User talk:RGTraynor/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of former discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contents

[edit] A remark

Hello, I don't think we've met before. Was it really necessary to impugn the character of everyone who opposed Geogre's arbcom run? I may be reading too much into that vote, and please slap me with a trout if that's the case. Mackensen (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably no less necessary than that many of the same impugned his; if the shoe fits, and all. Beyond that, I'm right -- do you genuinely believe that legions of hardcore Wikipedians believe so strongly in Civility that they hold a couple of insufficiently-nice episodes to be enough to disqualify people from important public positions? Do you genuinely believe they themselves carry such hypercourtesy into their real lives? The world would be a far different place if they did; if only. RGTraynor 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I like to hope that they did; certainly I have no reason to believe otherwise. For my part I supported those whose civility was above question (Paul August, for example). Thanks for your response. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real life attitudes

In response to your comment:

'Support. I rather doubt the naysayers exhibit in real life the hypercivility they seem to demand of others here. RGTraynor 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a well-known fact that people are ruder on the Internet than they are in real life. In real life there are consequences for being a rude jerk. On the Internet, not so much. You may even become an administrator and ArbCom candidate. It's rather rude of you to suggest that everyone is expecting some abnormal level of civility from Geogre, a level of civility they cannot personally attain in real life, because I cannot even remember ever saying things so mean as some of the comments I've seen said on here, and I suspect it will be the same for most others (unless they happen to live in NYC). --Cyde Weys 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And rather rude of you to call me rude; where is the civility now? All sarcasm aside, I disagree with you: the level of civility demanded of admin/crat/Arb candidates has gotten to the point where scores of editors pore over every last byte to crow over finding Incidents!, while hitmen with blatant axes to grind are excused as dispassionate observers. If I needed any direct evidence of the syndrome, that you're not even the first person to feel the need to seek out my Talk Page for a confrontation over a generic comment says plenty. RGTraynor 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleveland Barons

Your comments are sought at Talk:Cleveland Barons (1937-1972). Thanks. Flibirigit 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • More questions (same talk page) regarding Jacksonville Barons. Thanks. Flibirigit 19:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A bunch of AHL teams

Is there any connection between the current Manchester Monarchs franchise, and the defunct Carolina Monarchs/Beast of New Haven franchise. The Beast article made a mention of it. I contacted the Manchester Monarch's office manager, Kathy Sullivan by e-mail. She says there is no connection. What information do you have? Did the Beast of New Haven simply fold up? 19:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Beats me, off the top of my head, but I suspect that the Monarchs' front office is at least as reliable a source as I am. Besides which, New Haven was the affiliate of the Whalers/Hurricanes, while Manchester's been a Kings' affiliate throughout, yes? RGTraynor 19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know many details. But I know the Manchester Monarchs are affiliated with the Los Angeles Kings. I've just started researching the AHL. Flibirigit 20:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
One excellent source I have is a complete set of AHL Media Guides between the 1990 and the 2000 seasons. Feel free to bend my ear for any tidbit that might be found therein. RGTraynor 20:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing. What happened to the Beast of New Haven? If you look at the timeline of teams at American Hockey League, they would be the only team to fold up completely, since the Utica Devils and Moncton Hawks in the early 1990s. I tend to think franchises are slightly more stable now, and less likely to fold up, than then. Flibirigit 20:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
theahl.com used to have a pretty good press release archive, but it looks like they scrapped it with the last redesign. ccwaters 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that the Adirondack and New Haven franchises actually dissolved that year. ccwaters 21:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just gonna ask about the Adirondack Red Wings, LOL. Flibirigit 21:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I know that the Virginia Wings were a Detroit Red Wings affiliate that folded in 1975. Maybe its possible the franchise was resurrected in Glens Falls in 1979? Flibirigit 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE Global Warning Tour

I fully accept your point, however other events of this nature are not on are they? I don't remember it being talked about - it was just a special show in Australia (the same with the other nominees but in different countries). I have nominated WWE Tribute to the Troops for a very similar reason. If you didn't know mainly only WWE Pay-Per-View's are listed on Wikipedia, this is a encylopedia, not a website dedicated to wrestling. I believe you should rethink your point. Many thanks. Davnel03 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the blurb on top of this page; thank you. RGTraynor 21:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AHL overtime loss

Your comments are sought at this talk page. Talk:American_Hockey_League#Overtime_Loss. Thanks! !!!! Flibirigit 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NHL 1966-67 season

The information I have been uploading for the 1966-67 season have NOT been copyrighted and as such are not to be taken down. Only the first time I uploaded it was it copyrighted. Yet, even when I use my own words---which makes it NOT copyrighted ---you continue to take it down anyway. This is to cease IMMEDIATELY. It is to be left up INTACT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corey Bryant (talk • contribs) 20:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] copyvio fixed

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosque again, copyvio has been fixed. — coelacan talk — 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:209.226.172.69

Please take a look at User talk:209.226.172.69. Thanks. 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congradulations

Hello, RG. we and countless others on Wikipedia & the Internet overall, were chosen Time magazine's 2006 Person of the Year. Congradulations. GoodDay 21:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, so we were. Congratulations to you too! RGTraynor 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Kings Hall of Fame

Honestly, the reason I reverted that back was because I was unable to locate the policy which he was trying to direct me to. I understand that was an error on my part to not be able to find it, and because I couldn't find it, I, for some reason, thought that it was alright to include Fuhr in the Kings Hall of Fame. After reading what you said as a part of that policy, I understand why he does not belong in that list. I apologize for this. Ksy92003 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, quite alright. In general, we don't include HHOFers on teams for which they've played fewer than two or three impact seasons. Fuhr's a frequent flyer in this regard, where people try to put him on the HHOF list for Buffalo, Toronto, LA and even Calgary, for none of which he played all that long, all that well, or had a winning record. He's on the Edmonton (obviously) and St. Louis lists. RGTraynor 02:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eddie Giacomin

Corey Bryant 21:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)How about reading my recent submission on the Eddie Giacomin talk page.

[edit] American Hockey League

Could you please review the American Hockey League article. I have tried to rerrange the article for encyclopdic tone, but User:Centpacrr keeps reverting to his sports-writerese version. Let me know what sounds better. Flibirigit 19:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colorado Avalanche

Hello, RG. I think I messed up showing anon-user 86.198.206.162 this-Talk:Philadelphia Flyers#Naming Conventions as a consensus against diacritics on NHL team pages. The anon-user argued my example, has continued to add diacritics. I think he may have violated the 3-revert rule? GoodDay 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See my suggested 'course of action' on 'Yankee76's talk page. GoodDay 22:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Anytown Samplers.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:Anytown Samplers.GIF. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James H lyons

If you mean't www.jameshlyons.com that isn't the same person. Unless some how he had a face transplant! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theno2003 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

I refer you to the top of my talk page. Thank you for playing. RGTraynor 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair enough

Well no i am not inside school i am in the college of the school i.e the sixth form and i know what wiki is. We were told to put projects together about local artist for A level i might add. I found him and he wasn't on wikipedia. He went to the school i am at and he is quite well known where i live. So i thought why not add him to Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.9.35 (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] SP & Blakeny manor

    • looks slightly guilty** - I'll admit I have been using odd snippets of web text and the blurb from the back of some of the books as place holders (rather than having an empty page), but rest assured I do intend to rewrite all the plot summaries with my own drivel in time, just haven't got round to some of them yet (these things can take a demmed long time you know)
-)

[edit] Boston Braves (AHL)

If the Boston Braves (AHL) franchise eventually became the Moncton Hawks, what happened to the Moncton Golden Flames which appear to have become the Moncton Hawks? Flibirigit 00:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

They folded. It's a common error to presume that the one turned into the other ... the same way it's a common error to presume that the Springfield Indians/Kings were two different franchises or that the Springfield Indians/Falcons aren't, but that's not the case. RGTraynor 09:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reliable source online that shows what AHL franchises folded/moved etc? The Moncton AHL teams have been written that was on wikipedia for well over a year, before I started following the AHL. Flibirigit 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format

Hello, RGTraynor. Seeking your opinon on my compromise proposal (with Diacriticals). Like you, I find diacritics annoying, however the diacritical dispute has been going on for a year now (with no end in sight). I also have a compromise proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. GoodDay 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Check out Krm500's compromise, at my talk page. I think the compromise is great. GoodDay 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Both compromises were defeated, by pro-diacritic editors. Yankees76 is correct, these Diacritics disputes are on course for the Arbitration Committee. GoodDay 22:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RGTraynor/Archive3#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FHannah_Hobley

Hi

Can you please remove these comments about me as they appear on a Google search on my name.

Thanks

H Hobley Hhobley 14:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to edit out any element of the remarks which were not factual at the time I wrote them. Could you point those out? Thanks. RGTraynor 12:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HHOF sections of 30 NHL team articles

Hello, RG. I've recommended the 'deletion' of the HHOF section from the 30 Teams at WPH & WPT. Though I like the HHOF section, it continues to invite disputes. Recently '2' editors have procceeded to add ALL HHOFers to ALL the teams. I resisted at first, but then decided against an 'edit war'. GoodDay 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

==WPT & WPTT== As you are a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey, see Ccwaters for my concerns about my actions recently. GoodDay 21:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article: John Gordon Purvis

Since you do not think I am anything on the subject of hockey(which I am), I have taken to the subject of law. I just added two cases to the United States portion of the article Miscarriages of Justice (those of Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz, wrongfully convicted of the murder of Debra Sue Carter, and John Gordon Purvis, wrongfully convicted of the murder of Susan Hamwi and daughter Shane), and, an article on John Gordon Purvis for your enjoyment---though you always find some stupid reason to edit something. The reason I have been absent from the hockey project is illness. I wrote those things on miscarriage of justice because I felt the two cases needed mentioning because they truly were miscarriages of justice. So now you can say I do not belong on hockey at wikipedia, but LAW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corey Bryant (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Bully for you. Heaven knows why you think I care enough about your contributions to chase down personally your every edit, no matter the subject, nor why you felt the need to throw down some cybergauntlet on my talk page. If your contributions to legal articles are deemed sound by those who follow such articles, then they'll stand. If you've brought similar irrelevant trivia to that which has marked many (but not all) of your hockey contributions, no doubt they'll be edited out. Not my interest, not my problem. Either way, if a persecution complex is the result, then whatever the reason for your Wikibreak, it wasn't nearly long enough. Hug a cat, drink some tea, whatever it takes. RGTraynor 07:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Funny how two people came to my defense on the Purvis article. Evidently, someone still cares in the world. Not only that, someone cares that there are people who are wrongfully imprisoned and need to be freed. Where one does the most good is where one belongs, and right now, apparently, for me, it is law.Corey Bryant 20:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC) P.S.: With you being a paralegal you take no interest whatsoever in people being wrongfully imprisoned? How weird. It would be interesting to see your reaction to that English nanny being convicted for the death of Matthew Eappen some years back---when it was shown by their defense expert on 60 Minutes that it was very possible that his father had beaten him a few days before his death.

Perhaps, then, your new-found interest in law will lead you to abandon straw man arguments such as that whether or not I pay attention to certain obscure Wikipedia articles has so much as a rat's ass to do with my views or interests on any issue whatsoever. That being said, I'm familiar with the Woodward case. My take on their so-called "defense expert" is that they weren't paid to tell the truth, but to advocate the stance for which they were paid, and to come up with anything which will support their side and cast doubt on the other, however far fetched the "theory." Weighing the conflicting claims is the job of jurors who actually pay attention to the case, and not that of viewers watching a biased eleven-minute TV segment devoid of cross examination. It is equally "possible" that Matthew Eappen was injured by sonic rays from alien orbital mind-control devices, on the grounds that the existence of the same cannot be proven not to exist.
And that being said, perhaps you could focus your efforts elsewhere than to continue pointless spamming of my talk page, which in fact constitutes misuse of it. RGTraynor 05:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec Bulldogs

Hi. I have been doing a lot of research on the Quebec Bulldogs the last few years and I was wondering if you can add this info to the Bulldogs page. I supplied most of the info to the sportsecyclopedia page (listed at the bottom of the page as a link).

1. The club actually debuted in 1878 NOT 1888. They were one of the oldest organized hockey clubs ever assembled. Only the Montreal McGills predate them (1877).

2. They didn't join the AHA until 1890.

3. They didn't get the "Bulldogs" name until 1908. Up until that point they were simply the Quebec Hockey Club.

4. They were renamed Athletics when they joined the NHL in 1919/20. That one season they played in the NHL was the only time they were called the Athletics.

Here's a rundown of their history

  • Quebec HC 1878-1907/08
  • Quebec Bulldogs 1908/09-1918/19
  • Quebec Athletics 1919/20



  • 1878-1882 Various unorganized challenges. Hockey had not gone "mainstream" yet.
  • 1883 MONTREAL WINTER CARNIVAL
  • 1884-1885 Didn't Play
  • 1886 DOMINION CHAMPIONSHIP
  • 1887-1889 Didn't play except for various exhibition games
  • 1890-1898 AHA
  • 1899-1905 CAHL
  • 1906-1907/08 ECAHA
  • 1908/09 ECHA
  • 1909/10 CHA
  • 1910/11-1916/17 NHA
  • 1917/18-1918/19 Didn't play
  • 1919/20 NHL

Giantdevilfish 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New York Rangers

Hello, RGTraynor. I've checked up on the HHOF website and I'm afraid Payne2thamax, has got the jump on us. As he & other editors are using the HHOF as their source, the HHOF does recognize Hull as a Ranger. You were so right (in everyway) about placing a restriction on the HHOF sections. If I had to do it all over again, I never would have called for a consensus vote. I'm more determined now, then ever, to pull the plug on the 'Honoured Members/HHOF sections'. GoodDay 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's why I pushed for those restrictions in the first place, and now the HHOF sections are, as they were before, indiscriminate garbage. RGTraynor 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sports clubs established in YYYY

RGTraynor, could you check the NHL Record book on the following teams which are currently categorized in a year later than they were formed to see which year the NHL officially recognizes each team: Colorado - Formed 1972, on Wiki as 1995 Phoenix - Formed 1972, on Wiki as 1996. and Vancouver - Formed in 1946, on Wiki as 1970. These are the only 3 that I can find that I believe are inaccurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pparazorback (talk • contribs) 17:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Thanks for AfD info

Thanks for the heads up on the AfD. This is part of a cyber stalking issue I've been having. See User_talk:Alabamaboy#Cyber_stalking_and_harassment for more info. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment on the AfD. This whole situation has been frustrating but the support I've received from people has been great. Best, --Alabamaboy 20:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Eddie shore - banners.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eddie shore - banners.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 88.160.247.46 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

You deserve this, methinks. =^^=

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your commentary on the Barbara Schwarz AfD in first half of March 2007, explaining the concept of WP:OR and WP:RS Dennisthe2 21:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is extremely kind of you! Thank you very much! RGTraynor 04:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Investiture Chapters

Hello my venerable wikipedian, RGTraynor. I have now realized that Quarl has irrationally deleted my Investiture of the God chapter articles. Luckily however, I already saved these articles and will be implementing them within Wikibooks. I noticed your past logic and have concluded that putting the chapters on Wikibooks seems to be the only true way -- for these articles need to be in existence in some way if wikipedia's standards are to be justified. My question to you, however, is if currently existing articles can be linked from Wikipedia to Wikibooks; for this is an example of what I plan to do for each character from Investiture of the Gods (which can only happen if the chapter articles exist):

Su Daji Su Daji is a major character featured within Investiture of the Gods who has contributed greatly to the Shang Dynasty's fall. Throughout Daji's many torture devices, the Bronze Toaster (6) would be her first creation. The Snake Pit, and the Meat Forest (17) would be her additional creations throughout the course of the novel.

Thank you for your time, Traynor. User:Tathagata Buddha March 14 07 (EST)

Almost certainly not; the whole point of that AfD is that those pages do not belong on Wikipedia in any form whatsoever. I am ignorant of how Wikibooks operates, mind you, and uploading that content there in its entirety may be possible for all I know. RGTraynor 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD complete, result was no consensus

I closed it as no consensus, because 7-3 is not a clear consensus. As for some of the editors being sockpuppets, that's a suspicion, not a guarantee. As the "keeps" were ahead anyway, no consensus has the same result: the article stays. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that 70%, where the nom and one of the two other Delete votes were users whose only Wikipedia activities were the AfD in question, is pretty overwhelming. RGTraynor 20:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
70% doesn't pass at RFA. Besides, the end reult is the same. no consensus means the article stays. consensus to keep means the article stays. Same end result. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Errr ... this wasn't an RfA ... but if it had been, odds are extremely high those one-time-only users would not have their votes counted. (scratches his head in confusion) RGTraynor 19:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand it's not. But RFA is not a vote, and neither is AFD. 70% isn't necessarily a consensus anywhere on wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Pretty circular argument you have going there, but short of RfA and RfB, there's nowhere on Wikipedia where 70% isn't a consensus. RGTraynor 13:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congradulations

Congrats on your rare example of a good use of the word "yikes." -- Jreferee 14:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. I'm an old fashioned fellow, I confess ... RGTraynor 14:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unhelpful and unconstructive information to Wikipedia, as you did to Brad Park. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Double revert. Good Faith. You can ignore the above. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Umm, I would hope so. For my part, I can't think of any circumstance conceivable where changing a name from bold to quotation marks (or the other way around, for that matter) should provoke use of the Vandalism 2 template. I'd take it easy on that myself, whether you've gone on to slap it on the fellow whose edit I reverted or otherwise. RGTraynor 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Box office bomb

I think you are right. At this point when an argument is lost then the topic is changed. I feel like we are going in circles here. --FateClub 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Regarding notability of Football (soccer) players

Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 20:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATT poll

I think you may have intended your !vote for the "Neutral/conditional/compromise" section. The "Support" section is for ATT superceding V/NOR/RS. Just FYI.  :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 06:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote!

Following your contribution to the discussion on football player notability you might be interested in voting on this. Rgds, StephP 10:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissident Sound System Article

RGTraynor,

Please can you tell me why my article has been deleted without allowing me any chance to alter it to conform with the rules? How am I supposed to add links to references for Jungletek Movement (as specified in the discussion of that page) without having the article to edit? I am appalled that an ambassador for one of the worlds largest (and most impartial) repository of information would remove information so readily without allowing the poster to comment/edit/feedback on your OPINIONS (and so I'm told, opinions are against the wikipedia rules). Your thoughts, while they may be in keeping with the rules of Wikipedia, are completely false, and I deserve a chance to prove myself as correct.

If the article still exists somewhere, please can you tell me how to access it so I can make the necessary changes? Surely you dont expect me to write the whole article from scratch? If you do not respond, I will have to take this up with more senior Wikipedia staff.

I am sickened at your lack of respect for my article, my thoughts and the facts that I know to be true. How can you possibly comment on this without knowledge of the subject, and then remove it (almost) without warning? Give me a chance!

Yours,

Appalled, Bristol (Selwyn Leeke) Toad 13:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

RG didn't delete your article, nor did he nominate it for deletion. He merely commented about it and subsequently got attacked by you. You had 6 full days to state your case here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissident Sound System, you had apt warning. If you think it was deleted against Wikipedia:Deletion policy, bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review. ccwaters 13:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
You had a chance - several days, in fact, never mind from when the article was created in the first place - to provide the sourcing to reliable, independent, published sources that WP:ATT requires, and to produce evidence that the subject met the criteria of WP:BAND. You failed to do so; all we saw from you were personal attacks and insults. You can understand, I hope, that since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia we cannot just take someone's naked, unsupported word for anything, and it is up to every editor - you, me, everyone - to produce those sources as a necessary condition for any article to remain.
As far as the AfD process went, Delete for failure to meet Wikipedia's standards was the unanimous consensus of every other editor but yourself. We do not fall, I'm afraid, into the currently popular misconception of equating "respect" with "letting you do or say whatever you want" (although it would help your desire to be respected if you chose to respect others), but in any event, adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is the only avenue we can take.
I am given to understand that administrators have access to the old copy of deleted articles; I would contact them if you wished the text. Contrary to your apparent perception, I am not myself an administrator, and have no power to provide you with that text. I do caution you that recreating the article without the required sourcing is an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy and will not only lead to a Speedy Deletion but would put you at risk for being blocked. I strongly urge you to read WP:ATT, WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC and WP:NN, and ensure any music-related articles you write conform to those standards. RGTraynor 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thankyou for your message

I will definitely read the articles you suggest on wikipedia rules. Unfortunately, though, this may not happen very soon, as I work and do not have time to sit and read Wikipedia all day long. It is for this reason that I do not consider "several days" sufficient time to make the necessary changes to my articles and was concerned at the speedy deletion of the article in question.

I would also like to comment on your point: "all we saw from you were personal attacks and insults". I did not make any comments at all on the page, let alone personal insults. As I said before, I did not have time to review the page before it was deleted. Upon reviewing the page today, I saw this comment, which was made independently from myself by someone who is obviously involved in the soundsystem and felt strongly about its deletion. I am not in the business of making enemies, and I am sure you aren't either.

I will be applying to the administrators for the text of the article (if you could advise me how to do this, it would be most appreciated) and I will make the changes suggested to meet the wikipedia guidelines. I hope this message will clear up some of the misunderstandings between us and lead to an amicable relationship between the two of us where we do not need to resort to deleting each other's articles. If you have any comments or questions, please address them to me directly. I will do my best to reply in a timely fasion...

-Selwyn Leeke —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toaduk (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Missing something

I cannot help but think we are missing something in regards to the International Services Trade Information Agency article - the rather desperate strongarm attempts at the AFD are all out of proportion with the importance of a wikipedia article. --Fredrick day 14:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well ... all out of proportion from our perspective, that is. Wikipedia is hugely popular - heck, how often does the Wiki article wind up as the lead Google hit on a subject? - and a lot of companies view it as free, ungoverned advertising. That aside, plainly this Jenn Powell is a scrapper who really, really hates to lose, is taking this AfD as a personal affront, and perhaps (understandably) had no idea that a canvassing campaign was very much against Wikipedia culture.  RGTraynor  14:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question about documentation

I notice from your user page that documentation and research are important to you. I am curious about the proper way to document. Coming from an academic background I am all about footnotes/endnotes. however it seems most folks are happy to just leave a link or reference at the bottom of an article. In searching through WP:CITE I can't find any community-wide standard. Are you aware of anything? Am I ask too much? Thanks! JodyB 02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oberon Middle School

You are correct, I've amended the closure. Please feel free to complete the merge at any time as you see fit. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Igor Jancevski

I would like to see your opinion, following your contributions on the talkpage of WP:BIO. If international player does not mean notability, then I am wondering why this article will be kept. User:KRBN 20:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hershey Bears

Have a look out on the Hershey Bears article, and the copyvio from Coco the Bear article as well. Flibirigit 06:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your point at Montreal Canadiens

I don't mean to be argumentative, but perhaps you misread my point. I was not suggesting that the source needed to be from the internet. In fact, I was encouraging him to put sources in if he had any, as *I* couldn't find anything on the internet. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd have been more sanguine if the reference I'd put in months ago hadn't already been stripped out of the article.  RGTraynor  13:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to hear, but the stripping in question was not my doing. When Blueboy96 removed the statement, I started digging to find something that would refute his claim, but like I mentioned before, all I found agreed with him. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Which is what Habs management and fans would want, in general. I expect it suits Quebecois amour propre for the franchise to have technically started with Les Canadiens, rather than from some Anglo team in an outback Ontario mining town.  RGTraynor  14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm Quebecois and it doesn't suit me if it's not the truth. Either way, verifiable references are always a necessity. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed so.  RGTraynor  15:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardendale High School

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardendale High School? I added some references. --Eastmain 19:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bel Air Middle School (3rd nomination)

I appreciate your frustration as to the length of time that the article had been left unimproved. Bel Air Middle School is a wonderful example of an article that could have been expanded to demonstrate notability, yet wasn't until it was on AfD. While AfDs can achieve the desired result, as in this case, the essentially adversarial nature of the AfD process is simply not conducive to identifying an improving articles, or deleting / redirecting those that can't demonstrate notability. Whether one comes in with exclusionist or deletionist leanings, I sincerely hope we can start thinking about better ways to separate the wheat from the chaff. Alansohn 21:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] martinez middle scvhool

please return my article on Bob Martinez Middle School. I edited it as requested and am in process with the Administration to update the article.

Good Idea to expand hockey coverage, too bad the bolts lost tonight, eh?

Kurt Weber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.104.72 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC).