User talk:RGTraynor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Tancarville 2 Good Job 3 Your de-proddings of Maria Ho and Dee Luong 3.1 See 4 Maltese nobility prods 5 My RfA 6 Revert only when necessary

[edit] User:Tancarville

I've been thinking about filing an WP:ANI on this user because of his flat out refusal to follow Wikipedia guidelines regarding all those Maltese nobility pages. What say you? (Note also that in this AfD, a possible sock with the name User:Count Gauci popped up. Note also that Tancarville has been using sources from a C. Gauci...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, I went ahead and filed an ANI him; see here if you want to add any comments, since you're an involved party. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. Obviously this guy's agenda is to puff up his family's threadbare claims to being nobility, and just as obviously his grasp of the MOS and various policies is shaky, there are a few other considerations. First off, there's no hard evidence to assume he's acted in bad faith. Secondly, there's no hard evidence that his sources are all bogus; yes, they're suspicious, yes, he's only brought in the print sources when challenged, and yes, he has a propensity for quoting obscure centuries-old documents in sealed European archives, but we can't conclusively disprove them either. Thirdly, all these were up for deletion before and passed overwhelmingly; that the Keep voters were astonishingly careless about fact checking, just swallowed Tancarville's assertions at face value and were dazzled by how scholarly it all appeared superficially doesn't cancel out that at one point he was given a green flag to do what he's been doing all along. Slow as this incremental process is, my goal is to bounce all the articles that fail WP:V / WP:RS / WP:OR / WP:COI, and I'm pretty confident that'll happen. Making it personal doesn't have an upside, as far as I see. I'd withdraw the ANI, in your shoes.  RGTraynor  16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are still the issues of civility and article ownership, which I think are concerning. Plus the fact that he's had the same M.O. for two or three years. Plus the CoI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All of which are matters better handled by RfC. AN/I's for violations of blocks, bans and restrictions, or for immediate issues that must be handled quickly.  RGTraynor  17:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job

Thanks for the good editing job. When I went back to the hockey Summit Series article, I saw that you reverted a sloppy edit I had made, but kept my other good edit that I had made the same day on the same page. The article is the better for it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.165.178 (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well, the one I didn't revert was good sourcing for a quote; I would have been damn sloppy myself if I'd just mindlessly reverted it all. Thanks for your kind words.  RGTraynor  08:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your de-proddings of Maria Ho and Dee Luong

Just informing you that there is a wide consensus that poker players do not fall under WP:ATHLETE and as such playing professionally is not an indicator of notability. As per WP:BIO Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So bring them to AfD. For my money, someone who makes $300,000 on the poker pro tour is a heck of a lot more notable than a scrub guard who played a single game for the Providence Steamrollers in 1947, but who is entitled to an article.  RGTraynor  23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In poker, money earned of less than a million dollars is not considered notable. The huge amount of money involved in poker is a little difficult to comprehend in regards to notability, but a one off cash of $300000 which was neither a win or a final table is really pushing it. –– Lid^(Talk) 05:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Money of less than a million is unnotable in the poker world? Mind sourcing that assertion?  RGTraynor  10:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dee Luong. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maltese nobility prods

Just to let you know I de-prodded quite a few of them as they have survived a prior AfD, the only way to get them deleted now is via another AfD. RMHED (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is another way. DS (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

They survived a prior AfD on a crocked, discredited premise, and in almost every case have gone four years without improvement or reliable sourcing, and all the similar articles I've taken to AfD this week have each and every one of them been deleted, with near unanimous consensus. I won't speculate on what your intent was in deprodding them, what elements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR (or in several cases WP:COI) you believe they meet, but you can't imagine they're going to survive AfD. It'll just take a bit longer now.  RGTraynor  04:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Care to weigh in on this? DS (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am already composing my reply; I saw the thing when I surfed back to your talk page looking to see if there was a reply to my thank you note to you. I'm not happy that RMHED asks "Why the reluctance to AfD?" and citing me by name without bothering to inform me of this action.  RGTraynor  13:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI I've given him a level 4 warning for abusive attacks. Have a nice day. andy (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I just went back and actually looked at his comments. Just as well, too, because this isn't simply a WP:CIVIL matter, this is a WP:NLT violation. I'm taking this to AN/I at once.  RGTraynor  14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there was a thinly veiled legal threat in that post to me as well, "I also will advise you to clean your act as a few people are considering taking you to court.". _{1 != 2} 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be on the up and up I would notify him on his talk page that you brought it to ANI. But yeah that was quite the rant, I can understand being upset that you are killing so many articles of his, but to go that far is not good at all. -Djsasso (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn, that had slipped my mind. Thanks for reminding me; I'll notify him at once.  RGTraynor  15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And ... I'm behind the curve; he's already been indef blocked. (sighs) 'Tis a pity.  RGTraynor  15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad... I should have picked up on WP:NLT and taken this to AN/I myself. Glad the situation got sorted out, though. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not to worry about it. Let's just say it doesn't trouble me to know that there are folks who keep an eye out.  RGTraynor  16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Hello, RGTraynor, and thank you for your recent participation in my RfA, which was closed per WP:NOTNOW after reaching a vote tally of 5/15/2. While I am disappointed in the outcome, I understand that it - as well as the comments left by yourself and others - was in the best interests of Wikipedia at this time. I plan to take everything that was written to heart and improve myself here on Wikipedia with a goal of perhaps accepting a nomination again in the future, should someone choose to nominate me. As a way of gathering further feedback, I have created a page in my user space for other editors to leave comments about things that they might have observed during my RfA and to continue my "education process," as it may be considered. If you would like to contribute to that page, it may be found here. Again, thank you for participating and I appreciate your comments! --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert only when necessary

Hi,

You seem quick to revert good faith edits. Consider the idea WP:Revert only when necessary and give good faith contibutions a second thought (and perhaps further research) before reverting them. You could even consider trying the Zero-revert rule temporarily.

Your positive contributions to the Ice Hockey project are much appreciated. Keep up the great work!--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly revert a bunch of unsourced edits, especially ones that aren't reflected in common hockey literature such as that one, and will continue to do so as I think best. That being said, with several thousand hockey-related edits under my belt, including fourteen FAs and seven GAs, I'm certainly proud of my accomplishments.  RGTraynor  12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because a contribution is unsourced doesn't mean it should be reverted. For good faith edits consider requesting a citation, looking for a source or discussing the issue on the talk page.

Overzealous reverting discourages valuable contributors.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite possibly, yes. And lack of gumption to revert when called for discourages the making of a good encyclopedia. No doubt you have your way of seeing things; I have mine.  RGTraynor  01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Using the above methods for dealing with good faith contributions, rather than immediately reverting, won't detract from the quality of Wikipedia. The quality of the edit will be addressed and you won't err by reverting positive contributions.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)