User talk:Ravenswing: Difference between revisions

Number 18 is indeed retired at the Scotia bank place. 'Smitty' was a nickname of a broadcastor who was attacked and murdered. I cant get his full name for you yet. But this number indeed hangs in the rafters at the scotiabank place in ottawa and is a fact. Please do not remove it this time. If youd like to help with this you could help by finding his exact name. Thank you for your time and please take care Sayswho (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points. First off, the section isn't for "numbers hanging from the rafter of a building"; it's for player numbers retired by the Ottawa Senators. Secondly, any fact posted to Wikipedia must be able to be sourced; it isn't for me to prove that this fellow existed, the date of any such retirement or that there's a banner in Scotiabank Place, it's for you to do so with reliable sources. As it happens, neither the Sens' website nor the NHL Official Guide and Record Book mention anything of the sort.  RGTraynor  23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By looking up smitty on the ottawa senators webpage youll see that the broadcastors name was Brian Smith and he was a sports reporter for a local ottawa tv station who was killed. Number 18 hangs from the rafters but since youd like some solid evidence of this matter ill be sure to take a photo at the next game I go to. As well 46 isn't a foundation or rather camp that sends children to was set up in his honour. Retired hockey numbers dont have to be players who played with the team (wayne gretzky) they can be anyone associated to the team.Brian smith also played for the los angeloas kings so by this definition the number should be included. For the time being id suggest as a good measure we put a section about brian smith in the article which would be source until there is a bit stronger textual documentation. Would this appease you, or do you think he shouldnt be honoured?

If you would like to read a bit up on this take a read of this http://www.flagstick.com/pastissues/2004_pastissues/august04_fullmagazine.pdf . Ill be out of town going sking with my fiance this week but i look forward to chatting with you about this further I think we can set something up very nicely Sayswho (talk) 15:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players that wore 18 after Smith's death: Patrick Traverse and Marian Hossa. I don't see any evidence of players changing their numbers in honour of this post-Hossa (3 B-sens have worn 18, but none have gotten the callup). What you need to provide is an article or press release stating the purpose/nature of the banner. The number 46 is up in the rafters of the Wachovia Center, but it's not retired. ccwaters (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of "retired numbers" is that of numbers officially retired by the team, and there are four cases in NHL history of numbers being officially retired for players never actually playing for the team in question (Tremblay, McKenzie, Finnigan, Gretzky). The Senators have not officially retired this number. Now if you want to write an article about this fellow, and you think he passes encyclopedic muster, go for it.  RGTraynor  05:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Smith (ice hockey). ccwaters (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I noticed that you reverted to an unsourced claim on the montreal maroons site and also after visiting this page seen that you are very keen on 'sources' I am wondering if you have a source to claim that the montreal marroons were predominately a anglophone supported team in montreal. I dont feel this needs to be reverted right away or at all providing some source is present but am i missing something????? Ive never seen this claim also outside wikipedia and ive read a few books about the nhl from the early 20s. Did i miss this?, Perhaps its on the hockey hall of fame site? or is this just hear say? let me know Jgale061 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be astonished that any book about NHL history would omit it; it's a universally mentioned fact. I'll have some sources up, if you wish.  RGTraynor  09:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jgale061 (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent all night harpooning the Hartford Whalers. Does it look any better? Flibirigit (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy fellow! But it certainly looks good.  RGTraynor  17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to get the page to GA status, would you be willing to help? So far, I've rewritten the induction and criticism sections, although the later still needs some sourcing. I'm still yet to start work on the history and exhibits secion and the biggest problem is the "Operations and organization" which doesn't have many sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The object of an AfD nomination is to test the notability, etc. of the subject and not to embark on some quest to make the article "perfect" as if it is to become a feature.

You made a justifiable complaint about terms like "significant", "major contribution" and the like and those were addressed. But, clearly, nothing is ever going to be enough for you because now you allege that there is original research in the article! That, frankly, is rubbish. Lets look at the sentence.

Besides the references, arranged chronologically like those in Buckley, Leach has expanded his own theories about cricket's early history.

How is that original research? In the book in question, the author has arranged everything chronologically and he has expanded his own theories. Those are facts; they are what he has done and the person who wrote the article has recorded it as such.

Original research occurs when some new theory is included in a WP article and cannot be verified elsewhere.

As for your insistence on citation tags several times per sentence, you need to get a grip. What is the article going to look like to a general reader when every single word has got a citation tag appended to it?

In the first paragraph, the information is summarised from the other article mentioned. If you need a citation then it is the original article that provides it and there is no need to duplicate that in this article.

In the second paragraph of the Sports History section, the two citations already there cover everything in that paragraph. The whole of the first sentence sums up matters that are discussed in the sources given (tag 2). The same sources record what happened in the AGM meeting referred to in the next sentence.

You want a citation about the fact he quotes Cardus? Have you not read the previous sentence and can you really not see that this sentence is merely an illustrative comment following on from the other? Do you know how to write English? Do you ever think about the general readers that these articles are written for?

Furthermore, you have willfully replaced your "peacock" tag even though there is no longer any such POV word in the article.

You are obviously pursuing your own agenda and you are deliberately hindering the process. Frankly, people like you should read Wikipedia's goals and purposes articles to learn that the site exists for the benefit of readers and not for pedants who inhabit deletion discussion pages. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]