User talk:Ravendrop

Welcome!

Hello, Ravendrop, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fantastic new articles on Olympic athletes! You seem to be doing everything well, but feel free to drop me a line if you have any queries or need some help. Ironholds (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a real micro nation, currently being founded. We have the land, and internet based micro nations are legitimate according to WIKI. Tips in writing the page are greatly needed however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albatrossarcade (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravendrop. I removed the speedy deletion tag you put on this page because the criterion you used (A7) doesn't apply to articles about albums. ThemFromSpace 01:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the article, I didn't realize that was the convention. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ravendrop. I have fixed your complaint about his international career and will be removing the speedy deletion tag you put on this page. (User talk:Kai Lau) 2 February 2011

Looks good. Thanks for adding the info. Ravendrop (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you mentioned in your !vote that a consensus had been reached that an article about a country's olympic team could be created once that country had qualified athletes, could you point me to it? Thanks. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 01:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was the practiced we used for the Winter Olympics. There never was a full discussion on this point entirely, but it arose after three AfDs; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta at the 2010 Winter Olympics, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabon at the 2010 Winter Olympics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albania at the 2010 Winter Olympics. Note that these particular articles were deleted at the time because there were no sources confirming that these countries had qualified athletes, but if you read through the comments there was a pretty clear consensus that a qualification of athletes (and not naming, which in Olympic terms are two different things) was reason enough to restart the articles. Also note, that in general, athlete qualification for the winter olympics usually only takes place a few months before the actual games, but for the summers it starts pretty much at the 2 year out point, which is one of the reasons that this article may appear to be a lot earlier than any of those created for the 2010 games. I hope this helps. Ravendrop (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks. I didn't realize how far in advance athletes would qualify. Thanks for shedding light on this. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 18:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravendrop. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lloyd Jones 1811-1886, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not meet A7 - he has an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography for goodness sake (in the refs on the article). Thank you. nancy 09:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I speedied it I had no idea what the Dictionary of National Biography was, nor its potential value. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Ravendrop (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravendrop. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete removed the speedy deletion tag on Tropical cyclones in 2010, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion because of the following concern: the criterion you used does not cover this kind of page or the reason you specified is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. The "existing article" that you listed as grounds for a CSD A10, does not exist and has never existed. Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've just worked out what you intended by that tag. It's somewhat confusing to leave notifications (two of them) that specifically reference an article name that doesn't exist. I can see an argument for the deletion of the new article, but equally there is also an argument that the new article could potentially be considered "any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one" (see WP:CSD A10). I suggest you use proposed deletion instead, and see if it is contested. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message, or that of your robot, at this URL: [[1]]

I've copied the content of Shields & Brooks to a new page called Shields & Brooks (disambiguation), and changed the contents of the Shields & Brooks page to a REDIRECT command to the disambiguation page.
LP-mn (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your message, or that of your robot, at this URL: [[2]]

I've copied the content of Shields & Brooks to a new page called Shields & Brooks (disambiguation), and changed the contents of the Shields & Brooks page to a REDIRECT command to the disambiguation page.
LP-mn (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Go Phightins! (talk • contribs) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Eugénie Bouchard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, place the template {{hang on}} underneath the other template on the article and put a note on the page's discussion page saying why this article should stay. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of continuing to recreate the page. Thank you. KnowIG (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look I don't care if she is notable. What you did was incorrect. KnowIG (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Ravendrop 08:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted what you should have done on this users talk page ok. You should have had the original restored! THis is NOT the original and going behind the scenes talking to admins who don't know what they're doing is not cleaver either! KnowIG (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Okay I understand where you're coming from. Though, in my defence when I saw that the Eugenie Bouchard (without the apostrophe - which was the former redirect) had been re-created, by another user, I didn't bother to check to see if it had been restored from the AfD or re-created, and then re-created the redirect (with the apostrophe - which was the former page). I didn't realize that the other page had not been re-created via the proper means. I wasn't purposely attempting to recreate the page behind the scenes, it was simply an honest mistake. Thanks for pointing that out, I'll make sure to pay more attention in the future. Ravendrop 10:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravendrop, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of BrowseX, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the nominator has withdrawn his nomination. However, you !voted "delete" so the discussion can't be closed. You may want to revisit this discussion and perhaps reconsider your !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Maji Desu ka Suka!, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

I see that another editor started to nominate it for AfD but did not complete the nomination today, so there are at least two editors who would !vote to delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, forgot to check the history on that one. I'll finish the AfD nomination. Ravendrop 07:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my mess with Maji Desu ka Suka!. Not entirely sure what happened as I was using Twinkle, but apparently I failed at AfD. In any case, thanks for catching it :) Zachlipton (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. TW does that occasionally and you have to resort to doing it manually. Ravendrop 07:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my mess. Cnilep (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Problem. Ravendrop 07:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravendrop, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sylvia the Fair, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Text is in the public domain. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.   -- Lear's Fool 10:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your CSD template from the article. If you had looked in the history you would have discovered that a non-author/contributor blanking had occured, much like vandalism. Please be careful with your tagging. Hasteur (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for your excellent work on this article. I had never heard of ProveIt before, but I am going to give it a try. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my voice to the discussion. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can I save my articles? -Alexis Rojas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Rojas (talk • contribs) 03:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which articles? If you are referring to the ones that I have put up for deletion, I don't think that they can be saved, as they are direct duplications of already existing lists. The information is definitely notable, but instead of creating these new pages you should update the information on the already existing pages, List of Mexican states by population and List of Mexican states by population density. New lists are not created each time a new census comes out, but rather the old lists are update. Adding another column that mentions the population change (as a percent) to these lists is an acceptable addition as well. Also be sure to source your new numbers with an appropriate link. Any new numbers that aren't sourced are very likely to be reverted. Ravendrop 04:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for List Of United States and Mexican States By Population. Thats up to community decision. I agree that its an interesting topic, but because of the rather arbitrary nature of the comparison (why not Mexican states to Russian oblasts, French departments, etc.) it is seen as WP:SYNTH. The only way you could save that one is if you can find WP:RS noteworthy, independent sources that compare the population of American states to Mexican states in such a manner. Ravendrop 04:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Delete The Articles I Made I feel like making better one for that topic but not repetting the topic please!

                 -Alexis Rojas  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Rojas ([[User talk:Alexis Rojas|talk]•contribs) 04:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]  

Only admins (which I'm not) can delete pages. If you want a page deleted that you created (and no one else has done any major or substantial edits to) you can either blank the page (except if there are speedy delete, AfD, or PROD tags - which in that case you should post on the talk page requesting that it be deleted) or by adding the tag "de-g7" in double {} brackets at the top of the page. Ravendrop 04:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it will be interesting if i made the deaths and births of the mexican states in a table?And if i should do population comparison with mexican states and canada provinces or brazil, colombia, argentina, united states,france,or spain states to compare with the Mexican States? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexis Rojas (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No other country has a list of states by birth rate or death rate. That doesn't mean its not notable, but it would more than likely end up at AfD, and my gut feeling is that it would be deleted. Birth rates/death rates on a national level are notable, but are arguably not on a state wide level. As for Mexican state population with other countries, you can create those only if the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List Of United States and Mexican States By Population survives deletion. Those kinds of intersections that are seemingly random, though potentially interesting, are very seldom kept. Ravendrop 09:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why dont they let you compare states you are only comparing them by population your not comparing them by wich one is the best only by the biggest population to smallest between Mexico and United States.User talk:Alexis Rojas) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for picking up my duplication of the pets thing. I thought the whole section had been deleted and was just restoring a brief mention. My bad for not searching more. Regards, WWGB (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i believe Isaac Kannah should NOT be eligible for deletion due to his great prospect of playing in a proffesional level, as he has played at the senior side for Minnesota Twin Stars, in the 4th tier of the US soccer pyramid. Darbaki (talk) 7:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You should read WP:NFOOTY which outlines when a player is notable or not, and for the American soccer system they have to play in the top professional league, which is the MLS. Being a "great prospect" simply isn't enough. The only other way to qualify for an article is to meet WP:GNG, which I don't believe he does due to lack of independent (i.e. not from the teams he's played with, or from him schools) and in-depth (i.e. not signing announcements, nor game summaries), see also WP:RS. However, at this point because its at AfD it is now the decision of the community to decide whether or not to keep the article, and not mine alone. You should express your views at the deletion discussion found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Issac Kannah. Ravendrop 01:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the author that put the tag did not see the finished product and it was put there by mistake, check the talk page of that author. Intoronto1125 (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually the 2012 Winter Youth Olympics. Actually that comment was on my talk page but i deleted it [3]. Intoronto1125 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Deprod|Simon Gysbers]] Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 18:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravendrop, I have summarised the section you deleted in the hope it is better and I have posed a question on the article's discussion page about how to enable readers to find the book when it doesn't have an ISBN. Whiteghost.ink 05:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. re. your edit summary, given I'm new at this Wiki-thing (and even if I wasn't), it would be much more helpful and less demoralising if you could give a suggestion about how to improve my work rather than merely deleting as "fluff" a whole section that took three days to find the references. Thanks, Whiteghost.ink 05:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Take a look at WP:MOVE if you still have questions about moving a page. 117Avenue (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ravendrop 07:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sure you may now find Pars Oil Company improved and hence notable. Regards, *** in fact *** ( contact ) 22:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Geofferybard (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note on Charlie Wilcox. I declined the no context speedy -- there's plenty of context. (We know it's a book and we know the author). If it's not notable, prod or AfD would be the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same deal for Cork AUL. Clearly a soccer/football club.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined your speedy request as the Danny Wood you refer to is someone else altogether, an American. I've redirected it to On Hannibal's Trail which seems to be the only thing these three have done of any possible note. (Their IMDb links didn't work, either...) Peridon (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Mark Caso. I disagree with the speedy deletion of Mark Casobecause the claims they have played roles in notable films are clear assertions of importance. You should therefore not retag Mark Caso for speedy deletion. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravendrop, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Global X Funds, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eurowhite, which you recently dePRODed, has been nominated for deletion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 15:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravendrop. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Costruzioni Italiane Serrature e Affini, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know if this interested you or not, but as you !voted (even as "incubate") in the discussion, thought you might be interested in the deletion review. Yakupov has now been named ROY for the OHL, no CHL announcement is made yet as far as I know but I'm watching for it now. CycloneGU (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented to your Oppose. CycloneGU (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I am replying back so late. I thank you for your kind talk and the welcome cookies. Anyways, about Busan Subway Line 4, I feel that it is appropriate to go on the List of metro systems as part of Busan Subway. This is becuase Busan Subway Line 4 is really treated the same as the other lines (same as the original, non-light-rail lines 1,2, and 3 of the system) - only that it is a light rail. Please see http://www.humetro.busan.kr/english/. If you see under the "Route Map" and "Time Table" boxes of the front page, you can see that line 4 is really considered just a part in the metro. If you click on the "Full" of the "Route Map" box, you can see that line 4 is put in just like any other line (it is considered in the map so naturally that someone who didn't know the line 4 was a light rail would simply think line 4 is a non-light-rail, just like the earlier 3 lines!) My point is that, unlike the "accesorry"-kind-of feeling in light-rail lines of many other places in the world (like America), Busan Subway Line 4 is considered part of the metro system. Therefore, I believe it is necessary for the line to be included in the List of metro systems page. I would really appreciate a fast reply (although I didn't reply fast - I apologize about that). Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.15.205 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the db-copyvio request from the article Steve Madge - the site linked to is an obvious mirror of Wikipedia. If you follow the links within the .co.tv page they lead to other .co.tv pages with identical content to the Wikipedia pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Milkmen: Smokin' Banana Peels. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't see it there the first time I skipped through. TerminalPreppie (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I like your "alternate solution". I may go by the solution regarding the Busan Subway part in the List of Metro Systems. Oh, and also, I have a question about Busan Subway Line 2. Most of it is in Busan, but it extends to Yangsan, although the line's main purpose is not an inter-city line. So should the statistics for only the Busan part of the line be included in the list or should the statistics for the whole line be included? 173.67.15.205 (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ravendrop. What do you think of Galatasaray S.K. 7-0 Fenerbahçe S.K ? Is it notable ? Takabeg (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask my opinion... notability depends on the scope you refer to... it's highly significant for Turkish sport, it's medium importance for European football, and minor significance from global point of view...--Nitsansh (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance... Is this event considered an official world championship??--Nitsansh (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravendrop. You have tagged this page for deletion, however I disagree with what you have stated. He has signed a very lucrative publishing deal with one of the biggest publishing houses in the world becasue he is the composer, and with his brother (the singer), has a large fanbase. I do not agree that he is non-notable (certainly not inherited in this case). I welcome your response, thanks TuskanRaider100 (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your reply and for your useful suggestions. I'll have a look around to find some references that apply to Oliver Spencer-Wortley. Thanks TuskanRaider100 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy deletion request for Project Impossible for two reasons. First, albums are only eligible under WP:CSD#A9 if the artist has no article. This is a compilation album, and several of the artists do have albums, as does the radio station that created the compilation. Second, the article had already been nominated for speedy deletion back in May of this year. While that does not strictly preclude the page from being nominated for speedy deletion, since the previous tag was removed for a sound reason (the same one I told you above) by an administrator, renominating for the same reason can appear to be admin-shopping, and thus should not generally be done. You are, welcome, though, to take the article to WP:AfD. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• declined both.
  • Ekaterina Yashina because she competed in the main draw of a WTA International level tournament: 2011 Tashkent Open – Doubles
  • Barbara Sobaszkiewicz because on 13 september 2011, the notability was minimum 25K itf level and I created the article according to that. on 23 september 2011 a user changed it to 50K. See here: [4]

Thank you. (Gabinho^>:) 04:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• • • The NTENNIS as I see it, says:

Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they 3.Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:

• Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships)

Tashkent Open is a WTA International tournament. (Gabinho^>:) 04:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I've reverted your re-addition of the speedy deletion template from the Bursa Orhangazi University for two reasons. The first is that another editor who wasn't the page author removed the tag (and explained it in the edit summary). The second reason is that it doesn't meet the empty speedy deletion criteria because an infobox is present. --Mrmatiko (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ravendrop, I'm looking up at the comments on this talk page, and I'm concerned: I see a lot of declined speedy deletions and prods. I think that you need to slow down or even temporarily pause your deletion tagging, and review the relevant policies (WP:Deletion policy, WP:Speedy deletion, and WP:Prod, at least). It's okay to make mistakes, but making a lot of mistakes in speedy deletion tagging is a problem because it really hurts our new editors. When they make an article that is tagged for speedy deletion, there's a very strong chance that they're going to walk away from Wikipedia and not try anymore. In some cases that's fine, like if they were just here to advertise some non-notable band or company. But if they were making an article in good faith, it's really discouraging to get that notice within a few hours of joining WP. As such, we really want to be sure that our deletion tagging is as close to correct as possible. While opinions vary, I've seen people argue that regular New Page Patrollers should have speedy deletion tagging success rates over 90%, because the potential for harm is so great. I don't see that you've responded to any of the comments above, but would love for you to enter into a dialogue about this here (I'm watching this page, so no need to reply to my talk). Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian. I think you give a fair assessment. Seeing that many of the unpatrolled articles were under the music/albums/songs genre I recently had a look over the policies in an attempt to help with those articles. Obviously though I still need to have a greater look at the intricacies of the policies (i.e. the compilation album clause was something I missed). Additionally, the impact of these on new editors was not something I had greatly considered, though hearing it, it makes a great deal of sense to me. Also, please don't take my lack of response to the comments above as ignoring them or not taking them into account. With the exception of the tennis prods (which I commented on the original article creator's talk page) I felt that there really was nothing for me to say. I made a mistake, it was pointed out to me, and I will learn from it in the future. I will definitely re-read over the relevant policies, especially regarding music, watch some speedy/prod/afds (not done by me) to see the applied intricacies of the rules, and wait for the current slate of prods/afds that I have initiated recently to be resolved before I continue deletion tagging. I hope this addresses your concerns, and if you have any other comments or suggestions please feel free to make them. Ravendrop 15:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no indication of what the second round is, or how a team makes it there, no indication of what tie-breaking methods are employed, yet someone is editing nations as clinched or eliminated. Using information from past tournaments i could make a best guess, but that would mean that clearly Canada has not clinched yet, do you know what is going on here?18abruce (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read on the spanish official site that the next round is a quarterfinals, and assumed that meant top 4 from each group. But now that I actually think about it, top two would make more sense. I'll support you if you remove the colours until we have firm confirmation of the next round. Ravendrop 04:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The format of previous years suggests that top 4 from each group should advance, I am satisfied with that assumption. According to previous years tie-breaking systems, Canada would not have clinched yet (can finish in tie with usa and pur for third--end up fifth if they lose badly to usa) so I altered that. I don't think it is necessary to remove the rest of the colours.18abruce (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That works too. Ravendrop 04:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your message. I am afraid it wasn't me who put the tag there. Somebody else did it. I put it back because I noticed it was removed without any discussion, and I myself have no expertise to solve the problem. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 13:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when slotting in medalists please you the correct template. Thanks. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the results table needs to be split up. The first one showing the results of the first competition, the second one showing just the athletes who made it to the second round and etc. What do you think? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply following the table at Equestrian at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Individual dressage. It seemed far less cluttered than the one at Equestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Individual dressage with the judging scores. Ravendrop 23:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also as an aside, is there a policy on just including a single last name for Spanish athletes, or is this just what you have been doing on the other pages for the Pan Am games? Ravendrop 23:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the athletes that have an article with more then two names I usually leave it otherwise I just put the first and last names. As for equestrian I think the table is too big to include all four rounds. It should be put into four separate tables. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a little concerned that will be too much as well. Additionally the final score is the average of the second and third rounds, so these two should be kept in the same table. I've split off the qualification round and the lower table seems to fit better (as of now I still have to adjust the first round scores for the qualifiers though). Let me know if you think that looks better. Ravendrop 23:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the wrestling pages, I have formatted the 55kg and 66kg greco-roman. Can you please format the articles like that? Thank you. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I wasn't entirely sure how to do those. Thanks for improving them, they look a lot better.Ravendrop 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the calendars, make sure not to add the event name, because its redundant. Just follow the other calendars on the individual event pages. Thanks. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 22:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The draws (wiki formatted) or located here Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Ravendrop! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss your objections to the LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016 article on the talk page prior to wholesale deletions of referenced material. Would like to have a wide-as-possible consensus on the article. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been nominated for deletion, since you participated in the previous discussion, you may wish to participate in this one, the discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (2nd nomination). Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose 5 new colors to use in the map that are both colorblind friendly and good on others eyes then it would work best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know which to chose, I'm not actually colourblind myself. I'm glad though that you agree we should make an effort to make it colourblind friendly. (And quite frankly as long as that is happening what version of the map is currently is use is irrelevant to me. My objections were to the other user, who from the Republican primary main page gave me the impression that they were adamant that the colours be kept, and the colourblind issue be ignored completely.)Ravendrop 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've given a ref to a Vancouver SUn article that is no longer avalivale online, although it is cached on amny blogs. It seesm that, the next day, the article was revied to remve any ref to the 1988 crash. Nonetheless, the printed paper is availbale somewhere. I'll do more work on thois, sit tight. Gotta go... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.48.190 (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, that article is not mentioned in any article about Alberta, Canada, or Heraldry. It was provided by somebody in the flag template, and somebody chose to use it in the curling article. It doesn't seem to be the standard pre 1968 flag either. Is is just given a code (1907 or something). If I am mistaken, please show me specifically where the decision to use this as the pre 1968 flag was made, so I can take it up there. Otherwise, the issue is with the curling articles, which are the only ones that use this flag from what I can find. If the citation needed marker doens't nicely fit into the template, we will just have to resolve this as quick as possible. Jackie2541 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

>>>I understand, and agree with, your concerns about the pre-1968 Alberta flag used on the page. However, because it is wiki-standard flag and changing it will effect numerous pages and templates, you need to bring the issue up either on the Flag of Alberta talk page, or possibly the Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada pages if the flag of alberta site doesn't have a large enough audience. Any decision then taken there will effect the Brier page. Additionally, your tagging of each flag as citation needed is inappropriate as it suggests that the fact that Alberta won the championship needs verification. Again, you have the right idea, you're just bringing up your problems/concerns at the wrong venue. Ravendrop 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this [5], it's an unofficial flag. It's was likely a hypothetical flag/never flown, but without any other knowledge about what was used before 1968, a hypothetical flag is all we can use. Using the current flag before 1968 would be more inaccurate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So is this not then the wiki standard flag? If it is, can you please show me where? If it is not, then I would like to say the same thing you guys have been saying, that maybe that source should be introduced in an article about the Alberta flag before being used directly in a curling article. Jackie2541 (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Madnessfan34537. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to 2024 Summer Olympics, because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Madnessfan34537 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am part of an effort to get Wikimedians access to the 2016 Summer Olympics as accredited reporters and photographers. Part of this effort includes covering the 2012 Summer Paralympics. Two Wikimedians have credentials to attend these games as reporters through Wikimedia Australia. As English Wikipedia does not allow original reporting, this is largely through Wikinews with a project page found at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. If you are interested in helping to get Wikimedians to the next Summer Olympics,I'd encourage you to assist with Wikinews efforts, and also to work on all language 2012 Summer Paralympic Wikipedia articles before, during and after the Games to demonstrate a track record of success. Thank you. --LauraHale (talk) 04:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yure single comment on the talk page is NOT consensus. Consensus is built through discussion, not just 1 comment expllaining an individuals views. Kindly restore this, penidng agreement on consensusLihaas (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment, please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Nesbitt (American football). Numerous sources have been added to the article since you voted to "Delete." These additional sources may or may not lead you to change your mind, but you should be aware the article has changed significantly since you cast your vote. Cbl62 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like you ever really left, but I suppose right when I first started you were quite active, and I hadn't seen you until two AFDs just today, so anyway, I'm happy your back on. In any case, you were the user who welcomed me and helped me object to a PROD back when I was a clueless newbie, and it occurs to me I probably never thanked you. It's been 20 months, but nevertheless, I still cite what you and User:Paulmcdonald did for me as my motivation to help out other new users. Thanks. Go Phightins! 03:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help bro! As to the Tom Burnette situation, I've been looking in the UNC media guide and they list him as a B (when drafted) and on the next page as a FB (when it lists the pro teams he played for); he was also the leading rusher for '37 or '38 season according to the book as well. So should I just list him as a 'B, FB '? Many thanks. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right thanks for the input, I just switched it over. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

realized that you had already attempted to notify qwyrxian about him using an ip sock, I am quite sure the content, style, and combative nature are a match.18abruce (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you that you chose to revert an edit mad by user 98.118 .127.217 citing reason as "Needs a credible source".

While I think the text could be re-written a little better, please see below for a list of refs that support the edit made by that user. Your decision to revert (and thereby delete) that text appears unjustified given the many credible sources available.

Many Olympic games and their bidding processes are surrounded by various controversies, from sporting scandals, protests, boycotts and even terrorist threats and attacks. These are interesting facts that are relevant to an article on any Olympic games, and most WP pages covering each of the Olympic games contain a specific area to cover any controversies / objections etc that occurred during the bidding process, in the lead up to the games and on a number of occasions during them.

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/121st-ioc-session/066549-rio-hit-back-criticism-governor-tokyo

http://www.morethanthegames.co.uk/121st-ioc-session/086565-igaya-apologies-rio-officials-and-ioc-over-ishiharas-comments

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4535507

http://thestar.com.my/sports/story.asp?file=/2009/10/4/sports/20091004132612&sec=sports

http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNews/Asia/Story/A1Story20091003-171535.html

http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/10/04/idINIndia-42901220091004

Warm regards :) PinkParakeet (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Jhonatan Longhi, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  Tentinator  20:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I have responded to all of them. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting me! Puntaalpo (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, buddy.

For some reason you deleted an important information from the article. What was the reason? The very first sentence of the article states the following"

“

In the world, there are a total of sixteen bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton tracks in use for competitions in bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton.

”

Now, I did see the webpage the article is based on and it does not state that there are only 16 tracks in the world. It says that there are only 16 tracks registered with that organization. So... If however the wikipedia article says what I quoted I do not see a valid reason why can't any real luge tracks could be considered for inclusion with photo evidence from a very reliable source (National Information Agency Ukrinform). Respectfully, Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a respond at Talk:List of bobsleigh, luge, and skeleton tracks. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barcelona bid for the 2026 Winter Olympics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ravendrop. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Radiance Realty, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising (can be cleaned without a fundamental rewrite). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have some question. Why you want to delite page Sergey Pavlov (mass murderer). He is a notably crime, because he is a mass murder. Man, who kills FIVE people automaticaly became notably crime. Also he uses firearm. The gun crime a rare in the Russia. Silent hill Hunter (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ravendrop/Aerolíneas Sudamericanas, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ravendrop/Aerolíneas Sudamericanas and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Ravendrop/Aerolíneas Sudamericanas during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ravendrop 19:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ravendrop, I just read some of your articles and was surprised to see that someone who had created as many articles as you wasn't an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. Take care and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 11:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand your revert at IIHF World Junior Championship. Is it because the formal announcement isn't until Friday?18abruce (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]