User talk:Resolute/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

DYK for Max Reinhart

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment about me

Could you kindly please refactor your comment about me here, it may be construed as an unwarranted PA. I didn't "drag you in to it", I just quoted you. I've long abandoned the Leo Kamorov article, but GoodDay has continued on into EE articles unrelated to WP:HOCKEY, even following me into articles he has never edited before to revert me. I just want it to stop. FWIW, sorry for reporting you to AN for your use of admin tools on protecting the article which you were editorially involved in, I actually did you a favour in having the matter resolved there and then rather than leaving it to potentially blow up in your face in the future, as it did for an admin I know who was desysoped for protecting the article he was editorially involved in (the tragedy for him was that he actually protected the article at a version that his opponents wanted and he didn't). --Nug (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider commentary on actions to be a personal attack. In the overall context of that battleground, I believe my comments were fair, much like my comments on GoodDay's habit of being a drama junkie which you so aptly used to damn him. You both may be decent editors overall, but neither of your behaviours in this topic area have been particularly flattering. So with respect, I will not refactor. But as it was not meant to be a comment on you as a person, only your actions in this dispute, I do apologize if that was not as clear as could be. As to the ANI stuff, no apology is necessary. I took an action to protect the article from further edit warring, and I do not fear scrutiny of my actions. You were within your rights to do so, and the report ultimately resolved to all parties' satisfaction. Resolute 02:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you would struggle to find any evidence of "battleground mentality" on my part, unlike in the case of GoodDay. Your equating his behaviour with mine appears to be more a function of your assumptions and thus could be construed as a PA for lack of evidence to the contrary. So I still ask you to remove the reference to "battleground mentality" on my part. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently fully protected because you and Jaan engaged in a tag-team edit war with Marc87. Not to mention some curious interpretations of policy and guidelines, in some cases completely fictitious, to try and justify your participation in the edit wars. Resolute 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again that is not true, as any examination of the edit histories will bear out, and I have to say your claim that of "some cases completely fictitious" is a lie and rather unfortunate. A person's interpretation policy and guideline isn't evidence of "battleground mentality", but your seemingly hostile response to my reasonable request to the point of making easily disprovable statements like "some cases completely fictitious" would certainly be viewed by spectators of this page as bordering on battleground. --Nug (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Article protection lifted on March 27. Six hours later, you revert to your preferred version. You and Jan subsequently each make two additional reverts over the following couple days, countering Marc87's reverts to his preferred version. Situation raised to ANI, page re-protected for another three weeks due to the edit war you three engaged in. As to your fictitious guideline arguments, I was quite partial to your insistence that the hockey player infobox "required" the use of an ISO 3166-1 code, even though the template documentation does not state such anywhere. It does link to Country code, an article that lists ISO 3166-1 as an example of a country code, but that hardly supported your argument. Though I have to admit, as far as wikilawyering goes, that was one of the most creative interpretations I've seen in nearly eight years on Wikipedia. Resolute 03:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, edit histories don't lie, but the problem can lie in disingenuous interpretation. I was certainly justified in reverting the article per WP:NOCONSENSUS to the last stable version as the RFC was closed without consensus. The template doc clearly states, and this was clearly pointed out at the time: birth_place (city, then comma, then country code; use country's abbreviation) (the template documentation was updated after[1]). You said "completely fictitious", which is not the case at all, the template doc does require the country code and links to the country code which says "The best known of these is ISO 3166-1", I think that is a reasonable interpretation by any standard, your "most creative interpretations I've seen in nearly eight years on Wikipedia" thus seems to be at best a gross exaggeration, and certainly falls far short of proving any kind of "battleground mentality". That Marc87 cannot seemingly abide by either WP:NOCONSENSUS or the Template's own guid[2] doesn't seem to concern you at all. --Nug (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"I think I am right" is not, never has been, and never will be a justification for edit warring. As far as Marc87 goes, he isn't the one at my talk page trying to justify, trivialize or rationalize his participation in that edit war. Resolute 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are the one who claimed I exhibited "battleground mentality", but alleging edit warring on the basis of a single edit[3] while a certain colleague of yours reverted four times[4],[5],[6],[7], certainly does not rise to the level of evidence of "battleground mentality", thus it remains a personal attack which I asked you to withdraw. --Nug (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I have this straight. I point out your edit warring on the Komarov article, pointing specifically to your tag team revert war with another editor (as well as the creative reinterpretations of template documentation), noting that you believing you were right to revert is not a justification for edit warring, and your response to to instead accuse me of accusing you of edit warring on the basis of a single edit on an entirely different article that I've not brought up, don't watch and have no insight into the history of? In my experience, building straw men is often little more than an admission that your argument is untenable. Resolute 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The claim of "tag teaming" is also an unjustified personal attack, given the behaviour of many of your WP:HOCKEY colleagues. I came here to kindly ask you to refactor your comment. Instead you clearly are refusing to do so, exaggerating that I make "completely fictitious" claims and seemingly attempting to steer this thread off some tangent to deflect from the fact that your comment "Given his own battleground mentality in this topic area, Nug is likely commenting because he believes it will help him win his war" is offensive, how do you know what I believe. It seems somewhat ironic that you would accuse me of "battleground mentality" given the banner you created at User:Resolute/Mafia and proudly display on your user page has a clenched fist. Thus further discussion is evidently pointless. --Nug (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should bring up the "hockey mafia" userbox, given it's origin. The box is satirical, mocking those who waltz in and expect everyone to kowtow to their wishes. Indeed, that has been a defining aspect of this entire drama. And yes, given that that was now the third time you tried to deflect a discussion of your behaviour onto someone else, I think we are in agreement that further discussion is pointless. Resolute 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Resolute loves wikipedia.

GNU C-Graph

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding GNU C-Graph. The thread is Complaint Against Summary Deletion of "GNU C-Graph".The discussion is about the topic GNU C-Graph. Thank you. -Visionat (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

1994 Giro

Well well well we meet again. I've finished fixing the errors you've outlined. Thanks for reviewing! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 00:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 Dauphiné

As soon as I find the nearest computer, those little concerns on the GA review will be rectified. However, I must say that it could be anything from several days to a week at least regarding the computer maladies. Hell, not bad typing by myself via a phone! ;) Regards, Craig(talk) 08:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Finally, back onto terra firma! Points have been addressed, I believe! Craig(talk) 20:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Accidental use of rollback

Hi. Surprisingly, I wasn't able to find a bug that already covered this, so I filed bugzilla:47782. Please chime in there if you have any thoughts about how to improve the behavior here. I've watched people accidentally rollback edits for years now due to the confirmation-less nature of the link. I think it's high time we re-evaluated whether the current workflow makes sense. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

LeBron James

Hello sir. I've been working on the LeBron James article a lot the past month or two and think it's ready for a GA nomination. Before I do though, would you mind taking five minutes and skimming it for glaring problems? The main area I'm concerned about it the referencing, but if you wouldn't mind skimming everything, it would be a huge favor. Thanks! --Ktmartell (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the references. I nominated the article for GA status if you would like to be the reviewer again. Otherwise, your help has been much appreciated.--Ktmartell (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Jim Balsillie

Resolute, the section you reverted back was not meant to "peacock" or promote Jim. These are documented, factually correct donations Jim has made. I am not sure how I can make that "more neutral" sounding. Add references perhaps? As for the image, a new one will be uploaded (or the ownership modified) once rights are acquired to use that image. Thanks, --Vigorforsale (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Conroy / Gelinas picture

Hey there. Came across this [8] file today uploaded by you. It says Gelinas is on the left, as in the Habs jersey, but he never played for them; says it is Conroy on the right, and the reflection of his jersey name seems to confirm that, but to further confuse me, the caption says this was at the 2011 Heritage Classic, and the article for that event lists neither player on roster or as scratches. It does say Conroy played in the alumni game, but doesn't explain the presence of Gelinas. And it's certainly not Bob Gainey, and I can't rule out Brian Bellows, but not sure what to make of this. Can you shed any light on this? Seems worth mentioning in the article if indeed it is Gelinas. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Conroy had retired by the time of the Heritage Classic, so no, he wasn't in the main game. He was in the alumni game, however, which is what the image is from. It is Gelinas in the Habs jersey, even though he never played for Montreal. Unlike the alumni contests at the Winter Classics, this alumni game was put together relatively close to the contest by the Flames alumni association. They basically put Gelinas on the Montreal team to help balance the rosters. Conroy would have made more sense, however, since he had just retired as a very popular Flame, I guess they felt they had to leave him in a Calgary jersey. The Gelinas article is one on my todo list, but I'd have to go back and search through some of the press clippings to cite that in prose. Thanks, Resolute 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Would make a decent DYK hook if it ever came to that. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Jarome Iginla

I just wanted to mention that I didn't take lightly the decision to update Iginla's infobox image and I'm glad you found a way to incorporate the former lead image in the article. I didn't want to remove it altogether but wasn't sure how to work it in with the other images that were already there. I thought you'd probably take care of it, and wouldn't have protested if you decided that the former lead image should be restored and the Penguins photo moved down in the article given how closely associated he will always be with the Flames. Pens Through My Lens (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Calgary Flames

Hi Resolute, just to clear this up, the idiotic and pov title you are referring to in this edit[9] was not added by me. The only thing I'm guilty of is that I didn't remove it myself when I formatted it. I do, however agree with your edit summary. Cmr08 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't, and I apologize if you felt that comment was aimed at you. It was more general frustration at the silliness of some of these titles (particularly on the Pens article), and a desire not to see it bleed over. I simply missed seeing that until I saw your edit within the section that made the section title stand out like a sore thumb. Cheers! Resolute 13:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

POV activity on British Columbia Liberal Party

The most noxious and questionable part of the IP edits in this article's history overnight is the claim that my reversions of uncited material and restorations of properly cited material is "POV Vandalism"...I've reverted them, took three edits to do. The only other activity this IP has done is on the article about Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations and which substituted the American term "civil liberties" for the original's usage "civil rights" which is more the appropriate Canadian term. I reverted that too, but it gives an indication of "who's working for them". This kind of thing will probably go on until election day, and if/when "she" loses, the knives are already out to choose a successor and that will no doubt prompt a lot of attempted changes to this article from anonymous users and SPAs. I don't know the grounds for a protect, but seems like this and the other party articles should all be "protected" or "semi-protected" until the election, at least. I'm waiting for the "somebody shut that Skookum1 guy down" b.s. again.Skookum1 (talk) 08:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

think I'll have a little look at IP activity on the other party pages now....hmmmm.Skookum1 (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW I see stuff like this before anyone else because I'm 14 time zones away or so (depending on which part of Canada). Late-evening edits from British Columbia IPs happen in the wee hours in Eastern Canada, of course.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks like garden variety political vandalism, actually. Same as we often see at Conservative Party of Canada. You've pretty much done what we usually do: revert and forget. These tend to be one-off acts, and the IPs often don't return. Resolute 12:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the quick rename on the Hartford Wolf Pack! Much appreciated!

 Cjmclark ^(Contact) 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Gary Suter to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Vote on colour of weatherboxes

There is currently a vote on deciding on which colours should be used in the weatherbox. It is a better way of getting a consensus rather than listening to various arguments. Just throw your user name under the options that you prefer the best. Ssbbplayer (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Upload images of your supper

Hey Resolute. Re your feedback on the Echo talkpage - is this (or the concern it stems from) something you'd like to discuss in more detail? Happy to carve out some time on skype or google hangout or somesuch :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the offer, but it's alright. I'm more amused than anything that I've watched the community reject the social mediafication of Wikipedia over and over and over at VPs, only to have it entirely undermined. I think the need to +1 every little thing is rather silly, but if it causes people to stop using those silly +1 templates, this might well be a good thing. Also, I just realized that my snark was ill chosen, since I had forgotten about the Android app that *does* make it incredibly easy to upload inane photos (and, hopefully, also good ones).  ;) Resolute 13:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd argue that the problem here is one of definitions and intentions. We're not trying to turn Wikipedia into facebook or instagram, which is social-networking-for-the-purpose-of-social-networking - we're trying to have social networking for the purpose of building an encyclopedia, and a community that can build that encyclopedia. And like it or not, social networking features already exist in Wikipedia precisely to bond this community; we're not doing anything philosophically 'new', really. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest this is social networking for its own sake. We already have barnstars and the ability to post talk page messages to thank and show appreciation for quality contributions. Those are social interactions for the purpose of building an encyclopedia. But liking individual edits/talk page posts? That throws the promotion of quality out the window as it rewards and encourages both positive and negative contributions. I realize the goal of this feature is to encourage editors, but you won't be encouraging just the quality contributors. You will also be encouraging the edit warriors and those engaged in battleground behaviour on talk pages. Resolute 13:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• (KDS4444 likes this.)

Sure, but the same is true of barnstars. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single editor in the category of "somehow not got banned, but clearly a disruptive influence" who hasn't won plaudits and awards in the form of informal go-getems or barnstars. We have barnstars, yep, and those are for big contributions. We have talkpage messages, sure, and those are great for contributors with the time. But if I look at my volunteer watchlist right now I see three-dozen helpful copyedits or typo fixes or whatevers, and frankly I don't have the time to write out three-dozen personalised messages each day, every day, on top of all my other stuff to do. I imagine the same is true of a lot of us. Do I think there are risks? Absolutely. But they're not new risks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I don't even see a need to routinely thank an editor for making routine edits. Certainly those who consistently make those positive contributions, but your argument of +1ing every little thing that happens only seems to support my argument. Resolute 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Then you don't have to use it :). "Every little thing that happens" comes from a lot of different editors, and ultimately it's editors we want to encourage to make edits. If someone's making 500 contributions a month, is comfortable in their identity as a Wikipedian, sure, things like barnstars will work pretty well. But a lot of the people who make small fixes are either newcomers or infrequent contributors - people who don't necessarily have a consistent, high-number of small positive contributions. There's been a lot of research suggesting that thanking people for the good contributions they do make is a way of ensuring they make a lot more in the future - ensuring they turn into the 500-contributions-a-month people. That's what we're trying to encourage. I'd argue that someone spending their spare time, for free, improving on a globally accessible educational work is never something we should consider routine in the grand scheme of things, and probably isn't something that the outside world considers routine, either. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Threats

Please resume the search for consensus on the Passchendaele talk page or make a joint request for arbitration.Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I find your claims to be disingenuous but am still willing to try to find common ground.Keith-264 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally put Dan Bain] up at FAC

Just a heads up that after several delays, I've finally gone ahead and nominated Dan Bain for FA. As I think you are still considered the primary editor of the article, I thought you might want to know. Here's hoping it passes without much issue. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Notification message

Just an fyi: the "thank you" notification I sent you for this edit was just a test (I thought I would get some kind of confirmation request before the notification was sent, but seems not). (Of course, I do appreciate your edits, but just to let you know, there wasn't anything about that one in particular for which I was grateful :-). isaacl (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is amusing given my discussion with Oliver above.  ;) Resolute 16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I see both sides of the argument; like any tool, it can cut both ways. In the corporate environment, often a "thank you" culture is fostered, with the aim of building a stronger collegiate spirit, and it is helpful to have really quick ways to acknowledge someone else's efforts. But I know sometimes I cringe when I see barnstars awarded or other forms of thanks given for less-than-co-operative behaviour. Well, you take the good; you take the bad; you take them both, and there you have... ;-) isaacl (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I somehow thanked someone yesterday and I still don't know how I did it. I don't recall ever seeing or clicking a link. heh. Ironically I thanked them for an edit I reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

The "thank" link is on the history page next to the "undo" link, so you must have clicked them both. isaacl (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I figured it was probably something like that. Its not the most opportune placement of the link. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some changes may happen to allow a "thank you" notification to be reverted, or for it to be a two-click process: http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47658 isaacl (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least the links aren't formatted as (Rollback | Thank | Undo). Though that would be funny. Resolute 19:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil edit summery comment

Concerning your recent uncivil edit summery comment here:[10], as an admin, you should be especially familiar that Civility is a Policy. Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars. You should be reminded that personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.

I created the stub 2013-14 season articles beacuse the previous NHL season has ended, and off-season business and notable events continues, including personel changes and preparing for the June 30th NHL Entry Draft. I remind you that the purpose of creating a stub is so that other editors can expand upon it. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That was the point, Dolovis. You create garbage and expect others to turn it into something worthwhile. You could have added the infoboxes. You could have added the section outlines. You could have added the draft table. You could have added any re-signings or players lost to Europe or coaching dismissals. You could have done all of these things. You could have done any of these things. But these things take a little time and they take a little effort. And if there is one thing that is constant with you, it is that you simply don't put the time or effort into anything. The only thing you want that little ego boost of being the "creator" of articles. That is why you create pages, Dolovis, and it would be insulting to the worst articles on Wikipedia to call what you do "creating articles". You don't like my edit summary? I don't care. I'll start caring when you start putting the slightest effort into these pages instead of creating crap that competent editors are then forced to clean up and fix. Resolute 19:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Everybody is doing what they can. None of the things you mentioned as things I "could have" added could've been added prior to the creation of an article. You might do well to read the essays Wikipedia is a work in progress and Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironically, that attempt at being condescending is longer than nearly every page you create. Interesting that you spend more time and effort writing about topics that revolve around yourself than any other subject. Resolute 21:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Not true, but I can see that creating articles is not your forte. It is a good thing that we do not have to wait for your article creations before editing, or Wikipedia would not be the functioning. In the past 12 months you have created just two articles ([11] and [12]), neither of which started as candidates for good article status. Before belittling other editors' work, you might first think about criticizing some of your own article creations, such as this [13] 432 character starter (and no infobox), or this [14] one paragraph placeholder (and no infobox), or this [15] very short hockey-bio stub (no infobox). But perhaps your real concern is that I created the 2013–14 Calgary Flames season article, and not yourself. I now realize that it was you who had created the 2012–13 Calgary Flames season article, and also virtually all of the other 30+ articles for the previous Calgary Flames seasons. It wasn't my intent to step on your toes... Dolovis (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not disappointed you started the article first. Hell, I would have been estatic if you had put even the barest effort into it as it would have saved me time and trouble down the line (Incidentally, the reason why I've started most of the Flames' season articles is because I'm the one who originated the entire concept within the hockey project.) And you really don't want to get into an article quality pissing contest with me, dude. I am not going to criticize you for not writing good or featured articles, because I know it isn't easy and most people don't have the temperment for it, but I love how you went researching my article creations and gone back five and seven years to find examples that are still superior to 95% of what you do. It gets even better that you suggest "creating articles is not my forte" when my two creations you pulled up from the last year are beyond the best article you will ever write.

I'm actually laughing right now becuase I look at how much time you obviously spent researching that post, acting again in defence of yourself - the one and only topic you will actually put effort into - compared to the junk you put into mainspace. Two sentence sub-stubs on European players that might, if one is lucky, get expanded into something reasonable someday. Equally crappy junk on low level minor league players, most of which will never get expanded into anything worthwhile (though we could undermine that at least by changing the SNG), idiotic redirects of non-notable players - because those take no effort at all, and you still get to brag about how you "started" the page if the player becomes notable and a competent editor actually starts the article - and these team articles. And in any of these cases, save the not-likely-notable minor leaguers, you could have created something far superior if you put the same effort into those pages as you do defending yourself. But we both know you will never do that, because this isn't about writing an encyclopedia for you. You always aim so low because that is all it takes to feed your ego. Resolute 23:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What always amuses me about him is that he creates articles he knows doesn't meet the notability criteria just so he can have them undeleted when the person does so he can get his name first on the list of contributors. It is pretty pathetic really. That isn't even mentioning the number of times he saved the source of a page that others created and was about to be deleted and then recreates it a couple months later with the exact same source without crediting the original authors which is a nice big copyvio. The irony about the situations is most people look down on people who create pages first in such a crappy manor because others have to fix them. So he may be boosting his ego in his own eyes but he only makes himself look worse to everyone else, especially the many editors who have to fix his issues whose time he wastes. I have lost count of how many times I have had to fix links to eliteprospects or hockeydb that link to the wrong person. Can't even take the time to make sure his links are correct. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"No, seriously, you can't win something that doesn't exist."

		The Frozen Trout of Seafood Justice
		For that alone, you are a worthy wielder of the Frozen Trout! Ravenswing 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar DYKs frequency

I added some data on Jimbo's user talk page for you to consider. Prioryman (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: here

I'd prefer not to clog up that page since Jimbo has enough catching up to do as it is, and so I'll continue here, but I do not necessarily believe that this is an issue of harassment to the extent that it is being characterized. I prefer to (at least mostly) assume good faith as per my comments at COM:DR, because this is not by any means the first time Jimbo's likeness has been used to illustrate an article.   — C M B J   13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. But Russavia has a habit of using Jimmy's likeness to push his WP:POINTs (e.g.: File:Jimmy correct POV donate banner.png). The few interactions I have had with Russavia have been positive and I tend to be a defender of Commons, but AGF can stretch only so far. It is decidedly unlikely given Jimbo and Russavia's past interactions, especially over the sort of content that can end up on Commons, that Russavia was not fully aware of what the reaction to that video would be, and he went ahead with it anyway. That is blatant trolling. Resolute 13:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit

ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Alberta Floods 2013

Thanks Resolute, as a new wikipedia contributor with limited (or incompetent) formatting abilities and poor technical know-how, your insight is appreciated. I removed the redundant image in the gallery. If you believe that changes should be made to algin this article with wikipedia's standards, feel free to enact them, though I feel that if one of the images must be removed from the "calgary" section of the article to reduce crowding, it should be the one of soldiers, not my image of the city, because it is less relevant/demonstrative of the floods (of course im biased since I was the photographer of the image of concern). Thanks. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by RLCQuan (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Axe to grind

Regarding your comment at ANI insinuating I have an axe to grind against Sandstein. I don't beleive sandstein has ever done anything to me personally to justify that comment. I have a problem with Admins that use their admin tools like a mallet to bludgeon other users. I find it especially troublesome when they do it under the pervue and protection of the Arbitration committee and apparently under immunity from community action. So no, I don't have an axe to grind with him, I do however have a major problem with how he wields the tools the community entrusted him with and the poor judgement he has repeatedly shown in how he "judges" cases. That is apparently what we get when we allow an actual lawyer to be a Wikilawyer. Kumioko (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Gasp & Nod

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Because <gasp>, that was brilliant and I am a little in awe <nod> of how well you articulated it all. I am not used to handing out barnstars. They seem a little fluffy to me. But then again... <gasp, nod>. I think the entire debacle of which I speak effectively came to an end with your rather piercing and insightful commentary. I noticed. Well done. KDS4444Talk 10:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thanks! That AFD is just... man. It should be bronzed and placed on a mantle somewhere. Resolute 13:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reconfirmation proposal

Regarding your comment on how often an admin can undergo a reconfirmation process, note the proposal as currently written limits the number of reconfirmations to one. isaacl (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, yeah. I actually did read the proposal, most of it obviously just filtered right out the back of my mind. Facepalm . Thanks for the note! Resolute 02:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Factual errors being introduced

Could you kindly keep an eye on these edits? He/she is introducing mass factual errors. Thanks. ChakaKong^talk 18:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it yesterday. One of their changes they said it was based on the pre-game introductions on TV prior to the Stanley Cup Finals. I think the mistakes are being made in good faith... it seems like they are confusing hometown with birthplace. Resolute 21:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think it's vandalism. It's just a pain in the ass reverting them all. ChakaKong^talk 23:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes ArbCom case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 31, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Willie Huber

Howdy, Resolute. Thought I'd run this by you - I've run in on the Willie Huber article with possible family members of his, who keep adding the list of those that he "left behind" when he died, plus adding unsourced info about the cause of death. Extra eyes may be an idea before this gets turned into a family memorial. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Psychology templates

Hi, since you've been involved in past discussion on this topic, you may be interested in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Review_of_navigational_templates. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lanny McDonald

No problem, I will take another look and comment at the FAC. I may wait to let other people jump in first, but I will certainly pop over soon. As I recall, there was not a lot wrong with it! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Johnson

Hi Resolute, I was asked to revert a move you made last year here. Since the page was moved as a result of a RM I don't think it should be reversed without discussion. Feel free to start a new RM if you feel the actor shouldn't be considered the primary topic. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carolina Panthers/archive1

Thank you for your input; just to let you know, I've addressed all of the issues you noted. Toa Nidhiki05 01:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed the new issues you noted. Toa Nidhiki05 18:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nenshi Vs Ford: in Nenshi article

Actually Resolute you're right. Upon reading it, it is a strong anti-ford bias. I intended to use this section as a comparison, because it's mentioned in the news. I just though it would be a unique flavour to the Nenshi administration. If I can be premitted to edit it so that it's more factual. It might look like a colourful section to the article. I'll get right on this. Basically I wanted to capture a unique piece of Nenshi, as it's very unusual for mayors to be compared, especially from two distant cities. I mentioned Ford's controversies because I though it would be contrasting the Nenshi vs Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 22:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes, if you could take a look at them. If not then we could always just delete this section altogether.

-Sammycat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

please take a look at the changes I made in response to your request- Sammycat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Try it now please. Oh I seem to have made a referencing error, and I don't know where. My lappy haunted by glitch grimmlims the cursor jumps about and types in something or erases text. So it must have glitched out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 23:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for fixing the error. Does the section look ok?- Samcat

Until you review it again, will posted up indefinatly? -Sammy cat

DYK for Fredrik Pettersson

Orlady (talk) 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom shop closed

I see you adding to the workshop, and I hesitate to reply there because the closing date was 7 August. What can we do? I posted on its talk. Perhaps you can help there "how to determine consensus". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

GAN

Hey Resolute, I believe it was you, but if not, forgive me, who asked me to do some HighBeam research on something hockey-related and said you would do a GA review for me at some point. I have one pending on baseball player Ben Revere. If you don't mind, I would appreciate it, but if not, please don't feel obligated. No hurry either. If you get a chance. Thanks. Go Phightins! 12:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Resolute. When you moved Houston Aeros to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Houston Aeros" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I made the move then got busy. Probably should have waited until I had time to deal with the redirects, but I'll fix em. Thanks, Resolute 22:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

NHOCKEY

Is there a past discussion that concluded that criteria 1 and 2 apply to leagues in any given country? If so and you know where it is, please point me to it, and what do you think about making NHOCKEY explicitly state such? Also if so, want to start and play within a professional or highest level of competition league in Liechtenstein, Andorra or one of the other European microstates to start paving our way to being immortalized on WP? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can recall, though I do know when we were drafting the criteria that articles such as that were not intended. Unfortunately, we failed to anticipate an editor like Dolovis, who came along and used NHOCKEY as an excuse to create literally thousands of crap articles because he needs to be the starter of a page to feed his ego. I've proposed tightening the rules, but he and Hockeyben pretty much prefer Wikipedia be a dumping ground of junk. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia has given SNG's godlike status, and even when an SNG explicitly says that WP:GNG must be passed, these editors ignore that and AFD closers often tend to vote count when it comes to SNG vs. GNG. It doesn't help when I see !votes from accounts like Outreels, who seems a rather obvious sock of someone. Resolute 13:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

This reeks of gaming the system and Outreels definitely reeks like a moldy old sock. Five top professional leagues are listed within NHOCKEY criteria #1. With the NHL and WHA existing at the same time in both Canada and the US, it is clear that the intent was top pro leagues "worldwide" and not "by country". If the intent truly was "by country", than arguably the WHA would have been excluded in favour of the NHL despite it undeniably being one of the top pro leagues in the world at that time. Under that scenario, players in top pro leagues in the non-traditional hockey countries of the Netherlands, the UK, etc. being more notable than WHA players would be absolutely absurd. Eredivisie by comparison to the WHA and the four others listed is a bottom pro league; no question. On the surface, I would say Dolovis' track record of +4,200 article starts would be impressive if it weren't for his comparatively low-proportioned total edit count in the high 37,000s. Having a rate of 11 new articles for every 100 edits certainly says a lot about his motivations. Makes me wonder what his actual percentage is with started articles that have since been deleted. Hwy43 (talk) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Not as high as you would hope. I disagree with Hockeyben and Ravenswing on the idea of giving a free pass despite a lack of RS coverage based on the arbitrary criteria, quite strongly, but I respect that they are honest in their viewpoints. I pick my fights carefully - the two nominations I made I came across only because I encountered a couple dozen during an unrelated cleanup task - and even then I don't always win. C'est la vie. There's no shortage of abandoned, unmaintained, out of date articles on Wikipedia, so it is hard to lament too much if Dolovis' only goal in wikilife is to reach for the lowest hanging fruit possible and add to the pile. In a lot of ways, that is our fault for poorly drafting NHOCKEY to begin with. Though it's predecessor was even more lenient. It was basically "has played professionally". But I actually understand the motivation. I remember a time when we celebrated that someone had started an article for every player on one team, Washington, iirc. It got me focused on doing the same for the Flames, and the rest of the teams followed. But the exciting time in Wikipedia's history, where it was easy to create articles on important things, has long since passed. I went from article creator to featured content writer, but not everyone can do that. He's basically prospecting for gold, hoping that one of these players hits it big so he can claim to have started the article on a famous player even as dedicated writers actually put the real work into them. Resolute 04:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for criticizing me. It's much appreciated. Furthermore, you are incorrect in stating that I prefer Wikipedia to be a "dumping ground of junk". I want Wikipedia to include as many notable topics/articles as possible. And it is my firm belief that players who have played in a fully-professional league, regardless of country, should be included in the encyclopedia. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is fine and dandy, but the articles still have to meet notability guidelines. And when a player fails WP:GNG, then what one believes should be included is irrelevant. When there is little more than routine coverage of a player, they simply aren't notable. As a consequence, these articles cannot be expanded into anything worthwhile. So yes, despite your protests, your position with respect to some of these articles amounts to little more than preventing us from cleaning out the landfill. Resolute 16:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks on other editors who do not share your opinions is uncivil. If you are troubled that Wikipedia gives to much weight to SNG's, why not take your concerns to The Village Pump so it can be properly addressed by the community? Dolovis (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't you have more worthless crap to create? Resolute 04:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You really need to learn the difference between a personal attack and criticism. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Readership

Hey Resolute,

You mentioned you used to keep a track of readership stats--what Million Awards do I owe you? It sounds like Flanders Field is one at least, yes? I may come to you soon "organically" in any case, but my method's very gradual (looking at popular pages by WikiProject when I have time), so no promises as to when that might happen. Anyway, thanks for your interest in the award, I've appreciated your comments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Half Million Award

Great! This deserves its own header:

		The Half Million Award
		For your contributions to bring In Flanders Fields (estimated annual readership: 507,000) and Terry Fox (estimated annual readership: 700,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Half Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing In Flanders Fields to Good Article status.

This editor won the Half Million Award for bringing Terry Fox to Good Article status.

Thanks for taking on these high-profile topics; even a Yankee like me knows Flanders Fields. (And about half my GAs would win the 250 total award, too, btw. ) -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Redact

Hi Resolute, would you mind redacting the personal info (email and phone number) recently placed on my talk page please? Not sure of the process to request such, so I hope this isn't out of turn. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Done! You're always free to edit out the personal details yourself in cases like that, but you'd need an admin to delete the revision history, which I have also done. If it is urgent and/or requires suppression so that even admins cannot see it, contact the oversight team. Incidentally, I can still see the revision history, so if you do want to contact that gentleman, let me know, and I can email the details. Cheers! Resolute 13:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted the revision history deleted to suppress the information for the IP's benefit.
Also, thanks for the offer, but I won't be contacting this person. Got to maintain boundaries and such. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

New proposal regarding Wer900 at AN/I

In an effort to resolve the discussion at AN/I regarding Wer900, I have offered a new proposal at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative proposal: Restriction on venues for complaints. Since you have weighed in on previous proposals regarding this user, I am notifying you of the new one in case you wish to opine. Regards, alanyst 18:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gary Roberts (ice hockey)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gary Roberts (ice hockey) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gary Roberts (ice hockey)

The article Gary Roberts (ice hockey) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gary Roberts (ice hockey) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Stalking another user edits

How do you know if a user stalks another user's edits? I am still not clear about it because I had the feeling that another user stalked on my edits a couple of months ago and these edits were meant to agitate and drive me away from any productive edits. Clarifying it would be welcome because looking at the talk page for Ottawa, I realized that one user was blocked for stalking since he/she mass reverted each edit that one user made. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case, behavioural evidence based on UrbanNerd's latest IP's contribution history. UrbanNerd has been in conflict with Moxy for some time, and seems insistent on perpetuating it through his indefinite block. That's annoying in and of itself, but to be foolish enough to go and revert several of Moxy's edits on pages UrbanNerd doesn't usually visit, including one of Moxy's own subpages was particularly dumb. Resolute 03:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I realized that another user has stalked on my edits for at least two months and decided to revert all my edits in 1-2 days claiming that I am pushing for colours on the climate box that the user does not like, even though most users do not really care about it. On the edit summary, he/she used he same message "removal of non-standard colours added by user:ssbbplayer" to imply that I am the one who added these colours to give the impression that I am the only editor that adds these colours and no one else is, which is not true since it has been used in many articles by other editors, way before I started editing. During those 2 months, I have been trying to improve the climate data (which most users would be happy with since I often see the climate section to be one of the most under-edited parts, which means vandalism can persist for a long time) such as using more reliable sources, reverting unsourced changes, and making the data more accessible and easier to read and detect vandalism in the data, not just try to mass change the colours in every city article as much as I can and do nothing else with the data. This user then sent a warning to my talk page, claiming that if I do not stop this, he/she will threaten to block me from editing further by creating a discussion on me. He/she could have done the same action to others since other editors edit in a similar fashion to me but decided to pick on me. It seems like this user was more interested in stopping me, even though other users have praised me for being an asset to this project (especially for the climate data in certain countries and cities which was non-existent, poor quality or was vandalized for a long time before I edited and fixed them). Even when I tried to address my concerns on the relevant talk pages, whenever I try to propose or comment, he/she calls my proposals wrong, or that my opinions hold no weight/does not matter or calls it an attempt to push my own values. Even other users have warned him/her about it in the past. Given that this user has had a history of edit wars with other users on other articles and stalked on me for 2 months, is this a form of harassment and should be reported to ANI? I want to make sure that this is not a mundane concern I am reporting to. This is to not punish an editor or to pick on him but to make sure that this user does not do it again. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI is for current incidents, and that colour dispute happened a few months ago, I believe. Given how far in the past it is, I would probably just let it go, but if you see the editor doing the same, or see that they have been taken to ANI (or a similar forum) for similar behaviour, then this can certainly be mentioned as backaground info/pattern of behavour. Resolute 13:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will let it go. This can be useful information in reporting misconduct of editors with solid proof. Thanks for the advice. At least my good deeds are not being punished and I can continue my normal editing behavior. Ssbbplayer (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

SPI question

Seeing this, I wonder if it is too late to undertake a SPI to confirm the suspected link between the banned user and the banned PhilthyBear and its socks. Although you said there that "3 years is well beyond the stale range for a CU", are there other ways to positively confirm the link? An interesting pattern was observed a few months before the UrbanNerd was finally banned. His first ever edit, and the first ever edits by Po'buster and NationalCapital, were all to their respective user pages edits after creating their accounts. Unfortunately, the first UrbanNerd edit is concealed or forever lost as a result of his user page being deleted due to an attack at another editor. As an admin though, is it possible you can still see the first edit to confirm the pattern? Hwy43 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a CU, so only they could definitively confirm if the technical data for the PhilthyBear account matches UrbanNerd, but based on my understanding of CU, it is likely that the technical data would be gone/stale, and a link could be found via behavioural evidence only. Looking at UrbanNerd's deleted user page, his first edits were (like NationalCapital) to create userboxen related to places of interest. Notably, he expressed an interest in the US, Canada, Georgia, Illinois, Texas, New York and Ontario. Compared against NationalCapital's userboxes, which expressed interests in Ontario, Staten Island (i.e.: New York) and being from the US but living in Canada, I would take that as evidence they are the same. It probably wouldn't be hard to quickly compare editing patterns and talk page behaviour to throw into evidence in a SPI that would link the two and get UrbanNerd and his latest IPs tagged and blocked. Resolute 14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

And created: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Resolute 23:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. As for behavioural evidence, see my posts at User talk:Bearcat#National Capital Region population; particularly the third post where User:PhilthyBear, User:NationalCapital and User:UrbanNerd were all advancing the unreferenced National Capital Region population in multiple locations. User:Po' buster advanced the same as well. Also, there are more IPs to add to the list at the SPI, IMO, based on User:Moxy's observations, with two others missing from the early stages of the ongoing IP-driven Ottawa edit war. When I have a chance, I'll drop a line at the SPI. Hwy43 (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There are six IPs that Moxy has noted, but the first two were already identified and confirmed in previous SPIs, so I didn't include them in this one. Resolute 00:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Hwy43 (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Bizarre that there has been no action on the SPI yet. The few I've observed in the past have been completed quite quickly. Hwy43 (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Another IP has emerged at Ottawa. I'll add it to the SPI. Hwy43 (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Opened FAC review for 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final

Just wanted to let you know that I've started an FAC review for 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final. As you may remember, you were nice enough to do the GA review of the article back in September of last year. Unfortunately it has taken me over a year to dedicate enough time to this article to feel comfortable nominating it for FAC. If you have time, would you mind reading the article again and providing additional feedback for it's improvement (or support for it's promotion). Thank you. --SkotyWA^T_C 00:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thank you so much for taking the time to go through the article again and provide additional feedback. I believe I've addressed all of your comments/concerns, so when you get a moment, please head over to the review page and strike all the comments that I've addressed to your satisfaction. --SkotyWA^T_C 06:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

John Edward Brownlee

Hi Resolute,

I noticed that you have been involved with the John Edward Brownlee articles in the past and I thought that you might be interested in the current featured topic candidacy for these articles. Any constructive comments you would be willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Dany Heatley

Can you keep an eye on or lock down the Dany Heatley page? there seems to be some persistent vandalism going on from multiple IPs. Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I go away for one hour... Protected for a week. Resolute 21:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Wayne Hall (ice hockey)

You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Hall (ice hockey). I think this article represents an excellent opportunity for you to demonstrate the usefulness of your “extensive personal library, including a book that profiles every player in NHL history up to 2003, coupled with the abundance of online sources, newspaper archives ... [to] show a GNG pass on an NHL player without breaking a sweat.”[16] Cheers!

I am trying to locate the Players book you have referred to which documents every NHLer from 1917 to 2003. Can you give me the name of the author and ISBN? Thanks. Dolovis (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It is Players: The ultimate A–Z Guide of everyone who has ever played in the NHL by Andrew Podnieks. ISBN 0-385-25999-9. The Calgary Public Library system has several copies, but I finally bought my own through Abe Books. Remarkably cheap. In the specific case of Wayne Hall however, the entry is comically short and would qualify only as trivial. Like all situations, the higher up the chain you went, the more detailed the entry. Resolute 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I have found factual errors in other hockey books by Podnieks, causing me to question just how reliable of a source anything authored by him might be; but I will give it a look. Thanks for the info. Cheers. Dolovis (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think he is more prone to errors than other researchers of old hockey history, but you are right that care is always warranted when using sources. I learned that early on with the Calgary Tigers and things that several books said about the team's origins that were directly contradicted by newspaper archives from the period. Resolute 22:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Pepsi Center

The official format for Pepsi Center in Denver is without "the" in front of it. In Denver, saying "the Pepsi Center" sounds as ridiculous as saying "the Fenway Park," "the Wembley Stadium," or "the Facebook." For your reference: http://www.pepsicenter.com/arena-info/pepsi-center/arena-facts/ Denverjason (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC) denverjason

Saddledome and wrestling

The wrestling venue categories were yet another category tree dumped on Wikipedia by some editor, who apparently expected other editors to expend the effort to actually populate the categories, all the while grabbing that false glory for creating the category or whatever the case may have been. Ever watch Night Shift? I tend to feel like Henry Winkler dealing with Michael Keaton all the fucking time on here. Anyway, this was brought to the attention of WP:PW, who didn't quite get around to developing consensus on what is or isn't a notable wrestling venue for the purposes of the categories. Lacking that, I've been populating the categories based upon the venue playing host to a notable wrestling event as defined by placement in Category:Professional wrestling events. If you have problems with that, come up with a better solution. A related category (for Monday Night Raw venues) was previously deleted because it was considered a bit hazy and perhaps too ill-defined.

Maybe I need a break because I'm seeing too many "I can't get my dick hard unless I trash your work"-type edits. See Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time for what I'm talking about here. The popularity of Calgary boys such as the Hart family, Dynamite Kid, Davey Boy Smith, etc. in Calgary allowed for wrestling to become large enough to be held at the Saddledome, such as In Your House 16: Canadian Stampede and earlier Stampede Wrestling megacards. Big difference between that and the weekly Friday night shows at whatever horse barn they performed in over the years. So, it depends upon whether you view the In Your House event being held there as strictly incidental, or whether it was due to the intense fan interest created in Calgary by Bret Hart's star power at the time (think the "U.S. versus Canada" thing they were doing, for example). Like I said, if you have a better solution than trashing someone else's contribtions, please offer it to WP:PW. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 00:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:OC#VENUES. As a general rule, we don't categorize by one-off events. And like it or not, the fact that WWE comes around to Calgary once every year or so does not define the building as a "professional wrestling venue". WWE is simply one of a multitude of events that periodically book the facility when it is not hosting hockey, lacrosse or concerts. Also, the RAW category wasn't deleted because it was "hazy", it was deleted because it was overcategorization. This is merely a more broadly defined incident of overcategorization. Resolute 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I see that you bit on WP:PW, so I will continue there if necessary. Right now, I want to finish and leave to go get something to eat. I took the chance on populating a category structure, in spite of these categories closely mirroring other categories which have been deleted in the past. The link you provide in your reply makes that point even clearer. WWF/E and other modern-day promotions have changed the rules on what makes a venue notable for professional wrestling. I still contend that events of historical significance to two different wrestling promotions have been held at the Saddledome. OTOH, the WP:PW regulars appear thus far to be of the opinion that hosting PPV events make a venue notable, whereas weekly wrestling matches in a certain venue is "routine" and therefore inherently non-notable. To the latter, try making such a claim WRT either Fort Homer W. Hesterly Armory or Mid-South Coliseum with a straight face to someone who knows any better. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 04:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No, the WWE and others certainly have not "changed the rules" as far as I am concerned. I realize that in your WWE bubble that the view is different, but when looking at the building's history as a whole, this category is no different than Category:Monster truck venues or Category:Nickelback concert venues would be. It's just an event infrequently booked on a one-off basis. And I am far less concerned about what WP:PW would think than I am WP:CFD. Resolute 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup, in which you reached round 2. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 13:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Seattle Sounders FC Barnstar
		For your help reviewing and suggesting improvements to 2011 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, both in the GAC review and the FA review, on it's way to becoming a featured article. Thank you!. SkotyWATC 18:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In all its insane glory

I would have replied to you on the talk page, saying that you, an opponent of the proposal, had provided more information than the proponent. However, then another editor referred to the OP as a troll, which is largely true, and so I decided to wait on feeding the troll. Thank you for providing the link. If discussion continues, I will ridicule the proposal. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You said that a particular editor had made so many allegations of nefarious behavior that they should be assumed false unless proven true. I agree with your assessment and your comment on the limits of assuming good faith. We were required to assume good faith until it became obvious, first, that he doesn't assume good faith, because he accuses other editors of bad faith, as well as of things that are not true, and, second, that it is no longer necessary to assume good faith on his part. Unfortunately, he has managed to stay on the light gray side of name-calling, and hasn't gotten to be actually blockable, just a bitter cynical nuisance with bizarre ideas. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. And in fact, the last time I saw him at ANI, I argued against a block/ban IIRC. I find the behaviour to be something along the lines of "old wikipedian yells at clouds", and effectively harmless in most instances. Resolute 02:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reward_board#As_we_are_going_to_keep_this.2C_do_we_need_to_tighten_the_criteria_a_bit.3F

Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Paul Henderson

Hey. I'm pretty busy at the moment so don't know how I'll go finding time for a review. I'll try to find an hour, and if I can I'll give it a read through. - Shudde ^talk 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hold On...

If the MLB is a major league then that means the NHL lockout of 2004-2005 was the second in professional history after the MLB lockout of 1994-1995. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

MLB's labour stoppage of 1994-95 was actually a players' strike. However, the statement you changed was that the 2004-05 NHL lockout resulted in the first cancellation of a complete season. The 1994 baseball strike did cancel the playoffs, but not the entire season. Cheers! Resolute 01:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I just realised that the MLB begins in April. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert Reichel

Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jamie Macoun

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hey. Congratulations on the Paul Henderson article; it was a pleasure to read and it's great to see it pass FAC. I was hoping you'd be able to pass your eyes over Arthur Gould (rugby union) and provide some feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1? Understand if can't, but would really appreciate any feedback. Cheers. - Shudde ^talk 10:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet of Levineps

Recently, User:Oriole85 (contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps (contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Gaelic Calgarraidh

Though the Gaelic speaking population of Calgary is now very small, the name itself is a Gaelic name. The man who named the city was a Gaelic speaker himself. Hence - it is more relevant than Japanese, Russian or Samoan because those languages have nothing to do with the naming of Calgary, given that the language that the name "Calgary" originates from IS Gaelic. As long as it is referred to in the article itself at some point that is fine, but I object to your dismissal of Calgary's Gaelic heritage. It would be akin to belittling the English heritage of Boston. Indeed, Calgary is one of the largest cities in North America that has a native Scottish/Canadian Gaelic name, and undoubtedly the most famous. I would struggle to think of any others besides, say, Dunedin in Florida or similar.

That is of course not the place for the Gaelic name, not at the very top of the article, (a Native American name really ought to be there) but this is important to the heritage of Calgary nevertheless.--Breatannach (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Grey Cup host venues

Template:Grey Cup host venues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. 117Avenue (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL

Wikipedia editors are *so* easy to set off. Enjoy your busywork, mindless revisions and admonishment of people who really don't care what you have to say one way or another. 206.75.153.38 (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite a few wasted words for someone who professes not to care. Methinks the king doth protest too much. Resolute 21:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sidney Crosby

You undid my edit regarding Crosby being widely regarded as one of the best hockey players of all time, which was well sourced. It is literally impossible to watch, listen, or read media regarding hockey without hearing that Crosby is one of the best players of all time. Additionally, as of the end of last season is ranked 4th all time in points per game. Can you explain why you are undoing this edit?(talk) 8:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Reg Sinclair

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Roy Conacher

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 29, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete a redirect I created

Hi Resolute, could you delete the 2012–13 Whitecourt Wolverines season redirect I created last year, or do I have to go through RfD? I made it in good faith as the eventual sub-page of the team's inaugural season, to which I later learned (through you no less) that specific season articles aren't the norm for junior team articles and don't survive AfD. I further edited Whitecourt Wolverines to be less granular per your suggestion in the same discussion and there is no longer a targeted "Inaugural season" section within the article. So on both accounts, among other reasons, there is no need for a redirect for the inaugural season or any season for that matter. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I saw this and took care of it. Since you were the only author of the redirect then it can be speedy deleted per G7. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I love it when I don't have to do the work!  :) Resolute 14:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (and now I have to find something else for Resolute to do). Hwy43 (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Damnit! I'm plenty busy working on a mediocre finish in the stub contest already! Resolute 14:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You can totally redeem yourself by speedily deleting this redirect per G7 (accidentally created this article at its unpluralized title). ;o) Hwy43 (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I could, but it is a plausible search term. No harm in leaving it. Resolute 15:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Damn, I guess I can't claim a perfect year of editing with no errors if this evidence remains. Oh wait... Merry Christmas! Hwy43 (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Errr, it wasn't me?

I don't know why I was warned of vandalizing - I never have attempted to even edit a Wikipedia article. I feel uncomfortable having you threaten to ban me for something I didn't do. What can I do to avoid this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.184.3 (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If it wasn't you, then you must be on a dynamic/shared IP, as this address was used to continue an exceedingly tedious vandalism campaign yesterday. If you wish to avoid this, I recommend registering an account. That ensures that you only see messages directed at yourself, not others who might happen to have been assigned the same IP address at various points in time. Resolute 03:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You know ...

... I have to thank you. You've been a vocal opponent of the 100-games standard since Day One, and you've fought your corner, no error. But never once have I known you to flout the guideline, pretend it wasn't there or lie about it. Under the circumstances, that can't be taken for granted, and that's one of the reasons you're one of the WikiProject members I most respect. Just sayin'. Ravenswing 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. I am amused to read that I originally argued against three seasons as being too low a bar, and we ended up with barely a season and a quarter instead. C'est la vie. Actually, all of those archives are interesting to read. It was a different project back in '07! Now get off my lawn! Resolute 16:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am actually surprised the number never did increase. But I suppose most editors used common sense that if they couldn't find sources to write some actual biographical information about the player then they probably shouldn't create the article so it wasn't a problem until the last few years. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Mm ... honestly, with Dolovis' BS, I'm seriously wavering on the number, and am thinking of proposing a revision to criterion #3: "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in top-level minor leagues or second tier national leagues;" 200 games represents three seasons and would eliminate some of the BS sub-stubs. Rolling the "preeminent honors" clause into criterion #3 would also cover the possibility of someone setting the AHL on fire one year and have his career end the next, situations for which GNG-worthy coverage could result. I expect something like this -- especially with me being a staunch defender of the 100-games standard -- would fly with you guys. Whatcha think? Ravenswing 01:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I would support that so long as the German, Slovak, and Swiss top leagues were then placed into criterion 1. 200 games for the presumption of notability for three of the highest-level leagues in the world is too steep for me. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, can you demonstrate that the reliable sources exist to justify that presumption? Resolute 02:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering the fact that these leagues are hugely popular within their respective countries (heck, the NLA and DEL rank first and second respectively in Europe when it comes to attendance), it is easy to presume that sources would exist for the players who play any number of games in them. Which is what GNGs stand for in the first place: indicating whether there is likely to be coverage of a player who has participated in a certain league. And with that said, what is the justification for ranking them below leagues such as the Czech Extraliga and SM-Liga? Believe me, I am no fan of the numerous barebones stubs Dolovis has created on semi-pro North American players in particular, so I am in favor of having implemented a more specific notability guideline, this is just one of the several quibbles I have with the way it is currently laid out. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 03:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

But again, attendance doesn't equate to news coverage. Do the papers in their countries cover the sport much. An example of what I mean could be the Winnipeg Jets and the Los Angeles Kings. The Jets have the lowest attendance in Canada I believe and the Kings being recent Cup winners have a pretty high attendance. The coverage the Jets get in the media completely blows away the coverage the Kings get. (its the nhl so they all get enough to be notable obviously. just using an example with known teams on how attendance doesn't equate to news coverage). Remember its not just the stars in the league that have to be covered. Its the 4th line player who gets 200 games over 5-10 year career that has to be covered. I am sure the stars in those leagues are probably covered in papers there, but I really doubt the low level journeymen are. -DJSasso (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Ben, I realize from previous discussions that you believe players in certain leagues should be considered notable simply by having appeared in those leagues. But this is not how Wikipedia works. My views come from considerable experience researching players. I've got about 50 books and 100 media guides that deal with the NHL alone, and there is a vast preponderance of sources to be had that makes it incredibly easy to argue that any one who has played in the NHL is notable per Wikipedia's policies. But even while admitting that there is a language barrier playing a role, I simply do not see coverage that comes close for any other league. The KHL and SHL are unquestionably the next highest leagues up the ladder, but with each league down, it becomes increasingly difficult to find sources. And no sources limits notability. The creation of one-sentence sub-stubs in these leagues is just as problematic as with low-level North American minor leagues. Wikipedia simply is not meant to be a clone of HockeyDB, and truthfully, Dolovis' creations don't even reach that level of usefulness. I personally can't support moving any other leagues up to that tier 1 level without seeing actual hard evidence that they belong. That includes the DEL, NLA and especially the Slovak Extraliga. A lot of players will have the coverage. But I am unconvinced that there are enough to make the presumption on a league-wide basis. Resolute 05:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What Resolute and Djsasso said. The coverage isn't there, the caliber of play isn't comparable. Players move from the SEL and the SM-liiga to the NHL. By contrast, the rosters of the NLA and DEL are studded with aging North American journeymen and AHL washouts.

And that being said, I'm profoundly against any horsetrading here. Either such a change to the criteria is worth making on its own merits or it isn't. Ravenswing 11:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough. At least you guys make convincing arguments and are stating your honest opinions on the matter. I'm not going to openly defy consensus when there clearly is one. It's obvious that my vision for the project contradicts most other people's. So with that said, I'll withdraw my request to have those leagues bumped up another level, though I am still not in favor of implementing the 200-game requirement for criterion 2. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No hey its all good, people with different opinions often cause better solutions. It is always good to hear what everyone thinks. Especially people who specialize in different areas of hockey. Something I always recommend to people who like to include not-notable or nearly not notable subjects in wikipedia, is that they check out hockey.wikia.com because that wiki isn't encumbered by notability and anything related to hockey can be included. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Resolute, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Source of in-depth hockey info?

Hello Resolute, I notice that you're an experienced hockey editor. Might you know of a source that could provide info as in-depth as a player's weight in any given year of his career? I'm interested in understanding how Gretzky's weight progressed during his time as a pro. Thanks! EMP (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Resolute might have a better answer, but the only source I could think of that would have that would probably be the NHL media guides for each of the years he played which of course is offline and hard to look at. I don't know of any that would list his year by year physical attributes that would be online. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, you EC'd me as I was about to say the same thing. The best best for something like that would be media guides for each year, but I don't have any for Edmonton, LA or New York from during Gretzky's career. You could possibly get the last few seasons from old snapshots (if they exist) of the Rangers website from web.archive.org, but your best bet might be to find fans with access to those media guides. Cheers! Resolute 18:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it you might be able to find it on hockey cards as well. So if you were to search the web for scans of the backs of hockey cards you might find the info. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much for the info --very kind. I did see some WG hockey cards online that were helpful in supporting what other sources say. I did eventually manage to find some info in this area after trying quite a few search terms with Google Books and HighBeam research. You have me on the lookout for media guides also, which I'm sure would be a great source. EMP (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mm, I'm coming late to the party here, but one consideration is that player heights and weights are notoriously inaccurate, and often exaggerated by player agents trying to keep players from being stigmatized as too small. I remember my bemusement upon meeting players at a season ticket holders reception, and seeing Rob DiMaio, who was listed throughout his career as being 5'10", 190. Aside from the improbability of a 37 year old playing at the same weight as he was listed as a teenager, that was nonsense; I'm 5'10", and the only way DiMaio could reach that height was standing tippy-toe while wearing his skates; he was 5'7", 160-someodd at best. I would treat any source with suspicion. Ravenswing 20:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

2013 tiebreaker GAC

Thanks for the turnaround, technically past the Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention period but this should be ok. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks so much! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bobby Bauer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bobby Bauer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed, really nice, small article, some small fixes for the most part needed. Thanks Secret ^account 06:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Bun Cook

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roy Conacher

The article Roy Conacher you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Roy Conacher for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teemu Selänne

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Teemu Selänne you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marcel Pronovost

The DYK project (nominate) 01:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your expansion of Marcel Pronovost! Nice work :) Newyorkadam (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Most appreciated, thank you! Resolute 03:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Air mail, sir! (twang)

Hello, Resolute. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Ravenswing 20:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jack Stewart (ice hockey)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jack Stewart (ice hockey) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cloudz679 -- Cloudz679 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Waiting for your feedback. Thanks, C679 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. The bot never told me you had finished the review since it was never put on hold! I'll respond to these comments tonight. Thanks! Resolute 15:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The article Jack Stewart (ice hockey) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jack Stewart (ice hockey) for comments about the article. Well done! C679 07:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Teemu Selänne

The article Teemu Selänne you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Teemu Selänne for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bobby Bauer

The article Bobby Bauer you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bobby Bauer for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

TFA

Thanks. Would be even better if I had time today/tomorrow to actually keep an eye on the article. Seems like I'm running out of FAs, good thing I'm finished my degree and can actually get around to writing something worthwhile. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul Henderson

Two hockey articles on the front page within two weeks. Don't think that happens very often, for any subject. I guess we'll have to start getting some more articles promoted if they want to keep posting them up there. Good job on the article; I'm a little embarrassed to say I forgot that you got it to FA status. Kaiser matias (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! And I was a little surprised at the timing myself. I'll take it! Resolute 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, chop chop on getting an article promoted! lol. I will be aiming fora FAC on Teemu Selanne once (if) he retires after the season. Resolute 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nikolaj Ehlers

Heh, beat me to the prod on this one. Looks like, all hopes aside, Dolovis still has no intention of respecting the guidelines. Ravenswing 19:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bun Cook

The article Bun Cook you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bun Cook for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Was this about me?

Regarding this comment of yours... I don't know if you know that I've been a Wikipedia editor in good standing for over 13 months, but if you're saying I'm a sockpuppet, bring on that sockpuppet investigation, or retract your snide accusation. - Checking the checkers (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Your own talk page says enough. Resolute 23:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

notice

I've mentioned you at WP:ANI, but not in a bad way. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for George Armstrong (ice hockey)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Improvement suggestion

Hey Resolute, hope you are well. Since I see you've been at it recently with the hockey articles again (great job, BTW), is there any chance you could take a look at Henri Richard for a possible improvement/expansion? The whole article is a complete mess and it's kind of sad to see it that way... – Connormah (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just removed a blatant copyvio from that article that's remained since June.... – Connormah (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I might be able to. I was slowly working away at the stub class HHOFers before the Start class ones, but after I finish Martin Gelinas and Kris Russell (which will be just a small expanision/referencing), I might tackle that one. Cheers! Resolute 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! – Connormah (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also another note perhaps in the future, George Armstrong (ice hockey) could use some TLC... On another hand, I was able to find some images for a few of your articles today as well! – Connormah (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice! I was at that Top Prospects game as well but was juggling too many things to stop and get pics of the coaches. Glad someone did! As for HHOFers needing TLC, we've probably about 150 articles that need some major work. At least the upcoming 2014 class is already partially done since Hasek is a FA! Resolute 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also if you haven't noticed me around thus far, according to one of my copyright go-to guys, I was able to upload lots of photos of late 1950s to early 1960s players from hockey cards that had fallen out of copyright - I'm hoping to possibly dig up some more photos that are useable in the near future as it seems we are quite thin on the 50s/60s era of players and it would be really nice to get more photos of them... – Connormah (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

So today I had the chance to expand upon the coaching and early life/career sections of George Armstrong's article. Was wondering if you may be able to sometime within the next few weeks perhaps to expand the section detailing his NHL career? (no rush at all) You seem to be way more adept at condensing and picking things to note from the multitude of sources that are available from the NHL playing time then I am (or may ever) be. I seem to only be good at detailing careers of minor leaguers and NHL one game wonders... If not, I can leave a note at WT:HOCKEY for anyone who may want to take it up and give me a hand! Aiming for a possible DYK or GA at the very least, but the more important part is creating a more comprehensive article which I think is a little less than half done so far. Thanks so much! ps - I see that you may be taking up Richard in the near future as well, that's excellent news! Best, – Connormah (talk) 07:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

On Richard - yup. Looks like a fairly easy GA on that one. Armstrong looks like a good bet too. You're already virtually at the expansion required for a DYK. I'll see about expanding his playing career later today. Should get us over the top. Resolute 15:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That sounds great, thanks! I think it's mainly that which is missing along with a "legacy" section, then it should be good to go after a bit of reorganization. I have a few Google Books sources already cited, one of which has lots of detail on his playing career, but there seems to be a multitude of sources readily available otherwise on his career and legacy. – Connormah (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re'd on my talk, in case you're not watching it. Let me know if you are! – Connormah (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Something's come up at the DYK nom for Armstrong regarding the sourcing, which you may want to take a peek at... – Connormah (talk) 06:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A rather bizarre sourcing question at that. Of course the book source covers the hook fact. That's the entire reason why I put it there. Resolute 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So I'm pondering possibly taking on Moose Goheen sometime in the next few months – perhaps we should collaborate on that one as well? I believe his article is the shortest of all HHOFers we have on here. BTW, let me know when you believe Armstrong to be ready for GA! – Connormah (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Certainly! I've looked at Goheen before as well, but early amateur players can be very hard to get up to the level I prefer. And I will let you know on Armstrong. I still want to get a book from the library (didn't have a chance last weekend) and get that to GAN. It'll probably be my last real editing for a bit. The downside to going on huge editing runs is that I inevitably reach a point where I can't stand to type or look at a source for a while! Resolute 03:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of newspaper sources for Goheen I'm thinking. I have access to Newspaperarchive.com per the EPL here in Edmonton so I can probably help out with that (they have a good selection of US papers). Haven't looked for any bios on Google Books but there could be something there. Another project I was thinking of for the future is Emile Francis – his article is not in great shape for his activities as GM/coach for all the years he's served. Maybe someday; I can sense that one may also be a larger project. And yeah I totally agree with you on taking breaks from writing, they are definitely necessary for me to keep my sanity; I'm probably going to take some time off of it soon - I've been going hard at some stubby Edmonton municipal politician articles lately and I sense that I'll burn out soon... – Connormah (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Those paper archives would be a benefit, definitely. I'm still crippled here in Calgary as most of the microfilm was kept in the basement of the central library and was badly damaged in the flood. Last I checked, they still hadn't reopened that area, and I don't know how much was lost or if it will be replaced. (That said, I should probably check out newspaperarchive.com. I imagine the CPL is a member too.) For player bios, check out The Official Guide to the Players of the Hockey Hall of Fame (Duplacey/Zweig, 2011) or the updated version Hockey Hall of Fame Book of Players (Cameron, 2013). They are ridiculously useful books. Resolute 03:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And as far as articles badly needing improvement goes, I've been trying to get into a good writing zone on Clint Malarchuk, which is in atrocious shape for a while now. Just keep running into writer's block on that one somehow. Resolute 03:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That't quite unfortunate about the microfilm situation. Does the U of C hold the same reels as well? I know here in Edmonton I can go to the Provincial Archives, Rutherford Library at U of A or EPL main branch for a decent collection of newspapers on film. I also have access to the Canadian Newsstand database of Canadian newspapers via the EPL [17] but it woudl seem that that's better suited for tracking down obits and such. The Malarchuk article definitely looks like it could use some work but I was pleasantly surprised to see an image in the article! Alex Delvecchio is another one that is in pretty rough shape IMO - the number of refs on that page is too low for a BLP in my view. Perhaps some day... – Connormah (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Alex Delvecchio is one I have been meaning to make into a good article since I joined Wikipedia way back in 05. So that is definitely one I would like to see boosted. I had been waiting till I could go back to Thunder Bay to hit their archives but who knows when I will get back there again and have time to do it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, if you're ever up for some copyediting/reviewing, in my recent political article writing kick, I've substantially expanded (8x) George S. Armstrong and am pondering a GA (possibly later FA) run on it. I'm a bit weary in the sense that the sources are almost all historical newspapers, but they do get the job done I feel. There's no other bio of Armstrong that I'm aware of other than the Who's who cited already, and I believe this is as comprehensive as the article can get (perhaps with the exception of digging up his obit to see if there's anything else on his early life). – Connormah (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That's actually pretty impressive for a 1910s mayor of what was a small city. Certainly one that can make GA (I'll see what I can do for a copyedit). Off hand though, the lead actually seems a bit too long relative to the size of the article. It might need to be tightened up a little. Resolute 15:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been a bit weary regarding the lead, I'd suspected it may be too long; after all I'll readily admit that I am horrible at writing them. Improvements welcome, of course. Thanks so much. :) – Connormah (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Possibly taking on the Rocket I see? Good luck; and don't hesitate to ask me for anything should you need it! – Connormah (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. It kind of hit on me in researching for Henri that I should be able to get Maurice as well. Also need to add to my collection of national hero FAs.  ;) Just doing the prep work now. Not sure if I'll do the actual writing now or in a couple weeks. Ordinarily I hate trying to rewrite articles with a great deal of content, but this one pretty much needs to be blown up and rewritten from scratch anyway. Resolute 02:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's always great to add to our potential Canada Day TFA cabinet! Taking a glance at the article I do tend to agree with you... the sourcing as it stands right now also seems quite weak. Perhaps some of the sources on Richard may help out for Henri as well.. ;) – Connormah (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That is actually what pulled me in this direction. I figured some of the early life info from the books on Maurice's life would also be suitable for Henri. Resolute 02:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Decided to take up Sprague Cleghorn for some improvements (possibly to GA). My first go at writing a full hockey bio, I guess I'll see how it goes... – Connormah (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know when you're done with it. I'll give you a copyedit/pr before a GA run. Resolute 14:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitting slight writer's block on this one... hoping that doing a few more obscure politicians may clear it up... Connormah (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

'Grats on the Pronovost GA as well! Two more to cross off on the Hockey Mountain page... Connormah (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you! I didn't even notice it passed until you mentioned it. All of these auto-generated templates run together! Resolute 01:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Cleghorn, is there any chance that you may have any sources for the attempts to transfer him to Hamilton? I can't really find much, though I note that this may reference it. Hoping to finish off in the next few days. Connormah (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Cameron, Steve, ed. (2013), Hockey Hall of Fame Book of Players, Richmond Hill, Ontario: Firefly Books, ISBN 978-1-77085-224-2, page 169: "Rights transferred to Hamilton by NHL, April 6, 1921; traded to Montreal Canadiens by Hamilton for Harry Mummery and Amos Arbour, November 26, 1921." I haven't checked, but you might be able to find a newspaper story from the Montreal Gazette or Ottawa Citizen on news.google.com/newspapers. Check if there are papers from April 6-7-8, 1921. Resolute 01:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually think I have the bulk of the brunt down on his NHL playing years, though I may check for a couple more things (seems still a bit brief). When you get the time could you maybe do some copyediting and/or some checks from your sources if there is anything more to add? My sources are primarily listed here (BTW - I still need to devote some time to cleaning up the ref section). Also if you could, can you maybe take care of a "playing style" section as well (multiple quotes in my books sources) as revisions to the lead (two things I don't really have much confidence in my ability to do)? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 07:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so I think I've completed majority of the article, as well as cleaned up the cites. So if you could look at copyedits along with the playing style/legacy along with lead whenever you get the chance, that'd be great. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned it to User:PM800 but also thought I'd bring it up here - Gus Mortson may be an easy DYK if you're ever looking for a brief writing project. The article is in pretty shameful state.. Connormah (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Just put it up! Connormah (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Just shot you an email --Connormah (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Armstrong (ice hockey)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article George Armstrong (ice hockey) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll also watch as promised! – Connormah (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Three GA reviews at once? That escalated quickly! Hilariously, all three will probably resolve right before round 2 of the WikiCup. Guess I do need to get editing more... Resolute 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Best of luck on the other two as well, looks like you'll have your hands full! FWIW I thoroughly enjoyed the Pronovost article, great work on that as well! Another great addition to the 1930s/1920s born HHOFer growing GA class! – Connormah (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martin Gélinas

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Martin Gélinas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)