gilbert Perreault under GA review

Hi there, I see that you are a contributor to the article Gilbert Perreault. This article has come under review for Good article reassessment as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified which are listed on the talk page. Please begin to address these points in the next seven days or the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Deleted Article, Almighty 12th Street Players

Thanks for catching the article. I started it, but alas have had no time to edit it. After reading the discussion on the deletion page, I can assure you, though, it was not a hoax, or s***, or myself wanting to be a "gangsta", lol. Just found it interesting, but time constrictions caused such a delay that I forgot about it. peace Nathraq (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Leadership

HI RG,

Can you please assist me?

I am also a forty-something college professor that is trying to post an article on global leadership on Wikipedia. There does not yet seem to be a stub for it yet.

I have tried several times to do this, but keep getting my typing hand "virtually slapped" because I seem to be missing something.

In a nutshell, I have a book published by Elsevier in Oxford recently entitled "Global Business Leadership" which is now available for sale worldwide.

I do not want to be a deletionist, however I can name at least a dozen of my colleagues who have published books, written their bios, and then posted their Wikipedia references section to their author website.

I do not want to "puff out" myself here, but I am simply trying to replicate what I see colleagues already doing here. I am happy to give you an example of someone.

I will be referencing valid sources in my article to leading leadership gurus who have openly endorsed my book.

Can you please let me know how I can best be able to publish my work on Wikipedia. Apparently my students do not believe things now exist unless they see it on Wikipedia. I teach business leadership at several leading universities.

Many, many thanks,

Webofculture (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)esw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webofculture (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, you can't. No original research is one of the three core content policies on Wikipedia. To quote:

  "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." (emphasis in the original)

  Please be sure you're not being singled out; patrolling new pages is done by volunteers who obviously miss a good bit, since Articles for Deletion attract as many as two hundred new nominations daily. To that end, if you know of other essays that have made their way onto Wikipedia, I'd be grateful for those article names. Beyond that, down the road, your own work may wind up being notable enough to sustain an article, per WP:BK.  Ravenswing  19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Global Leadership again

So, if someone has a Wikipedia page that has written a book and nothing else, this should be deleted from Wikipedia. I can think of a dozen people who have their bios on Wikipedia with a link to their book and nothing else.

I do feel that this is quite unfair as I can provide scholarly validation for even common knowledge about known leadership topics.

I also have colleagues who have "valid" Wikipedia pages who have offered to have me link from their pages so that I can create my own work.

I am just trying to understand the validity of this process.

Many thanks, Webofculture (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not quite. The notability of a subject per WP:BIO isn't disqualified if the only link of the article happens to be to a book he or she wrote; indeed, there are a number of prima facie passes on WP:BIO based on certain criteria deemed to confer automatic notability regardless of the number of sources, or lack thereof. For instance, under WP:PROF, someone who was editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine is automatically notable even if he or she never published a thing. The question at hand is whether an essay on global leadership passes policy muster or not (which it doesn't); you may well qualify for a biographical article on yourself if you pass WP:PROF. If you seek a better grounding in Wikipedia policy and guideline, I strongly recommend WP:PILLAR and the various links from there, especially WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:PROF and WP:RS.  Ravenswing  19:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)