Ravenswing
If you post to my talk page, I will reply exclusively here. If I posted recently to your talk page, I will read responses exclusively there.
I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead.
Beyond that, I keep my AfD work over on AfD. Don't write me here to dispute my posts or (as is more commonly the case) lobby me to change my vote. Anything you have it in mind to say here is more properly said over there, for all to see.- Archive #1 - Entries archived from June 2005 through March 2006
- Archive #2 - Entries archived from March 2006 through May 2006
- Archive #3 - Entries archived from May 2006 through December 2006
- Archive #4 - Entries archived from December 2006 through April 2007
- Archive #5 - Entries archived from April 2007 through June 2007
Nomination
Hi, I first ran into about a month ago during a debate over the List of Writings of William Monahan. You've made 6300 edits here on Wikipedia, and was wondering if you would accept a nomination for an Administrator's post. I realize that last April you were nominated, but that failed. Would you want to be nominated again? Black Harry 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Black Harry and would be happy to co-nominate you. WaltonAssistance! 16:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I thank you both for your kind thoughts and confidence, there's a lot I'd do with admin tools, and heck, I was a senior admin on a major university system as far back as 25 years ago ... but truth be told, there's not a snowball's chance in hell I'd ever pass nomination. If you've seen me on AfD, I haven't gotten any less caustic this past year (in the wake of the civility hit squad on my previous nomination, I slipped harder than I feel comfy over now) or made fewer enemies. Beyond that, the new hobby horse of the antis is edit summaries, and I probably don't have more than 75%. About the only thing that's changed from my first go at it is that I wouldn't get caught canvassing again (which would, in my experience, neither stop Oppose voters from doing so themselves nor disqualify their votes in that eventuality), but no doubt there's some other rule it could be claimed I've violated or some turn of phrase I made in some AfD debate a year ago that would be seized upon as proof of my unfitness or "lack of admin knowledge." I wish I could say otherwise, but there's no need to start something doomed to failure. Please accept my thanks once more, nonetheless. Best regards, RGTraynor 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay that's no problem. I was just curious. Keep up the good work though Black Harry 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for what it's worth, I disagree with many of your RfA comments, but I don't think you've ever been uncivil enough to kill your chances of adminship - if you look at my second (successful) RfA, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Walton_monarchist89 2, I got 10 opposes because I once called an MfD nomination "ludicrous and pedantic" and because I had controversial right-wing political userboxes, but that didn't cancel out the 68 supports. Waltonalternate account 08:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just FYI: Page blanking on Archive3
Most likely the same person (88.108.*) has recently been blanking your User talk:RGTraynor/Archive3 page. If that's actually you, or if you simply don't care, please accept my apologies and I won't revert them in the future. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers =) --koder 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It never hurts to be a little more civil, pt II.
Frankly, I would have expected someone comfortable with handing out civility lessons to himself avoid characterizing other editors as "idiots" and "pompous asses" for citing a (demonstrated) lack of maturity, recent vandalism, very few edits, no demonstrated breadth of editing and refusal to answer questions about one's admin candidacy as reasons to oppose that candidacy. Without going into pointless discussion of why you feel such characteristics are desirable in admins, such behavior in an admin is both unseemly and discredits any admonishments he might feel emboldened to deliver. RGTraynor 02:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You are welcome to characterise my behavior anyway you so desire. First off, I 100% respect your right to oppose any candiacy and for that manner anybodys right to oppose, however wish that you do so civilly. My comments left were not meant to describe any particular editor as I feel as a singularity none of us are idiots. However, when a group of people get together to do a common task, it is inevitable that we will all be idiots at some time. To the outside, this may be hard to understand. I assure you that careful thought went into my statement and that In my every day work here i make every effort to be 100% civil. However, being civil does not mean ignoring the facts. My comments were generalisations and not particular attacks on any individuals personality, there is a major difference. There is at no point where I will call somebody or single them oput based on age or experience. We all have room to grow and learn, and offering to help as opposed to puttting them down is ALWAYS the proper course of action. There is NO situation where I ever consider "Not a bloody chance. Middle schooler with 87 edits total, been an editor for all of three months" an appropriate tone. Again, you are welcome to charaterise my behavior however you so choose, but i strongly stand by my statments. Best of luck to ya! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there is likewise NO situation where I would characterize editors as "idiots" and "pompous asses" for applying sound measures of experience and deportment an appropriate tone either, nor would I figure failure to single out any of the nine editors in question by name much of a mitigating factor. The difference is (1) admins should be, and are, held to a higher standard, (2) I'm boggled by the notion that such represents your take on "100% civil;' and (3) I don't make a habit of unprompted civility lectures while using such turns of phrase. If you're as concerned about tone as all of that, I recommend either amending your own first or sending such sentiments through e-mail so that no one can catch you at it. RGTraynor 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I have nothing to hide in my behavior, why would I want to "send such sentuiments through e-mail so no one can catch me at it"? Again, there is a difference between me characterising and participating int he RFA of a fairly new individual who does not understand RFA yet as "not a bloody chance" and or "a middle schooler with 87 edits". Again, i dont give a damn that you opposed and would have opposed myself. What bothers me is the whole, kick him while hes down ideal. Lets pile on degrading votes telling this person how bad an editor they are when a simple Oppose - not enough experience yet would have worked perfectly. Again, my statement does not single out any particular editor. My statements were in reference to the RFA process itself, not the paritucular RFA he participated in, and there are currently many editors often disgusted with the way RFA is currently going. If you monitor the talk page about twice a week there is a thread on "how to reform rfa" with a laundrey list of issues. In short, my statement was making a strong generalisation (and I myself am not expemt from this generalisation because we are all human). If you saw me make such a statement at an RFA, specially of a new editor, i would EXPECT a warnining from you and several other people. Thank you for addressing your concerns, however I stand by my statment that the RFA process is often full of pompous asses. I have nothing to hide here. Thanks and good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you think that a simple "Oppose - not enough experience yet" would have served at all? That would be a pile-on vote with no particular purpose. In Jonjonbt's case, he could see that line, pile on a thousand edits in the next six months on his pet article, nominate himself once more with the expectation that he'd addressed the concern, and feel baited and switched when the Oppose votes came in saying that he's still too young, still was a one-subject editor, hadn't answered any questions about his candidacy or addressed his vandalism of a user page in an edit conflict. He'd be right, too. RGTraynor 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Experience != edits. It was obvious that he a.) did not understand the RFA process due to his low edit count. We see a few of these a week that get snowballed after about 6 votes to prevent an editor breakdown. b.) Your statemnt "only has 87 edits" is more likley to cause the above situation than a simple "not enough experience". I also offered to help this editor get the required experience. XFD's, writing good articles and citing them, understanding WP:AIV. There are a large number of areas he lacked in but beiung a middle schooler and 87 edits should not have been the only objection. Again, the 87 edit statement is more likley to cause him to develop editcount-itis because he was opposed for too few edits, not lack of experience in AFD, or other areas. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, just as well I listed two other objections besides being a middle schooler and only having 87 edits. This is looking now like arguing for the sake of arguing; first you say that a terse, generic Oppose should have sufficed, now you're saying that two grounds to oppose aren't enough. I'd ask which is it, were I interested in prolonging this any further. RGTraynor 13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is obvious we have opposing views. I have been willing to engage in discourse over this difference however as you have stated above, it appears as though it is doing little good. If you desire to continue discussing appropriate demeanor in RFA, then I will kindly oblige otherwise, we can call it a day for this conversation. However, please understand that there is NO point where I will offer admonishment for simply opposing a RFA, that is everybodys right to do so and I have myself opposed candidates. What I will never stand for is biting newcomers and making personal attacks based on age. You are welcome to disagree with my statements that RFA is often full of pompous asses as well. All I kindly ask is that you do not bite the newcomers! Thanks again for discussing this with me. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Gosh, just as well I listed two other objections besides being a middle schooler and only having 87 edits. This is looking now like arguing for the sake of arguing; first you say that a terse, generic Oppose should have sufficed, now you're saying that two grounds to oppose aren't enough. I'd ask which is it, were I interested in prolonging this any further. RGTraynor 13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Experience != edits. It was obvious that he a.) did not understand the RFA process due to his low edit count. We see a few of these a week that get snowballed after about 6 votes to prevent an editor breakdown. b.) Your statemnt "only has 87 edits" is more likley to cause the above situation than a simple "not enough experience". I also offered to help this editor get the required experience. XFD's, writing good articles and citing them, understanding WP:AIV. There are a large number of areas he lacked in but beiung a middle schooler and 87 edits should not have been the only objection. Again, the 87 edit statement is more likley to cause him to develop editcount-itis because he was opposed for too few edits, not lack of experience in AFD, or other areas. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you think that a simple "Oppose - not enough experience yet" would have served at all? That would be a pile-on vote with no particular purpose. In Jonjonbt's case, he could see that line, pile on a thousand edits in the next six months on his pet article, nominate himself once more with the expectation that he'd addressed the concern, and feel baited and switched when the Oppose votes came in saying that he's still too young, still was a one-subject editor, hadn't answered any questions about his candidacy or addressed his vandalism of a user page in an edit conflict. He'd be right, too. RGTraynor 13:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- First off, I have nothing to hide in my behavior, why would I want to "send such sentuiments through e-mail so no one can catch me at it"? Again, there is a difference between me characterising and participating int he RFA of a fairly new individual who does not understand RFA yet as "not a bloody chance" and or "a middle schooler with 87 edits". Again, i dont give a damn that you opposed and would have opposed myself. What bothers me is the whole, kick him while hes down ideal. Lets pile on degrading votes telling this person how bad an editor they are when a simple Oppose - not enough experience yet would have worked perfectly. Again, my statement does not single out any particular editor. My statements were in reference to the RFA process itself, not the paritucular RFA he participated in, and there are currently many editors often disgusted with the way RFA is currently going. If you monitor the talk page about twice a week there is a thread on "how to reform rfa" with a laundrey list of issues. In short, my statement was making a strong generalisation (and I myself am not expemt from this generalisation because we are all human). If you saw me make such a statement at an RFA, specially of a new editor, i would EXPECT a warnining from you and several other people. Thank you for addressing your concerns, however I stand by my statment that the RFA process is often full of pompous asses. I have nothing to hide here. Thanks and good luck. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, there is likewise NO situation where I would characterize editors as "idiots" and "pompous asses" for applying sound measures of experience and deportment an appropriate tone either, nor would I figure failure to single out any of the nine editors in question by name much of a mitigating factor. The difference is (1) admins should be, and are, held to a higher standard, (2) I'm boggled by the notion that such represents your take on "100% civil;' and (3) I don't make a habit of unprompted civility lectures while using such turns of phrase. If you're as concerned about tone as all of that, I recommend either amending your own first or sending such sentiments through e-mail so that no one can catch you at it. RGTraynor 03:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hum..
check this edit. Now she could have asked him to do that - but how do we know that's not just him as well? Checkuser? --Fredrick day 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- We don't. I suppose we could ask an admin to take a peek. Posting that edit to the AfD would be the next step, I think. RGTraynor 23:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
YechielMan's RFA
Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.
Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Summers complained about our personal attacks on him over at AN/I
It's been resolved, but in case you missed it...
- I did miss it; thanks for the heads-up. Y'know, it's strange how so many people operate under delusions that not agreeing with them = attacking them ... RGTraynor 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Quincy MA
Thanks for clarifying on the "covenant" issue! I hadn't checked back 'til now.
-- Alain
- Hey, since you seem to be a pretty insightful fellow, I was wondering if you could offer some advice on getting a new Quincy seal in the Quincy wikipedia page. I uploaded this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Quincy_seal.gif but I'm not sure if I have a valid excuse for its use. Would "logo" qualify? It's from the commonwealth's website so it sure isn't my own work. I'd welcome the advice. I'd say I have fairly noble intentions and a desire to learn more, but at this point am fairly inexperienced in all things wikipedia. Thank in advance!
- -- Alain
- It's always the case that an image representing or generated by a governmental entity is in the public ___domain, hence perfectly permissible. RGTraynor 19:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll remember that for future reference.
- --Alain
Userspace Vandalism by 80.44.64.21
Just to say that a few minutes ago went through all of your archives one by one and blanked them (me following reverting) and then blanked your userpage. I've reported them to AIV. — Taggard (Complain) 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the assist! RGTraynor 06:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
WHA video site links
I have the only known video of the WHA on a non-commercial site ... That's not research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilland (talk • contribs)
reviewing my web log I see that you never bothered to even glance at the WHA video page (via your UMASS account) of the myhockeyTV.com web site -- where you'd find videos of all subjects we've posted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilland (talk • contribs)
- They were rightfully removed per the guidelines and policies RG provided. I'll add this one as well: Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. ccwaters 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Beyond that, I'd suggest looking over your weblog again; I took a look at the front page video of the Aeros 1974 win. That being said, I encourage you to review the relevant policies. RGTraynor 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am disinterested in hate mail or rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym instead.
disinterested or uninterested
"If you are disinterested in something you are impartial and do not take sides: A disinterested observer of the scene would have wondered what all the fuss was about. If you are uninterested you have no interest at all: The player was uninterested in the public reaction to his remark. Disinterested is often used instead of uninterested to mean lacking interest. This use is widely regarded as incorrect and should be avoided, especially in formal writing. "
- I'm surprised at the concept that disinterest in receiving hate mail could be conflated into disinterest in everything. No doubt there's some discussion board or forum somewhere which would welcome your literary analysis; feel free to indulge over there instead of spamming my talk page. RGTraynor 18:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
My point was that you used the term "disinterested" improperly -- you meant to say "uninterested." I'm just trying to help clean up your grammar. You are "uninterested" in receiving hate mail. That's not spam -- that's helpful feedback.
- No, that's being pompous, an unsolicited misuse of my talk page and oh, wrong. The use of "disinterested" in that fashion has been in common use for decades. Now if you have direct project-related business, that is a pertinent and legal use of this talk page. Anything else was not asked for and is not wanted. Cease spamming this page at once. RGTraynor 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Clayton HS
Of course you're right that the article cant stay, but let up, the 2 of you are escalating. The other guy will learn; If he inserts the same non-article, we'll delete it and then he'll learn, no need to threaten in advance. DGG 06:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Which would be an acceptable way of handling things for a new editor, but Alansohn isn't one. There comes a point by which respect for the rules - and not just those rules which can be used to bludgeon the other guys, while ignoring those which inconveniently get in your way - had better be ingrained. As it happens, I didn't threaten him (I'm no admin; what with, exactly?), but it seems that someone with a soupcon of authority should. RGTraynor 12:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Working Man's Barnstar
Thanks for the honour, I gladly accept the badge. PS- I hope pro-diacritics editors continue to respect the understanding at the NHL team pages. GoodDay 20:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion
Hello, an article in which you took part in the AFD discussion has undergone more than 20 reverts. We are trying to get truely neutral opinion about removal of some information. [here Your esteemed opinion will be welcome. Thanks Taprobanus 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
AfD for First World Problems
In addition to the SPAs that have all noted Keep comments, I did a little looking around and it appears these may all be sockpuppets, your thoughts? Wildthing61476 17:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Possibly, but I'm not an admin and lack access to the checkuser facilities. It may be worth mentioning. RGTraynor 17:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
RfC
Hi RGT, BTW, I am sorry to read above that you don't feel you would pass an RfA. I understand that you are likely to attract some fervent opposition, but I suspect that many editors would gladly offer you support given your solid contributions and consistent common sense. If editors like you don't deserve the mop, the project is in trouble. Anyway, I really posted here to say that, after the most recent outburst at Wikipedia_talk:Schoolcruft & AN/I involving our old friend Alan, an RfC seems at this point the best remedy. Given your previous experience, I was wondering if you would contribute a thought or two when it materialises. (Seriously, reconsider admin!) Eusebeus 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm convinced I wouldn't pass an RfA. The Incivility Police has a year's worth more ammunition (or at least statements they can twist to their ends), this new faction that suddenly things 100% edit summaries is a prerequisite for adminship would zap me, the inclusionists would total up my Delete vs. Keep ratio on AfD, and while I can't canvass for myself, I saw last time out that it's okay to canvass against me. I've seen editors with better resumes than mine get shot down on single issues or incidents. Why put myself through that when the best possible outcome is, after all, a position that would require more work and time from me? That being said, I'd be quite willing to participate in a RfC over him. It's a shame, because he's a capable editor, but he's a chronic AGF violator and his sheer urge to !Win! makes any debate he's in near-automatically contentious and fraught. RGTraynor 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Recent comments on page concerning new "IHL".
I did go overboard with a recent comment, RG, and I apologize for it. There is a writer at the Peoria, IL newspaper who continues to print and report incorrect information in an effort to slander the efforts of the group that has just purchased the rights to the old "International Hockey League" name and is trying to put it back together.
I've had to edit the page several times today, as he keeps coming in here with incorrect statements, mis-truths, and utter lies about the league.
I will watch my temper in the future, I'm guessing this page will be edited often in the coming days. The most recent edit I made is factual, and doesn't simply "cheerlead" for the new league, rather it tells the truth about what is going on and what has gone on.
Thank you.
Waiver Edits
Hello RG, I need your advise. The Blues today, placed their captain Dallas Drake on waivers. Does this mean he's no longer a Blue (and thus appropiate edits should be made at the Blues, NHL captains and other related pages)? GoodDay 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead with the edits. If I'm in error, feel free to reverse them. GoodDay 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. He's no longer on the team when he's either released, traded or reassigned, but placing on waivers doesn't thereby remove him from the roster outright unless he's claimed. RGTraynor 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I wasn't sure. GoodDay 19:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. He's no longer on the team when he's either released, traded or reassigned, but placing on waivers doesn't thereby remove him from the roster outright unless he's claimed. RGTraynor 19:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
One cannot call the IHL "low level" minor leagues anymore than one can call the ECHL "mid-level". The players from both leagues, as well as the old ECHL and IHL, have played just about everywhere, even European Leagues, and the parts are interchangable. "Low Level" is just a clever way of saying "Class A", which we've been told is not a designation that hockey uses. Peoria4440 21:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- One can do exactly that. That some leagues are superior to others in talent level is evident, and isn't discredited simply because a sport doesn't use a particular classification system. The "parts" are by no means interchangeable; ECHL teams maintain affiliations with NHL teams (as the UHL/IHL clubs generally have not), and the measure of their respective talent bases is that in the entire UHL last year, I could only find two regulars (Jason Muzzatti, Daniel Goneau) with as much as 50 games NHL experience. RGTraynor 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
RG, if you'll check the ECHL stats, you will find similar numbers of players have actually appeared in the NHL than to that of the UHL. I will readily admit that the UHL is more "veterans on the way down" laden, while the ECHL is "youngsters on the way up".
But in baseball, many teams use their AA and AAA franchises to hang on to vets for depth, and others use them for prospects. So, if you must INSIST that the IHL is a "low-level" minor league, then we must say the EXACT same thing for the ECHL.
- I did last night, actually, team by team for the 2007 season, with both squads; I spent about an hour on it. The numbers are nowhere remotely comparable. Beyond that, anyone must concede that while the ECHL has a number of AHL and NHL prospects, the UHL/CHL teams are generally comprised of second- and third-line college and major junior players who never were prospects. RGTraynor 18:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)