User talk:Resolute/Archive 10

Your GA nomination of Marcel Pronovost
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marcel Pronovost 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 -- 23:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Belated congratulations
Was great to see Paul Henderson as TFA recently and I'd been meaning to send you a congrats since then. It's always nice to see an article I've commented on at PR or FAC on the main page. -- Shudde  talk 10:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And appreciate the help getting there. Cheers! Resolute 14:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Triple Gold Club
Greetings, Could I get some help with this dispute please? An IP is insistent on giving undue weight to some early non-members (who likely are not recognized because the early Olympics were only retroactively recognized as the Worlds) and isn't happy with a simple mention of them. -- Scorpion 0422  11:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's not often that I have to fight off Canadian nationalists. That's a new one. -- Scorpion 0422  17:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this so far, but it doesn't look like this guy is going to give up any time soon. It also appears that he has another sock. -- Scorpion 0422  22:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Did you enjoy the game this morning? It was good, but rather anticlimactic. Sweden is a good team, but the emotional investment in them as a rival isn't there. You need Russia or the U.S. for that. The women's game was much better. As for or IP friend, I've been trying to reason with him and he's stopped responding to individual points and has entered the "I give up the arguing but screw you, I'm going to revert you anyway" phase. I highly doubt he's done, so it's pretty much revert (and block) on sight unless he starts discussing first. -- Scorpion 0422  00:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's rather ironic that he whines up a storm about how nobody "owns" the article while he's trying to assert ownership of it. It'll be nice when this tool finds other pastures to crap in. Resolute 15:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He's back and editing other articles. Maybe he's come to realize that it isn't worth fighting over minor things when faced with a ban. Or maybe he's trying to lull us into a false sense of security. I came close to leaving him a message along the lines of "no hard feelings", but it's probably best to leave him alone and not provoke him. -- Scorpion 0422  20:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of George Armstrong (ice hockey)
The article George Armstrong (ice hockey) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:George Armstrong (ice hockey) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcel Pronovost
The article Marcel Pronovost you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marcel Pronovost for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Gould (rugby union) at FAC
Hello again. I'm not sure if you remember the peer review for Arthur Gould (rugby union) a few months ago, but you were generous enough to offer some feedback there. We've now taken the article to FAC (you can see the nom. at Featured article candidates/Arthur Gould (rugby union)/archive1), so please feel free to offer any feedback for us. Thanks. -- Shudde  talk 23:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those comments last week. FruitMonkey was kind enough to reply to your comments. Hopefully they were addressed satisfactorily now, but do let us know if you have anything further to add. -- Shudde  talk 10:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Martin Gélinas
The article Martin Gélinas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Martin Gélinas for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- 23:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Hockey article question
Hi Resolute, I'm a new editor trying to work on Henrik Zetterberg to improve it. I managed to add some recent information and sources, but I'm wondering if it is normal for hockey articles to have the player's NHL career all in one section like that, or can it be broken up into smaller headings? I know it probably depends on how much information is presented, but I imagine there is plenty of information on Zetterberg's career that it could be broken up. Are there some exemplar hockey articles you could point me to so I can see how they're formatted? Sorry if you are not the right person to contact, but I saw your name in the Talk page history and saw that you are involved in the hockey wikiproject and thus are clearly a wise and accomplished individual. --Marten Broadcloak (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Random trolling
I can understand that you are upset at being on the losing side, but pleased don't make personal attacks such as this. Normally I would be bothered, but as you profess to liking a high standard of civility and are the first to complain when others make what you perceive to be attacks please try to live by your own standards.  Giano  15:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That of course is a further personal attack. You must be careful, Gorilla Warfare and her sidekick will block you.   Giano   15:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that is in no way a personal attack. Not to mention users have the right to remove sections on their talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever Giano. It becomes clear that GorillaWarfare attributed far more good faith in unblocking you so quickly than you deserved, since you continue to edit and revert war every time you don't get your way. But since I am apparently making personal attacks, I will add one more: The real tragedy of this debacle is that several members of Arbcom revealed themselves to be absolute cowards with respect to handling your disruption and trolling. They know it, we know it, and you know it.  The longer they allow people like you to behave the way you do, the more they allow drama, disruption, strife and angst to hamper this project.  You are a net negative to this project, and the sooner the committee pulls its head out of the sand and realizes that, the better off Wikipedia will be. Resolute 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

IRC
Hi, several people from the baseball wikiproject are getting together after Wizardman's sudden retirement to figure out a better way to organize the Wikiproject. One of the ideas we came up with is having our own IRC channel to help each other, as well as new users with collaboration and content. If you need help connecting to IRC join. The IRC channel for Wikiproject Baseball is. Thanks Secret account 23:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Me and several others are on right now if you are interested, will take just a few minutes of your time. Thanks Secret account 17:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm at work, and about to head into meetings. Going to have to pass this time around.  Thanks for the invite, however.  Resolute 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Would.nt it be better for the project if you did these things where everyone could help and opine? Giano    (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Cooke
Can you look at Andrew Cooke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeykai (talk • contribs)
 * Vandalism. Dolovis already reverted it back to its original state.  Cheers! Resolute 14:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration request motion passed
An Arbitration Clarification request motion passed. You contributed to the discussion (or are on the committee or a clerk)

The motion reads as follows:


 * By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee, --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Trial newsletter delivery for WikiProject Baseball
Would it be possible for you to test delivering the WikiProject Baseball newsletter? Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 37 for the details. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (Apologies if the following covers stuff you already know:) If I understand the help text at mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage correctly, the literal wikitext to be delivered is entered into an input box. So I think can be entered directly into the input box, and hopefully that will substitute the required text. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With all the trouble you seem to be having, why not just get someone to do it with AWB like most projects do? -DJSasso (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I haven't really been following along on this at all. Not sure what you're ultimately trying to do.  Couldn't this be handled by one of the newsletter delivery bots, on request? Resolute 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the mass message bot is the newsletter delivery bot, replacing (it delivers the Signpost). I did post a request at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders, but since the page has under 30 watchers, I'm not sure how effective it will be. isaacl (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Ok. If nothing happens sooner, I'll see what I can do after work. Resolute 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And it's away. Resolute 00:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! isaacl (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It would probably be beneficial for whomever is the editor of the newsletter to either be an admin or request access to the mass mailer user group. Resolute 00:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question: did you use the "subst:" syntax as I specified above? I agree there should be some users in the mass mailer user group who can deliver the newsletter, but I'm not really clear from the discussion that led to the group's creation what the criteria is to get access. Additionally, I wanted to test the request process as well, to see how well it works in case the usual deliverers aren't available. isaacl (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I simply copied what you gave me. The only change I made was to remove the section header from your template, since the mass mailer form includes a box for the section title which I couldn't leave blank because it doubles as the edit summary. Resolute 00:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Qs & assists
Thanks for entering the discussion at my Talk re whether an editor may revert her/his edits from an article. Wow you have deep technical knowledge re licensing and so on, and it is fascinating to me too and I'm not sure I understand it all. But a simpler interest was the only thing at stake in my case -- reverting said edits, but not with any stipulation or expectation that they cannot be restored by another user. (There was never any intention of the latter, though it seems my removals were interpreted as an effort to make permanent by in particular two editors, one who warned me on my Talk [User:The Bushranger], and one who opened an ANI against the removals [User:Mann jess] -- though the ANI title name was a misnomer since there was no "blanking" done by me that I didn't correct subsequent.) Anyway here is your resolution answer to my Q: IHhardlythinkso can remove their content - but that does not revoke the license, so anyone else can restore same if they so choose and ultimately let consensus decide if it stays or goes. It also becomes a game of judging whether the removal is justified (or G7 applicable) or not and deciding what to do if the latter case. Resolute 13:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC), and I'm not sure I understand it all, but I have some other Qs:
 * 1) Could you confirm for me one additional time (just to be sure) that my recent reverts to, for example, articles Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening were permissable for me to do (and not "illegal")?
 * 2) Assuming permissable, do you think there's any need to ensure that User:The Bushranger and User:Mann jess have a corrected understanding. (Like say, if it happened again, there'd be no block based on Bushranger's previous warning, and no ANI opened by Mann jess again based on edit reverts such as at the two named articles?)
 * 3) If you think those two editors might not understand the revert permissability as you do (specifically e.g. the two named articles), could you help me by correcting their understanding for me? (I'd rather not be the one to initiate those communications. [I can explain why if you like!])

As far as my personal plans after your answers (in case you're wondering), I have no grand plan to make any series of more article reverts. In fact I think I'd like to take a Wikibreak after the current ANI closes, depending. But I may at some future point decide I do want to revert my edits from another article(s). (I can talk more about that if you want to hear it or have Qs.)

Thank you. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My perspective is that they were not necessarily wrong in their views, because they were looking at the entire sequence of events on a practical level rather than merely a technical one. On a couple of the other articles, you blanked, were reverted, blanked again, reverted again, then tried to remove only your own contribtions - in a couple cases with edit summaries that would lead someone to think this was an OWN or POINT situation.  Had I seen the reverts in real time, that would have honestly been my view as well.   So the real issue here isn't the technicalities of the license (of which I don't claim to be an expert, I've simply read parts of it and applied some common sense), but of the message your reverts appeared to project.  In this case, the blanking/removals did reduce the quality of the articles, so even if one can technically remove such once or twice without violating edit warring policies, the perception is that it becomes pointy or vandalism.  So from that perspective, I can't call Bushranger or Mann jess's actions wrong. Usually, if you wish to disengage from an area of Wikipedia, the best solution is to simply walk away.  It leads to far less stress and fewer trips to ANI. Cheers! Resolute 14:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't ask for your view that you just gave. I didn't ask for your evaluation of the impressions you or others made of the few minutes of revert activity and hastily written edit sums. I asked about the future, and specifically the legality or not to revert a set of edits I've made to an article. I didn't ask for your judgement of what transpired in a short time-window during an emotional moment in the past. I asked about conditions regarding revet in the future, for reasons you can't know and shouldn't suppose, because you'd be wrong, from your impressions about a short event that is a dead part of history. I asked about whether I reverted my edits to an article today, or six-months from now, or 2.5 years from now, if that is permitted. And I think clearly it is, by your own words and eval. But now, you're unwilling to say it and confirm it. That's not why I came here, to get your "managerial" control, warning, and councel. I have no need of any of that. You are not my dad, minister, psychologist, boss, or demanding wife. I came to you to clarify that objections "you can't do that!" should I revert a set of my edits to an article, is wrong. It is not for you, or them, to judge or invent your own reasons why I might decide to do that, any more than it is my right to second-guess what is going on inside your own head whenever you might make a permissable edit, decide I don't like the reason that I want to believe you made it for, and cry foul. Your "I can't say they were wrong" is not what I asked. That was the past. My Qs are about future. How do I get through to you and have a fair conversation with you. You've already made your assessment as to permissability of making reverts. I think I understand it. If you're unwilling to repeat it and confirm it, then you're simply just redirecting the conversation because you want to. And that isn't why I came to your Talk. I don't need your advice or councel. If I revert edits from an article I made, it may have something to do with the fact I'm very uncomfortable with formatting, excessive use of bold, excessive use of italic, indenting, sourcing formats, lead content, section organization, and other calls I made as editor when green and less skilled than I am today. It's highly improper for you or anyone else to jump on that and say "Oh, in the past, for a few minutes, that guy was blanking his reverts and claiming ownership, he should have been blocked, but anyway, now 2.5 years later, we must stop him by reverting him again, chastising him, blocking him because he was warned, and take him to ANI because he's still vandalizing articles." You have no right to say you have perfect license to make those assessments and judgements, just because you want to. I didn't ask to get into this territory of discussion with you, Resolute, I didn't ask anything in that line. If I wanted to judge you the way you like to say you can judge me, I could revert all your edits, because you have displayed NOTHERE by fighting with Eric and harassing him on his Talk. You have no right to judge me any more than I have to judge you. There is no doubt in my mind the only reason User:Mann jess is involved at all is due to minor content disputes with me on a couple articles, in which he displayed no discussion sincerity but only a will to force his way through BRRD and IDHT. So now by reverting me it is one-upmanship, personal issue related to his need for dominance to satisfy an editing ego. And that kind of thing is 100% counter WP philosophy, Resolute, and nothing at all to do with interest in encyclopedic articles. His interest in my niche is extremely limited to begin with as well. So it is all personal with him, all "I don't like that guy so will veto what he does if I can" shit. This is proved by his expressed intention to do blind restorations, not based on reviewing edit content, but simply because I as editor am the editor who made a set of reverts. He has no sincere interest in said articles, only in dominating another editor who has offended his ego. And by your saying "I can't say he did anything wrong" based on impressions, fine I'll accept that for those few minutes of reverts, but the motive was still one-upmanship coming from him and nothing more. (You want to talk about impressions? Why are you ignoring a big fat impression of his BATTLEGROUND with me and uncivil Wikipedia actions like edit-warring and IDHT in discussions? I say you're either extremely selective what you like to consider, or prejudiced against whatever I may ask.) As far as User:Bushranger, his statements lead me to believe he would block if I reverted a set of my edits from another article, based on a previous warning that I'm not allowed to. You corrected that view by pointing out an editor is allowed to.


 * Oh God you tire me out, Resolute. You win I guess. (Happy?) Isn't it time you go harass Eric Corbett some more? Or blame him for what Kevin Gorman decides to do? (Is that representative of your twisted logic and sense of fair blame, Resolute? You can't do better than that? I think you can. You're just extremely partisan. And that limits the respect people can have for you, because it makes you oh-so predictable, like a wound-up toy.) You need to step back and reevaluate your conduct, it will mean less drama and less disruption to devoted content editors and therefore the encyclopedia. (Now you have gotten some unsolicited councel from me in a re-directed fashion because I wanted to. How does it feel?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For someone who doesn't appreciate being judged, you sure spend a lot of time judging others. But okay.  I didn't answer your literal question because it was already answered.  CC-BY-SA gives anyone the right to re-use or modify the content so long as they respect the terms of the license.  Outright removal is a modification.  So from a licensing perspective, there is no issue and I expressed that at the ANI and the talk page.  But when you ask me if the other editors were wrong in their actions, the answer to that question requires more than just licensing technicalities.  By necessity, Wikipedia's policies become involved and it is from that basis that I answered. So the "permissability" of your reverts into the future will depend on why you are (or appear to be) reverting, and whether or not your actions improve the articles. So yes, when other editors say "you can't just blank those articles", I can't say they are wrong because from a policy standpoint, they aren't.  You weren't reverting vandalism, nor were you removing information that was BLP violating, obviously incorrect or any number of other valid reasons for removing content.  As to your history with Mann jess, if there is a complaint to be had regarding long term issues between you two, that properly belongs at AN/ANI or RFC/U with diffs of actions that you find troubling.  Ranting at me hardly presses your case forward in that respect, nor does exhibiting grudge behaviour. Resolute 23:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I wanted to be sure about an editor reverting their own copyedits is permissable, because I wanted to ask you to inform the two users named above, who seem to me to not think so. It would be great and beneficial I think, if you messaged them that there is nothing "illegal" about reverting my own edits on technical basis, so they know, and it isn't/wasn't clear to me that they do know that. Regarding the other issue here, the "permissability" of your reverts into the future will depend on why you are (or appear to be) reverting, and whether or not your actions improve the articles., well, clearly you must agree that is more complicated, is judgement-specific, which is always dependent too, on who is doing the judging, their backgound, their involvement with the article, the content area, so on. User:Mann jess has a very limited record editing chess-related articles, and unfortunately too IMO, his evaluations can't be valued very highly -- many edits of his have been low quality, not all but too many, for me to value or trust his judgement/appraisal. Especially that he has a contesting and angatonizing view toward me, opposing me at nearly every turn in articles for every bogus reason. So that should also color his evaluations, since he is tracking my edits and not really involved with the subject matter or shows interest to even know the content of edits he's restoring. That's really bad form in my book, even wiki-hounding. The entire idea that I would make a case for removal of edits, explain my reasons, and so on, doesn't make much sense, when you understand, that nobody has shown to get involved or care outside of an antagonistic editor who hasn't really been involved in the content area, and an admin who's been extremely uncivil toward me (saying "classic narcissist" personal attack against me was "calling a spade a spade") and issued a civility block against me while ignoring the baiting and also attacking me personally himself, and being intentinally dismissive when I tried professionally to get info about the specifics of my block. So that admin's evaluation/judgement too, would clearly be prejudiced and hostile. I have no idea of real WP:CHESS participants ... they are generally few active, and there is much apathy. So if I tried to explain a reversion rationale according to your "depends on why" condition that you've explained, you see now, the only contributors likely at an article Talk would be my hounder Mann jess, and an admin who's been attacking me and can't wait to block again. So I'm wondering how you process that as any kind of fair arrangement, if I reverted my edits, because I'm uncomfortable with them, based on editing conerns like excessive bold, excessive italic, and other writing considerations that are personally embarrassing to me making me cringe when I see them. (Apparently I get to cringe for all eternity?? Because of two foes Mann jess and Bushranger??) I'm still here talking real with you, because I do have some amount of respect for what you might have say in response. (You know that, right?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, for clarity and to repeat, I have never opposed or argued, that a restoration after a revert of my edits, can't stand. It surely can. But the point is, at least right now, if that happened, it wouldn't be on the evaluative basis you're describing -- it would be done "out of hand" I suspect, and blindly. (I haven't even objected to that. The reason I came here is to ascertain those editors know, that I can do that, and their "out-of-hand" restoration is not basis for crying foul and block or initiate another ANI in triumphant mode to kill me.) The point above I tried to make is that if condition that from happening based on convincing the likes of Bushranger and/or Mann jess ahead of time on article Talks, that's an impossible requriement to meet, so shouldn't be suggested by you to be any real condition. But I have another thing too for you, and that is, when User:MaxBrowne deleted a chunck of his content from an article, and it was questioned, an editor explained that it was his additions and he could remove them if he wanted. I previously mentioned that the only sensible interpretation of that to me, is that he wasn't obligated to provide explanation for removing his own edits. But now, I'm not so sure you agree with that. (Do you?) I mean, what, are there four cases here?: 1) an editor reverts a block of his edits without explanation, and it is not deemed vandalism, 2) an editor reverts a block of his edits without explanation, and it is deemed vandalism, 3) an editor reverts a block of his edits after leaving rationale on Talk, it isn't deemed vandalism, and 4) an editor reverts a block of his edits after leaving rationale on Talk, it's deemed vandalism. I guess my concern is, if that's the case, the "deemers" are currently Bushranger and Mann jess, and neither of their opinions should count. But you're telling me they would count. (That does not compute for me. What did I miss?) And, they don't seem currently postured to stop to do any "deeming" in any event IMO, unless you would tell them reverts of my own edits should be part of a process requiring evaluation of said edits. And what I'm confused about is that neither of them are qualified for reasons explained to make said evaluation. Again, thanks for your explain. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are as aware as I am that whether or not someone's opinion "counts" is ultimately determined by the amount of support one has for their position. And that would be either as a result of consensus building on a talk page, or by gaining support of the mob in ANI. I am not familiar with MaxBrowne's edits that you reference, but yes, I would personally prefer explainatory edit summaries at the least if content is removed without the reason being obvious, even when it is one's own content. If for no other reason, it helps frame the nature of the discussion if such changes are disputed.  For the meat of your argument, if you think the restorations of your removals were done "out of hand" or through spite, then really, all I can do is refer you back to ANI or RFCU where you can make a case with diffs.  And while this treads close to the kind of advice you seem to really hate, I would suggest that long diatribes such as the ones you have posted to both ANI and above here are counterproductive.  Even if you are completely correct in your characterization of the other parties to your dispute, you appear extremely hostile, and that won't win over the mob. Resolute 03:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for that sincere answer, I appreciate. When I do self-reverts (single edits), I practically never add an editsum. (Because it equates essentially to "talking to oneself", and that would have to be of total disinterest to any other editors.) But I can see that a chunk of material would be different (especially if it resided in the article for any length of time). But the idea that an editor's removal of their own edits needs comment, seemed questionable to me, and again the MaxBrowne edit reversal and response caused me to think it was distinctly logical that no editsum or Talk page comments were logically required. But I see your view, thanks. I have a personal rule you might know, I'll never open ANI thread. Because I detest the irresponsibilty there -- adding slanderous defaming accusations without any need or requirement to back up, and exploitation of same. Which just doesn't fit in my value system at all. The reason I post at length is because that is my writing style to ensure I'm communiating well, shortening things is hard work and I reserved that labor for article contents. I can see there is a big problem however, since no matter how thorough or well-communicated I am at the ANI, attacks keep rolling in unabated. (I don't see that as reflecting on me necessarily; I'm aware of the nature of ANI, it is a mud-fest venue and brings enemies out of the woodwork.) Posts to ANI have advantage to leave a documentation trail that can be permanently referenced, which is another reason I'm shocked at how irresponsible many editors choose to be there. Drive-by slams. That's juvenile delinquent vandalism stuff, like kids throwing eggs at houses. (This is a serious website?! Huh?) Anyway, I hear you. But do you really think I want to in any way concern myself with making persuasive case to any "mob"? (That would be impossible anyway -- the mob is defined by those editors who already don't like you that come out of woodwork for the mud event -- they wouldn't show up if their minds weren't already made up. Where's persuasion potention in that?) I am not hostile, I have been writing cool and collected to a large extent. But it doesn't mean I don't feel or have emotion. It's all quite disturbing really, facing what I've faced there. I still can't believe such an uncivilized venue is allowed to exist. I'd think it would be a shameful credit to the reputation of Wikipedia. Perhaps Wikipedia needs more knocks, than even Wikipediocracy is capable to give it. When I tell friends some of the experiences I've had here, it is as if they've been forced to smell rotten meat and asked if they want to take a bite. It's so tacky. What if this stuff made major presses? It wouldn't be good. Thank you for being decent, Resolute. You have a good head, me thinks. (So tell me, why can't you see Eric's POV and why do you attack him so? He's a great and good man, and I think you have those qualities too. You are smart enough to see his POV and understand it without needing to harass it. Perhaps you involve yourself for other reasons I don't understand. (Is it a form of socializing with editors you do respect, though you have a different value system you've committed to support? Or is it really serious clash stuff like Palestine–Israel? I think you're too smart for that.) Thanks for all your time & attention here. Smart editors have made me feel good to be on WP to counterbalance the ugly. Signing off now ... Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm back with one more thing, because this is bothersome to me. For the third time now, I've been labelled "classic narcissistic" from that ANI. It's personally offensive -- nobody should have to endure slanders like that on this website. And now the perpetuating editor has rubbed it in by repeating it and rubbing in by explaining in detail how is justified. (Do I have the same ability to go around calling editors that? Without getting blocked? Please answer. I think that is obvious 'no'. So why is he allowed then??) What avenue do I have for this? (I won't open ANI. That is illogical. The PA came from an ANI. How is adding dirt on a wound, going to heal it?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 GA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Roy Conacher. .--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO
Regarding this, status quo means the previous state, which was without these flags. You are more than welcome to try to open up an RfC to change WP:MOSFLAG, but if it were used in a sporting sense, they would all be Canadian flags because that is where they were draft picks, anything other than that indicates the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense (where they are legally from is very much a non-sporting sense, what team they played for would be), which is exactly what WP:MOSFLAG says not to do. If, in your edit summary, you were using the term "status quo ante" to refer to a consensus elsewhere, that would be WP:MOSFLAG, which does not support the inclusion of these flags. Either way, there is no status quo or consensus that warrants including these flag icons in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup

 * Well, eliminated rather than disqualified, but yeah, I hit an editing lull that will likely produce that elimination. C'est la vie. Resolute 16:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Pathetic
Even more so than before, comments like this, especially that edit summary, are not helpful to anyone. I'm done on that talk page for now because it's obvious that productive conversation isn't taking place, and that's "pathetic"? You claimed that there was a growing consensus on the guideline talk page to change the wording of the guideline, so I'm holding off to see if that actually happens, and if not, then the current wording would still apply, and then I'd open a proper RfC to see if it meets the current wording of the guideline. I'm holding off to see if the consensus gets the result you want because if that doesn't happen, then I'd see if it meets the current wording; your reaction to that is surprising. I don't know how you got "forum shopping" from that (it's not), but regardless I would ask that you please not use edit summaries like "pathetic" in the future, there's no reason for that. - Aoidh (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but where did I claim that "there was a growing consensus on the guideline talk page to change the wording of the guideline"? Would you care to back that up with a diff? Regardless, what is frustrating here, beyond your deplorable attitude, is the colossal loss of potentially productive editing time you are causing. Of course productive conversation is not taking place.  What, exactly, did you expect would happen when you launched into an edit war, blatantly misrepresented essays like WP:STATUSQUO to argue the complete opposite of what they said, threw premature templated warnings to try and win the edit war you started and have spent this entire discussion displaying an unrelenting attitude of arrogance and condescension? You're damned right I find this colossal waste of time pathetic.  I could have been working on useful article content rather than wasting it dealing with your zealotry.  And yes, I understood your comment.  If you don't get what you want at MOS:ICON, you are going to rehash the debate over again via another RFC, and waste even more time. Despite your claim to the contrary, god only knows how many times we'll have to put up with this if you don't get your way in the second forum. Resolute 04:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I apologize for the misquote, I read someone else's comment and mistook it for yours. However, calling my attitude "deplorable" while behaving in a similar way that you're criticizing robs your comments of what they would otherwise be. I accept responsibility for responding to your incivility, which in turn derailed that discussion, but if you were truly interested in not "wasting time" your comments would have been about content, not laden with incivility and then in turn about my behavior; you are just as guilty as I am in that regard, so I in turn don't know what you expected would happen, and how I'm supposed to be more responsible for my behavior than you are for yours.  There's no debate to "rehash"; that discussion quickly turned into a discussion about everything except the content.  Waiting to see if you get your desired consensus at the guideline talk page before opening up a proper RfC is a courtesy and a logical thing to do, because if you get your consensus then what I'm saying would be moot; that's not "waiting to see if I get what I want", it's waiting to see if there even needs to be a discussion, if consensus changes at the guideline there's no need for that discussion.


 * On another note, regarding your edit summary, I can disagree with someone and their actions all day long on a topic and still happily work collaboratively with them elsewhere; while not really "article content", there's a pretty serious backlog at Category:Biography articles without living parameter that could use some attention, I've been trying to keep it at 0 but I forgot about it for a few months and it's now out of hand and I could use some help clearing out that backlog. If that's not your thing no harm, but help with that would be appreciated (that goes for anyone else who happens to read this as well). - Aoidh (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend I have been perfect, but I honestly don't see why you should be surprised by my response. On my user page, I link to WikiDragon among my top icons because I find the page both amusing, and a fairly accurate representation of my editing style (lord knows, I'm not a gnome...). To carry this analogy forward, I viewed your initial actions - the edit war, the condescending (and incorrect) message on my talk page about STATUSQUO and the templated warning to be akin to waltzing into my den and poking me in the nose with your sword.  When one does that, one should expect me to breathe fire in response.  I am not suggesting that you be more responsible for your behaviour than I am of mine. I am suggesting that you would have gotten a lot farther by showing a great deal more respect from the outset.  Regardless, if you put your sword away, I'll put the fire away.


 * As to the discussion, I think it basically boiled down to you saying "the icons must go because of MOS:ICON". Ok, great. I reply by pointing out that that guideline does not come close to reflecting standard usage across Wikipedia's sporting articles, and that the very fact that these articles have existed in this state for years stands as evidence that the guideline page does not reflect how Wikipedia works in reality.  I think Bladeboy1889's comment here sums my argument up far better than I did on the Nordiques' talk page.   In a nutshell, the point I am making is that, despite your assertion of CONLIMITED, the de facto manual of style for sports articles enjoys such widespread support that it becomes impossible to believe that a small cadre of editors who live within guideline pages can claim to actually hold the consensus position.  The rest of the discussion broke down because we both started yelling our viewpoint over top of each other's heads. I suspect we're not going to see eye to eye on this point.


 * Putting that aside and focusing on the article itself, the column for nationality isn't going away. Full stop. We do not include a player's nationality on these lists capriciously as a player's nationality is frequently mentioned, and carries a level of import that evidently (based on the MOS:ICON discussion) is not obvious to a non-sports person.  So the argument for or against the use of the icons themselves on these articles pretty much parallels the ongoing MOS:ICON discussion.  If you wish to return to the Nordiques page and focus on whether or not the icons add value, we can do so.  Or you can wait.  That is your choice. Resolute 05:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for what it's worth, I do apologize for my behavior; just because I saw your comments as disrespectful doesn't mean I should act disrespectfully in turn (I'm not trying to accuse you of "starting it" by any means, that's just how I saw it at the time, and for that I am sorry). I have no issue with the nationality column, only the use of the flag icons. I think the current version doesn't follow the consensus found at that guideline, and if the guideline changes so that it does reflect the guideline then there would be no need for a discussion about it on the article talk page at all. That's why I think it's best if the MoS discussion plays out first, because if consensus there changes the wording I have no problem with respecting that change in consensus and it would become a moot point. - Aoidh (talk)
 * Thank you, and I'm sorry for my own part. As to the rest, we're not going to agree, so best to let other discussion carry out. Resolute 13:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brian McGrattan
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Brian McGrattan 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) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maurice Richard
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maurice Richard 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) 16:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Brian McGrattan
The article Brian McGrattan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Brian McGrattan for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Mother of ANI comment
"The Anon did get their three admins to close the discussion. Guy, Drmies and myself"--that is very nicely phrased, Resolute: well done, especially for a Canadian, eh! In the meantime, they're asking to be unblocked and I feel myself strangely unopposed to an unblock, now that the RM is definitively closed. Perhaps that's the woman in me. I mean, the wife. Or the husband's lover. If I were a married woman, or the husband thereof. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Especially for a Canadian"? I'm rather curious to know which stereotype I failed to live up to, lol! Resolute 03:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summin' about hockey and not having teeth, maybe. Seriously, some of my best friends claim to be Canadian, square milk jugs and all. But since you're both Canadian, surely you know ! He tells me he ate poutin last week. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have lost a couple teeth, but sadly not to hockey... And really, we prefer our milk bags.  Well, at least we used to.  They stopped milk bag delivery when I was a kid. :( Resolute 03:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * We had a whole delivery discussion at ' talk page a while ago, the verdict was it (and cheese) is still available at the door, in the morning, in Nova Scotia (although I do not partake). I haven't used bags since I lived Ontario, and the square jugs was when I lived in Nevada (they had a bottling plant nearby where I lived).  It wasn't just poutine Drmies, it was Peirogi Poutine, in Yorkton, Saskatchewan, and it was awesome. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Peirogi poutine? Umm... brb, driving to Saskatchewan!! Resolute 13:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For your involvement in the spectacle at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown
On a serious level, I have no doubt that your action was well-intended, but it should be fairly clear that there are a number of issues I am alluding to when I left this comment. If you are not clear about that, I'm happy to elaborate (but there would be at least a couple of extra issues to add to the matters I raised with the user who reverted your reversion. The reason you've been given chips too is due to your comment here which was especially necessary for your colleague, I think. Either way, I hope you will take the feedback in the spirit that it is intended. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The odd thing is, I actually despise seafood. Perhaps I need a template stating I'm open to being slapped with a good steak (medium-rare)? Resolute 12:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's funny you say that actually; when I was looking up the templates, I was thinking we need more types of food than just the fish and chips in these. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

re my reply, and also something that is uncalled for and should be deleted on CANTALK
OK, I've quite had enough of the badgering and hounding; what I'm replying to here is totally uncalled for and out-of-line with talkpage guidelines, especially a major regional/national WikiProject. I've apologized to Arthur, but it seems for some people that's just not good enough, and the drums of war continue to beat. I've been making mountain, river, and town/locality articles all day/night, and have someone howling for my blood who's doing anything but dealing with me appropriately; you did, and I responded (after several hours as I was going to bed when I saw it)...there's a lot more important things in the works around right now than more silliness about wikiquette from people who display little themselves, as is what's with what I'm responding to or the various examples in my reply to you on my talkpage. It's not my tone that's the problem in cases like this, it's the tone and attack-mode of those who come out of the darkness with a cudgel who are the problem with attacks like this; that section does not belong on CANTALK and should be deleted as offtopic; I feel like doing it myself but the howls of outrage would escalate; I've invited Arthur to, but perhaps you would oblige as a genuine regular in WikiProject Canada who, even though we differ on various matters over the years, we manage to be able to communicate with each other.
 * I have a few hundred placename articles to fill out the BC map with, and any number of Filipino and Thai and Norwegian and other articles to fix up the language on, and encouragement to write or expand various history/bio/geog/FN articles for BC, and am in the process of looking for an official or media style guide laying out definitions/meanings for the various BC region-names to deal with that category "problem"..... so would you mind please silencing the use of CANTALK as yet another place to rant about Skookum1 at? A lot could get done in terms of long-needed content/title creation if only I was left alone and not constantly harassed the way things have been for too long; and don't blame it on the victim, I know bullying and crowd-baiting/incitement when I see it.Skookum1 (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw the essay you posted in reply to me on your talk page, but haven't had a chance to read it yet. Honestly, I usually wouldn't, but since I initiated the thread, I will try to read and respond a bit later today when I have time to. Resolute 16:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Coyotes photo retrieval
heya resolute, i was wondering if you knew exactly how i go about retrieving the phoenix coyotes player photos deleted?

All the deleted pictures are found in my commons talk page, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Triggerbit and the licenses have been changed on flikr and found accessible in this album https://www.flickr.com/photos/53936799@N05/sets/72157640238849105/

i tried contacting the user who deleted the pictures but have no reply..any help/advice would be appreciated cheers Triggerbit (talk)


 * thanks i missed that reply to my question somehow!! Triggerbit (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Sarah Brown
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, 131.111.185.66 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Dolovis and first edits
Hi. I saw your comments accusing Dolovis of seeking first edits at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 8 and WP:Articles for deletion/2016 NHL Entry Draft. When I was looking at WP:Requests for undeletion for WT:Deletion review/Archives/2013/May, all of the history-only requests I remember seeing were filed by Dolovis. I am interested in reading any evidence you have. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A couple recent examples I have been involved with come immediately to mind: Kaapo Kähkönen is a representative example. Clearly non-notable, and Dolovis knows this.  He created this article (and several like it) anyway, forcing me to waste time PRODing it.  I just now noticed he redirected it - a tacit admission that he knew the subject was not notable.  Except now it is a bad redirect as there are multiple potential targets. That is also one of his habits, and one that has resulted in deletions at RFD. (Note how even he can't even figure out where these redirects should go. He just wants them somewhere so his first edit stands).  Redirecting non-notable players to the articles of their notable siblings is also a common trick of his.  All of these require time and effort to deal with and clean-up.  And for the most part, that is work that I simply don't want to deal with.  I was the one requesting deletion in these examples because I just happened to run into them while doing other things.  God only knows how many of these bad redirects exist.


 * And then we get into his actual article creations - and it is charitable to call them that. He routinely creates articles on non-notable minor league players and barely-notable European players. These tend to have two or three sentences at most, and maybe a basic award table (for awards that usually do not confer notability.) And he invariably uses stat index websites (primarily elite hockey prospects) as his only source. He makes no effort to determine if such players meet GNG,  went through and AFDed the most egregious of the minor leaguers - I think he ended up nominating 45-60 such articles back in January. As you can see, Dolovis was quick to complain about the volume of nominations making it impossible for him to research (which he should have done before creation).  However, while he claimed in some AfDs that he had found sources, he made no effort to expand, source or otherwise show a GNG pass on a single article.  It was left to another editor to do the legwork and save the very few player articles out of that batch that did meet guidelines.  And THAT is also a common problem with Dolovis.  He will put in as little work as he thinks he can get away with.  i.e.: these one-sentence sub-stub creations of Olympic athletes, and even Oscar nominees. And when asked to simply make the effort to add a single external link to some of these creations, Dolovis responds with condescending messages about how he is a volunteer and basically doesn't have time.  Though, as I show above, he is more than happy to waste everyone else's time.


 * His creations are overwhelmingly low quality, indifferent to notability guidelines (He abused WP:NHOCKEY's low standards to such an extent that we finally raised the bar a little {something I've been wanting to do for a long time, though we're still a bit low in my view}), misrepresents sources, and there is only one thing I have found he will put actual time and effort into: defending himself. And, as you have already noted, he will run to REFUND any time one of his creations is deleted if the player later becomes notable because he wants that first edit back. I could easily find dozens of examples of everything I've noted above. And this doesn't even touch the fact that he's been blocked numerous times for sockpuppetry (though not recently) and is under a diacritics-related page move ban.  Sufficed to say, Dolovis and I do not have a good working relationship as a result. Resolute 15:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec)Oh I can probably dig some up. It has been a pretty common occurrence for him to create articles he knows are not notable because they probably will be in a few years so when they are eventually notable he can ask for the history to be undeleted. Lately he has been doing it a lot with redirects. -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Resolute has a very piquant turn of phrase: that Dolovis has no time to research sources or do the work necessary to create a decent article, but has all the time he needs to post sloppy stubs in carload lots, and to defend his actions in week-long filibusters. I've since come to believe, through several years of seeing him in action, that it's not that Dolovis is unaware of the rules -- he's contemptuous of the rules, and will ignore any rule, any civility policy or any consensus to go on doing things the way he wants.  Beyond that, Dolovis routinely lies: he'll post that a player has played in top flight leagues when he hasn't, he'll claim that a rule states one thing when its explicit language states otherwise , he'll claim that a sport is included in NSPORTS' subordinate criteria when it's not .  I can't say that I've gone over his sub-stub hockey creations -- I spent weeks going over what turned out to be a fifth of his output to date, filed 75 AfDs , and only one finished as a Keep, with four finishing No Consensus.  If you're looking for links concerning his shenanigans, that's a place to start.   Ravenswing   18:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your quick and substantial responses. I should have done more research, as I grossly underestimated the problem. I'm sorry that I don't see any way to assist. Do you have a preference between DRV and REFUND for processing his history undeletion requests? (WP:Proposed deletions are always handled at REFUND.) They were all moved to REFUND after the May 2013 discussion I linked, but I am planning to challenge that. Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of history merges in cases where the requestor isn't abusing the process for their own means, I don't really have an opinion on that. Under normal circumstances, restoring the history for material that was deleted for a reason not involving BLP or as an attack page seems uncontroversial enough.  It might come down to which process can handle it easier. Resolute 13:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maurice Richard
The article Maurice Richard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maurice Richard for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Secret -- Secret (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Case request declined
The arbitration request involving you (SarahBrown) has been declined by the Arbitration Committee The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper Style of Mayors In Commonwealth Nations
Check your protocol. PMs are the "Right Honourable", Gevernor-Generals JUST received the honour of Sir/Dame (either at the beginning or end of their term depending on Nation) as well as also being the "Right Honourable" for life, and Mayors in Canada and NZ are styled "Your Worship" while they are in office only. You can find the information at the Heritage Canada website, and you will discover that it is in fact accurate. The  Moody  Blue (Talk)  20:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC) (PS - I like the DaVinci quote on your profile page!)

AFD
Can you explain to me why the sidebar should not be at the top of the AFD?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * For the same reason why I moved your comments. You are interjecting your own argument into the middle of my statement - and the location of your sidebar at the top gives the appearance that I added it, not you.  While I don't believe that was intended to create a deliberate misrepresentation, it has the same result nonetheless. Please keep your responses together, even the sidebar. Resolute 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the table should be above any comments. Do you mind if I put it at the top above any comments, since this is a debate about whether anyone wants to read about details of a high school career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yours is the first comment, and that is where I put the table. It can't go any higher without interfering with my nomination statement. Resolute 20:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just came back after the weekend and looked in on that Afd again and I am totally amused that he accused me of coming here because you canvassed me. I never would have even known about the Afd if it wasn't for his post here. I was going to come here and make a comment about it when I read further and saw you suggested to him that was the case. I love the irony of him accusing you of canvassing when if he hadn't posted here I wouldn't have known about the Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Samsamcat account.
I just wanted to congradulate you, Werieth, and Nil Einne. For doing what is right for wikipedia. Making it a stronger factual source of information. And therefore withdraw from this enterprise. It was a well fought battle. You guys win. I will be deleting or blanking the account. I do wish to say it was certainly an interesting project neverless.

" acting like a little child"
I've responded to your ad hominem attack at ITN/C. It would be instructive for you to read the response and learn from it. Try not to repeat your assumption of bad faith in the future; it comes to something where everyone else in that thread responds with respect and helpful comments, yet an admin of your experience resorts to childish (ironic) personal attacks. Perhaps you were having a bad day. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "it comes to something where everyone else in that thread responds with respect and helpful comments" - Except, of course, for your pouty comment. If you want to be treated with respect, TRM, you can start by not being a hypocrite. Reso[[User Talk:Resolute|lute]

Alex Ovechkin
just wondering, why did u edit the Alex ovechkin page taking out information in the first paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickkeefs (talk • contribs)

thanks for clearing that up but on the Wayne Gretzky page, Gretzky is referred to as one of the greatest players to ever play hockey. I know he is one of the best but the statement is no where near neutral. These statements are also present on the Jormir Jagr and Mario Lemieux pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickkeefs (talk • contribs)

Talk:Muhammad/images
It takes more than my skill and perhaps my permissions (move? space in title?) but can you fix the discretionary sanction box at the top? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks! Resolute 14:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops
Oops, yes that revert was indeed a misclick :) Canuck 89 (talk to me) 04:23, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ryan Getzlaf
The article Ryan Getzlaf you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ryan Getzlaf for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shudde -- Shudde (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Major League Soccer GAN
Thank you for taking the time to review this article. I will work on improving the sourcing over the weekend. I will also work on the paragraphs and proseline issues you mentioned. I will plan on sending you a note on Sunday, inviting you to take another look at an improved version. Thanks again. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I invite you to take another look at the Major League Soccer article, if you have a chance over the next couple of days. I've added a bunch of cites, fixed the paragraphs issue you mentioned, and worked on the proseline issue. I'll also add I was a bit puzzled by one of your comments. You wrote on the MLS talk page that numerous sections lack sourcing, but I couldn't identify any sections of prose without any cites. Barryjjoyce (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional feedback. I added cites to the end of various paragraphs, in response to your suggestion. I couldn't find — either in the good article criteria or in WP:VERIFY — the requirement that paragraphs end with citations. Can you point me to that in the wikipedia guidelines? Thanks. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I am all caught up in terms of addressing the issues you have flagged. It suits me well if you work on bite-sized pieces over the next few days, so no rush to finish your end by tomorrow. Barryjjoyce (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am now caught up and believe I have addresses all of your comments to date. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed just about everything, with the exception of your external links instructions, which I couldn't quite follow. Other than that, I think we're in pretty good shape. Barryjjoyce (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Userfy pages
Hi Resolute, was wondering if you could be of assistance regarding an admin-related task. The following pages were deleted at my behest (db-g7, user requests deletion) back in 2012, after I created templates for all league seasons which negated any useful purpose the lists had previously served.


 * List of Bulgarian Hockey League seasons
 * List of Czechoslovak Extraliga seasons
 * List of OB I bajnoksag seasons
 * List of Polska Liga Hokejowa seasons
 * List of Soviet League seasons
 * List of Yugoslav Ice Hockey League seasons

However, I have recently discovered that these lists could be of use to another, non-WP project I'm currently working on. So would it be possible for you to userfy the pages into my sandbox? Would appreciate it greatly. Thanks! -- Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 21:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: ITN

 * But at a more basic level, news in general consists of four things: death/violence/war, sports, weather and politics.

I'm curious why you believe in this strange idea and where you are getting it from. As a Canadian, you probably have a better handle on newsworthy topics than most Americans. But news in the 21st century often is composed of items about energy and the environment, governments and companies, technology, innovation and health issues, agriculture and food security, peace and conflict, and sports and recreation. Breaking this down into "death, violence, and war" seems a bit out of touch to me. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I put death, violence and war in one grouping. Variations on the same theme.  I was oversimplifying with my comment (and I should have added Entertainment as the fifth item, but entertainment items rarely get posted at ITN unless they are famous deaths), but that really is what most news constitutes.  The other topics you bring up - especially technology, health, agriculture, will rarely generate events that are "ITN worthy".  Not to say it doesn't happen, but that it doesn't happen nearly as often as a disaster, a sporting event or an election.  As a consequence, ITN tends to fall into these themes.  Right now we are on a death and disaster run.  But at times, most entries are sport-related, or politics.  Changing (or fixing, depending on your perspective) this will necessitate a modification in how ITN is run, and what is considered ITN worthy. That will probably require an RFC.  And perhaps that would be a valuable endeavour at this time. Resolute 23:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand that you put it in one category. But again, you make it seem like news falls into sports, weather, politics, and (death, violence, war), but I just don't see that. I do see, however, that some news outlets try to manipulate coverage for ratings (and money).  CNN is often used as an example of a news outlet that has lost its way, and relies on 24/7 "disaster" coverage to get ratings.  Fox is also used as an example of a news organization that relies on war and politics to attract their viewers.  An outlet like Democracy Now! focuses heavily on the IP conflict, while ignoring other stories.  Each news outlet has problems with a diversity of coverage, and Wikipedia is no different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Fake BLP
Is PROD the best way to deal with a phony BPL? A user has been vandalizing the draft page with, what I assume is his own name, and then created this page - Devin Hays. It has been proded, but I wasn't sure if it should be deleted as vandalism or just let the prod run it's course. Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that fake page for me. I flagged the commons images as copyvios. They're normally really quick about deleting copyvios, but with the page gone it isn't that pressing of a concern, as they aren't linked to anything right now. Cheers! --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal Complaints are valid sources.
The Commmission for Public Complaints accepted the charge of failure to investigate.

It's official.

paradigmslip.ca/Formal_Complaint_PC-2014-2339_Redacted.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.9.90 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

 * YW. I suspect all of the is/are/was/were stuff - which crops up periodically - comes from the fact that English is a really stupid language at times! Cheers, Resolute 15:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub contest
A quick note to say that as of this evening you've got 10 points - and there's three days still to go, so if you've any more to add please get them in soon :-). Thanks for the contributions! Andrew Gray (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Latest SPI for UrbanNerd
Hi Resolute, as you were involved with one or more SPIs for UrbanNerd in the past, I'm notifying you that another SPI has been opened at Sockpuppet investigations/UrbanNerd. Please keep an eye out on your watchlist for any suspicious activities in UrbanNerd's former stomping grounds as perhaps there are more than the three IPs I've come across thus far. Any additional IPs or evidence you may uncover would be appreciated at the SPI. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter
In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. , who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Valeri Bure
The article Valeri Bure you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Valeri Bure for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shudde -- Shudde (talk) 02:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bach Magnificat
If you look at BWV 243a and BWV 243, they share content NOW. Look at the history please. This is was what Wikipedia readers had before I expanded. (The link is in the clarification. I don't want to repeat there.) It was wrong about the true date and purpose of the first performance, and poor otherwise. The history of the first performance doesn't belong to the D major version, adapted 10 years later, therefore (!) I started a new article. I expanded it by adding to the music, all mew content, because I found it more logical to have it in the original version. It was Francis who took over then, copying to the other article also, because it is the piece performed more often. - Did you see that I have a tradition of writing such articles since 2011, then per request of the FA writers? - I hope this helps a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I still do not see the purpose of a split. Perhaps you could help me by showing another pair (or series) of articles that would demonstrate how these two articles would look if both were in a near-finished state.  Thanks, Resolute 23:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The two works are basically the same music, but have different composition history, different key, different scoring, different recordings, one has the Christmas insertions, the other not. Someone - not I, I am too involved - could perhaps try to squeeze it all in one article. I believe two are better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I just read up on a bunch of edits you've made! Thank you so much for making Wikipedia a better place!

Nelsonana (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC) 

Ban exceptions
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=633459327&oldid=633458372 this comment]: The full sentence clarifies that the exception is for "addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself". As with most things, the sentence could be worded more definitively, but nonetheless I think it is clear in its terms. isaacl (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, fair enough. I did manage to not have that part register.  I'm going to leave my comment up, however. In part because it seems absurd that Tarc can engage in any ANI thread that involves him, but can't start one on a topic in which he is involved. Resolute 01:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Only if it pertains to clarifying the ban; otherwise, no participation is allowed. isaacl (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  History of the National Hockey League (1917–42), which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 22 November 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request for Dave Gallaher
Hey. Just wondering if you'd be willing to spend some time contributing at the peer review here. Always appreciate your feedback, so would be great to hear from you, but no worries if you're too busy. Cheers. -- Shudde  talk 06:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate 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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

so....is it 3RR now, or 4RR.....5RR now?
I pinged you on the article talkpage but this is ridiculous; and farcical given his presumptive block warning against me. "no response on talkpage" on that edit comment is not a justification to edit-war, and Alaney2k had only just made his re-contribution on the matter when ITFL reverted it, claiming BRD. Bold-revert-discuss is not justification for the 5th revert from him or his says-he's-not-a-partner in the last 24 hours...there were more before that. The article needs protection at this point but NOT with the suppressed material not present; it's legitimate and factual, as Alaney2k points out. I'll leave it at that, I'm trying to focus on history and geography edits and non-wikipedia matters today, but seeing more b.s. come up on my watchlist is unavoidable; I'll try to resist, I've been WP:BAITed before and I agree with Viriditas that the plan is to back me into a corner so they can try to use procedural hornswoggling to silence me, as has happened before more than once on other matters (Talk:Adrian Dix for one); he's only been on Wikipedia since June of this year.....and yet is swaggering with acronyms and block-warnings as if he owns the place.Skookum1 (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As per this edit, I have self-reverted my last edit and have instead taken the dispute with that user to talk, with a big reason being that I didn't see Alaney2k had actually given a reason for his/her edits on the talkpage. I haven't requested for a third opinion yet as I am more confident that I can resolve my  edit dispute with that user.  Inthefastlane (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And as per this edit, I have asked Alaney2k to discuss our edit dispute before either of us makes any further changes to RAND on the ottawa shootings page. Inthefastlane (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)] 21:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard
Congrats on finishing it. I'll be watching the FAC intently. :) Connormah (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't just watch, review! ;)  I was actually ready a while ago but delayed because I knew I wouldn't have the motivation to help out with reviews of other FACs.  Resolute 14:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty busy unfortunately over the next few weeks - perhaps after Christmas I may be able to. I haven't been at FAC for a long, long time though, so it may be better to defer to the regulars in this case. Connormah (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the protection of the Oilers article. Was considering it. Sad days as on Oilers fan... Connormah (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

WRP and Smith
Hey sorry, my bad. You are absolutely right about not jumping the gun on edits. I'll go and change my edits to Next Alberta general election and 28th Alberta Legislature as well. Bkissin (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

So, this guy ...
66.94.205.235 doesn't seem like a vandal. He's made some productive edits. But he's made a ton of boneheaded ones, a bunch of wrong ones, and a bunch of blanking, too. This looks like a bit of a competence thing, but a look at his talk page and plainly several editors (myself included) have tried to get his attention and failed. Since it's plainly not a vandalism-only account I can't take it to AIV ... any advice?   Ravenswing   04:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 29, 2015
A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 19:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Offhand, I would say that encapsulates his career pretty well. Cheers! Resolute 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, hope to see you again soon at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Working on it... ;) Resolute 19:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

As You Requested
This is the whole forum discussion: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/2000212-sports-and-racing-hockey/70699104

The creator of the NHL lore page has confirmed that he is metalnation1984 in the thread I have provided. The GRVO fLigh tning (talk)	 03:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I'll read through that at some point to help get an idea of the basis for some of the article decisions.  Cheers! Resolute 03:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Richard
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Maurice_Richard/archive1&curid=44580269&diff=642446599&oldid=642241615 Congratulations] on bringing an article of key importance to hockey's history to featured article status! isaacl (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Thanks for the help with the copy edits and such.  Most appreciated! Resolute 14:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This Is Hard.
In the NFL lore's case it's easy to tell majorly memorable moments from non memorable as many sports networks cover it and there are many forums dedicated to the NFL.

The NHL is difficult to do. Coverage of the league is spotty and there are too many moments. Weeding out the best is a difficult process and unfortunately bias creeps in.

I am willing to admit I added the Ducks comeback (I'm a Ducks fan.) and it was clear bias. It's also problematic that although we shouldn't use Primary Sources it seems like the NHL's "History Will Be Made" series would be a useful determination. However, Only the OFFICIAL NHL commercials meaning ones uploaded to | NHL's YouTube Channel should be considered and even then only the major ones (e.g: Bobby Orr's Flight in the Stanley Cup Finals after winning Boston the cup)

Thanks, The GRVO fLigh tning  (talk)	 23:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Challenge is good for the soul! I want to work on a couple other things first, but I do have some books that can help formulate a rough guideline.  I'll be back to that topic soon enough.  Cheers! Resolute 23:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It differs from place to place; where I am, there is generally no shortage of books in the library and bookstores covering hockey history. If your local library offers access to ebooks and other online resources, then you may have access to a wider variety of sources than you realize. Good luck! isaacl (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Congrats...
...on the promotion. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And thanks for the review! Resolute 00:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Offering my congrats as well! Great work! Connormah (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job! Let's get some more hockey articles that golden star, eh?  G loss  06:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

About 750
I'm pretty sure their main account is at least indeff'd - I opened Sockpuppet investigations/Okip. Perhaps not the best evidence, but seems likely. ansh666 19:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's a name I haven't heard in a while! I think you're on to something there. Certainly comparing Okip's final edits to 750's current crusade results in some very loud quacking. Resolute 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. I had some help, though I'm not sure from who. I think CU is going to be declined because there isn't enough evidence to link to any of this, but given their penchant for self-reporting alternate accounts, I wouldn't be surprised if it was. ansh666 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

See - I'm notifying on the OP's behalf. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks; responded. Resolute 14:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mark Giordano
The article Mark Giordano you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mark Giordano for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Response to your question on ANI
Presumably, as editors--until otherwise is necessary. There are many, many eyes on anything surrounding the whole debacle: the wheat and chaff will out eventually. Closing ranks and forbidding edits in favor of banned editors' outright puppetry isn't always the best option. Have faith in the community. Heck, have some faith in new and returning editors! :) God, it's been forever since I edited; sorry if I did this improperly. Bearsfordays (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have faith in the Wikipedia community. I have none in KiA and the like.  And in my long history with this site, I have never once seen the sudden arrival of IP editors, sleeper accounts and new accounts to a specific topic area to be anything but bad news.  As an individual, you might rise above.  But the mob that is promising and promoting harassment will not. Resolute 17:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Skookum1
I have realized I have damaged myself while interacting with Skookum1 and this is going to affect my finances and the relationship with my family. I am going to have to stop interacting with him and his topics altogether but I want to alert other people and I want you to know this.

I do not believe Skookum1 is a liar. I believe he is genuine in what he says. But I think he cannot control himself and this has been demonstrated by the behavior after the ANI was archived. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_Canadians_in_British_Columbia&action=history He needs help and intervention now. The Wikipedia community needs to do something now. The ANI thread was archived by a bot. This cannot happen next time. I think the community hasn't been able to intervene properly and this needs to change. His behavior is not okay and his attitudes must be changed now and I fear if this doesn't happen Skookum will damage himself and more editors will be damaged.

I'm sorry for being a burden. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't know what to make of any of this. I have tried to avoid it mostly, partly because the topic area is not one I am terribly interested in, and partly because I'm well aware of the time sink this can all become.  I think it is a shame you two don't get along well, and I do think it is a good idea if you two did stop interacting for the moment. If for no other reason to than to allow things to cool down.  As to everything else, there may be a lot of eyes on things now, especially after that ANI thread.  Lets leave it at that for the moment. Resolute 04:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok. I understand such things can take up a lot of time and be very stressful. If you wish to avoid the matter it's perfectly fine. Yes, I think not interacting with him for awhile will help me get my sense of perspective and my happiness back in order. I am currently discussing possible options for any further action with another user and based on your post also suggested waiting a little while before making any further inquiries. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Those "possible options" are escalation, not disengagement, and including yet more AGF/NPA statements about me while also misrepresenting both what I had said, and what he claims the RS board and OR had agreed with him; they did not. His yammer about pursuing ARBCOM, RFC/U and yet another ANI to harass me with and seek official sanction against me are NOT disengagement, but exactly the opposite, and continue with the AGF/NPA against me he has mounted since his Air India demands on CANTALK and his dispute that he was right in using the "Asian Indians" term vs standard an established wiki-norms and standard Canadian English.


 * Resolute, I suggest you change your perspective on me, and on him; your refusal to read what I say, while allowing him to continue his AGF/NPA campaign on yet other talkpages, is not disengement/ it is ongoing AGF and with babble about escalating procedural warfare to "deal with me" is what it is. Against guidelines, and against your instructions to DISENGAGE.  Me working with TheMightyquill on the CCinBC talkpage is NOT "continuing my behaviour" as he misrepresents it on The Interior's and Viridtas' talkpage; it is working on content, and in collaboration with another editor who does care what I have to say about what the article needs; which WTM has sought over and over to bulldoze and barrage rather than ever concede might be valid. They are, his line of argument, and his behaviour as ongoing against me are NOT and are very much against guidelines.Skookum1 (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WMT's disingenousness above and his ongoing lack of retractions for mistakes and onslaught of massive arguments to justify his POVization is what is "not okay" and should not be allowed to continue; This is psychological warfare pure and simple - to denounce me, escalating his ongoing AGF and contrariness and disruptiveness and hostility to information and sources that conflict with his "choices"; The so-called community and its procedural framework hasn't even considered his behaviour, nor even looked at it, nor has any comprehension of the POV issues of the material he has been attempting to dominate by regularly assaulting me with illogics and SYNTH claims about guidelines and ordering me to do what he wants.


 * And not in civil tone and rife with patronizing comments, including the implication "go home old man" in telling me I'm not equipped because I don't have in my hands the actual books I've read and am familiar with for longer than he has been alive; he doesn't have them either and is so even less well-equipped to "contribute to the discussion", never mind write a lengthy opus without knowing the general history of the province nor its geography; he doesn't listen to anything and misreports t he conlusions/advice on places like the RS board;


 * I've stood up for fairness and truth and proper Wikipedian NPOV content and style, and gotten nothing but shit for it and disingenuous speak-softly-but-sling-the-shovel of AGF and POV and he has yet to concede even one point I've raised while continuing to not even look at t he many sources/links ready for him to explore and use. And yes, while other Canadians aren't interested in BC history is why CANTALK is, like ANI and all the boards that WTM has launched his SYNTH arguments and attempts to canvass support for his "choices", utterly useless.


 * Whatever, you will not doubt call this a "wall of text" but somehow you don't consider his own massive screeds and argumentation on simple points while persistently ignoring or downplaying or actively conjuring up grounds to exclude even mention of events that are in them.


 * I know what's going on and have sino-biased activity on Wikipedia before and know it for what it is. I can barely eat or pay rent, and yet he's telling me to order books "ASAP" in order to fulfill his not-required-by-guidelines demands and "scholarly" standards.


 * The whole affair is a sick joke and you, Reso, not being interested in the subject matter and not even wanting to read anything to do with it, and MindMatrix preferring to have a meal rather than spend a bit of time coming to terms with the many issues and behavioural problems and guideline violations being regularly perpetrated by WTM for months now is only to be expected; but I've said my piece and am not so much stunned as not surprised at seeing WtM posture yet again to be "goody goody two shoes" and painting me as the bad guy while he continues to insult and bully me on the article talkpage while he continues to build SYNTH/POV content without any attempt at fairness or willingness to listen to why his preferred sources are very often wrong about the claims and facts they advance and he is posting like gospel truth and excluding anything in the way of his agenda.


 * His post above is a crock; he is unapologetic when making errors, never admits to being wrong, and continues to press and bully and presume to be editor-in-chief on a subject he has only just begun to learn about with a very closed mind, despite his soft speech he is the aggressor and the bully. NOT ME.Skookum1 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If I'm not a liar, WTM, why did you spend so much energy, and massive amounts of text, challenging everythign I try to tell you about and seeking to block even mention of things that I know about, and you don't, as if I was. Hypocrite.Skookum1 (talk) 06:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Re your edit comment when creating the hat below, how nice of him to apologize to you for being a burden, he has not once apologized to me once for his behaviour for the damage it's caused to me, both energy/health wise and being so obstinate that the battlefield ANI was launched and targeted me as if it was all a one-way street; he's been the one being combative about content, language, sources, all I've been doing to stand up to it and getting crapped all over for it by attacking me and not discussing the issues about sources and POV/fairness and bludgeoning and demandingness that should be the theme of the discussions as to how to resolve the dispute.


 * It's about fairness, not about going after the person who wants fairness, and recognizing the POVism and incorrect claims about guidelines for what they are. And recognizing that a person defending himself, or defending truth and fairness, is not being combative, rather than being justifiably defensive and not ready to surrender by being hammered, either on talkpage discussions or by those who don't like his style of response. Wikipedia discussions should be about issues of content and not about people as is 99% of the time and very much so in this case, and also in previous ANIs where I've been dragged through the wringer over stubborn POV-ness and anti-guidelines changes and more.


 * Whatever, I had wanted him to disengage long ago, whether to listen and learn, or to go find somewhere else where his work was not so controversial and out-of-depth for his range of knowledge; he could have learned lots from me, and I even gave him profitable ideas for works to undertake translation on; what goodwill I had was exhausted long ago. So was my health and life-situation, which makes his comment about hisfamily life being damaged even though he knew my situation and yet continued his attack-mode campaign against me, and to control the page and any discussion with his agenda.  So, yeah, how nice of him to apologize to you and paint me as the bad guy again.  That's why I responded, not just out of insult but as point-of-correction.


 * Also responding here re your calling me "combative" when I'm the one defending wiki standards and NPOV and have been subjected to atrocious behaviour in the course of his combativeness.


 * In response to 's request, I've begun adding issues and events and sources to the page, and organize already those there; the good, the bad, and the ugly. Not just the bad and the ugly, and not just from one side; there's tons missing, as Quill noted re there being only one councillor mentioned and no other politician despite some very high-profile ones; a demonstration that not all is in "scholarly" sources, particularly obscure ones.


 * I will proceed as if WTM is not there as the article/topic needs a lot of work, and someone who "knows the ground" likewise with the two Indo-Canadians in BC/GV which are a POV fork he created and many spinoffs from it, including major bios long in need of doing and which I pointed out and have been similarly ignored. At a human pace, and not in the course of combative bombarding of the page with red herrings on a regular and voluminous basis; and not in response to any impatience but to measured research as real-world time allows; I have disengaged from him, other than voicing my opinion, as here, when I am being misportrayed and accused of something (being combative) as if I was the only guilty party.


 * You say you don't care about the topic, but I do. And rightly so, because it's about the history of my home province, and I and others than those in the title are all involved; it's our history too, not just "theirs".  That's not committing OWN, that's because those who know the subject area should be respected and listened to; as per the many barnstars on my userpage from those who do and who do not have a problem with my tenacity or my style of speech.


 * The priority of guideline-mongering over value/veracity/fairness of content is a major problem; especially when guideline-mongering is used to POVize content or to combat against a knowledgeable editor in the given field; which goes on way too much these days; and content and goodwill of those knowledgeable editors suffers. Fairness of content requires a change; the target of discussions must change; and personality attacks against those standing up to wrong claims and POV agendas need to end.  But they won't, and you'll dress me down again for daring to speak my mind; yet you don't even know about the content, and don't care about it.


 * How much work on actual content is derailed by such needless rule-driven campaigns is incalculable, as is the casualty rate of those who have left Wikipedia or been blocked or banned by it. And who's left?  Never mind, I already know the answer.


 * I've got things to do, including add more stories to that page, and I expect not to be "engaged" over them, unless he expresses interest and asks useful questions indicating he's open to learning about what he doesn't know. But should, if he'd ever stopped to listen. There's a good 40 articles on many things I've been meaning to get at, but my wiki-time has been taken up, and my health and energy, by having to defend myself from unfair accusations from those who won't even read what I have to say about it, or about the topic that they don't know about, and don't care about.Skookum1 (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No doubt that's a wall of text for you too; and you'll hat note it so it's less visible. It's your talkpage, no problem  But read it, don't say you don't have the time or patience to read it because it's too long.  That's disrespect, and AGF.  I feel like I'm speaking in a house full of people with wax in their ears who look away rather than even try to communicate.Skookum1 (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tell me something Skookum. How come you are the only person who seemingly deserves "respect"?  Writing these multi-thousand word essays is nothing but disrespectful to the people you are trying to engage with.  Using them to consistently attack your opponents is disrespectful.  If you want respect, show it by not wasting everyone's time by using 14,000 characters where 1,000 will do.  And don't give me any bullshit about how it's "important" you flood talk pages with this. The ability to present key information in a concise manner is a skill well worth learning.  At the very least, are you capable of admitting how ironic it is that you use WP:BLUDGEON as one of your go-to charges against your opponents?


 * And tell me something else. How come the only POV warriors you seem to find are those who disagree with you? One of the biggest reasons why I don't like getting involved in these arguments you get into is because you seem to have convinced yourself that you have a monopoly on NPOV.  If you disagree with what others say, it is because they have a bias, or are paid operatives, or some other bad faith bullshit claim along those lines.  It speaks volumes that you never seem to find paid POV operatives on your side of the debate.


 * I get that these topic areas are important to you. And even if they aren't for me, they might be for others. And when those others come along, you need to accept that they may not agree with you.  In that case, all sides need to not yell over top of each other but focus on the disputed claim(s) and respond with citations and sources.  If you want people like me to get involved with resolving a dispute, don't give me many thousand words.  Give me the claims you disagree with, and the citations that prove your point.  Then, and only then, will these disputes get resolved amicably.  Because the alternative is ANI.  And while I have already threatened to take you back there if this continues - and don't doubt that I will - I would rather not because I think we both know you are standing on a treadmill that will speed you right off of this project.  I would rather not accelerate that and I think most others don't either, but you really need to work with the people around you. Resolute 14:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Pretending people are not paid operatives when pursuing obvious POV agendas with edits and guideline games full-time is standard politics and an obvious reality in the rest of the world about an operative denying who they are and that they get paid if the rules say they can't. I won't go on about it, but that's naive.


 * As for "respect is a two-way street, man" yeah no doubt, and you haven't been deluged with disrespect for months like I have, and yes in far bigger bludgeoning volume that I've ever been accused of. And 14,000 characters is less than 3,000 words- that kind of comment speaks loads about the numerical mentality that prevails here; could all that I have said be said in 300 words?  I doubt it.  Others have read it and it's engaged discussion; you won't read it so how to you presume to tell me I only need 300 words?  You don't even know what all this is about as you haven't read the article talkpage throughout or the other places where similar patterns of muddy-boot POV editing have gone on while you look away.


 * Dressing me down for disrespect for the mere act of writing about something taht, yes, is important; t he POVization of Wikipedia, whether by a sophomoric academic or an agent using sophisticated attack-and-bait techniques; content is suffering because of and t hose bearing the message are being told to "shut up or else".  Really?  Is that what this place has come to?  Your calling me disrespectful for expecting others to read what I've written is asinine and absurd; and blatant NPA and AGF, because you have not accepted good faith that I might have something valuable to say.


 * You paint it as if I was attacking ATM personally; I am criticizing what he has been doing and the way he has been treating me and yes, posturing as he has so often before while claiming board discussions approved of him when they did not. Perhaps he just doesn't understand the responses he gets; fine.  But to ignore what I am saying about POV content and the illogics being fielded is not attacking the person.


 * I've continued today adding material that the article blatantly is missing or items that are connected to it that need harmonization so that its highly POV tone and TRIVIA and UNDUE ESSAY/SYNTH content are brought into line with normal standards of existing content; that's talking style and content and POV. But you paint it as me personal-attacking him when you haven't even read the discussions/talkpages concerned and now attack me for defending myself against your NPA/AGF attitude towards me.... and to people and issues that take longer than 300 words to deal with.


 * I know this is a waste of time - "never argue with people committed to understanding you''. Might as well add to that "and won't listen to what you have to say about their commitment to misunderstanding you", and won't read or listen to you at all; the "important" matters of this have to do with the validity of the history presented, with the facts of it, with what is happening to it because of external fiddling by people who don't know anything about the place but prevail to rule over it, whether it's someone from Ireland or Texas....or Alberta.  You don't even want to know about it, so the concept that you could tell off someone who does because you don't like the way they write about it is....very much against good-faith.  But more and more and more typically Wikipedian.  Shoot the message and the messenger both.


 * Wikipedia needs reform, and this kind of behaviour you are displaying is one of the things that needs reform. Informed discusssion only and an end to shutting down someone for alleged "behavioural problems" or because they write in a way you don't have patience for, about a subject you don't care about anyway, or whether it's being POV attacked/manipulated or not.  I see big problems and know why; you tell me I'm personal-attacking and bludgeoning; yeah there's been a lot of cannonfire about truth but hey, WP:TRUTH is out there to rationalize away the truth, and a host of acronyms are out there to denounce people with who are defending it, and others to justify blocking and banning them with ''without the issues of content EVER BEING DISCUSSSED.


 * It's an old parliamentary tactic, and well known for centuries; maybe if you read more history and more politically astute you'd understand....and give a shit when you see it happening. You don't, obviously, and would rather tell of the person trying to get you to understand than ever, ever, ever listen to them.


 * How can you judge what you refuse to read? So bizarre....Skookum1 (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No Skookum, I am not painting it as if you attacked ATM. I am stating that you attack everyone who disagrees with you.  Several people at CWNB have said the same things to you, but instead of looking at yourself and how you can convey your arguments better, you're here going on the attack because you seem to feel you should be above criticism.  No. Just... no.  The problems you have here you bring upon yourself and you need to take a hard look in a bloody mirror.   And the reason I tend not to read your diatribes anymore is the fact that they are a waste of time.  The majority of what you type is off-point bunk about how hard done by you are, how you seem to be the only person capable of seeing these giant conspiracy theories and how evil everyone who disagrees with you is.  You offer no reason to wade through all of that to find the comment that is germane to the discussion.  Give us the important detail without the drama and histrionics and people will pay more attention. Resolute 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Since you fielded the 14,000 characters complaint, go do some numbers on the two OR board "discussions" (big synth essays) and on here and here and elsewhere and come back with a comparison. It may be a draw, though I doubt even I have been overwhelmed by the volume. But this isn't about quantitative value, it's about values and issues and sheeeesh you say that I don't respect others by writing such huge things but somehow you just don't see the scale of the huge things that have clogged talkpages with illogical rubbish and bowdlerizing of guidelines and nitpicking over ....

.....oh, never mind, you don't care anyway, and re this so so-many characters bitch-cum-constraint you have been pointing your finger in the wrong direction. If you do count those discussions character-by-user remember to take out the sections where I'm raising issues and sources, as legitimate; not the same thing as disruptive guideline-fabrication and illogical/uninformed argument. Not the same thing at all....though to those numerical in mindset they are, I suppose, and the meaning and veracity in respect of the actual words and ideas is kicked to the curb and only the number of characters matters.....and rather than go look at those figures, you'll condemn me again for saying anything at all without even reading what I have said.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re "Tell me something Skookum. How come you are the only person who seemingly deserves "respect"? " - once again putting words in my mouth or overlaying on top of what I said with something I did not. When did I say I was the only one deserving respect? I sure haven't been getting it from you, and very much did not from WTM; but I get it from others, and I've earned it. The amount of disrespect towards my person and the information I came forward with as to how to improve the article with more content you have no problem with, and do it yourself. That's AGF. And where is it that you use assumed authority to tell me you will do something about me without ever ONCE reading about what the issues are, or looking for the absurdities and other disruptive and/or illogical/informed behaviour that you refuse to so much as LOOK at? Is this what being a long-time admin does? I've seen it from other entrenched editors before; that you menace with threats of using your powers because you're irritated and have no patience or interest in addressing the actual issues of content...all wikipedians are equal, we are told, but there are those who have power over those who do not....and generally do not use it wisely. All are not equal when one can be so peremptory while also refusing to read/think and listen/learn. Such a common pattern....there used to be more open minds around Wikipedia and there are fewer and fewer as this kind of thing has escalated..... to paraphrase your question above, "how come you are the only person to judge what I am saying and how I am saying it?" Being an admin doesnt' mean you're smarter or that you're right; only that you have the power to do as you damned well please to someone you won't even condescend to listen to...others do respect me; and appreciate the issues I raise about content...and about what is going on with this kind of "I don't hear you and if I do I'm gonna deal with you inequality of status inherent in the nature of adminship; which should be about knowledge and logical faculties, not about guideline enforcement tools and speakig softly while wielding a sledgehammer or a wrecking ball....or an axe.Skookum1 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

And re the edit conflict item noted, the same mantras about length and attacking me instead of examining the POV/content issues and bizarrely long walls of text ("buildings of text") that I've been deluged with in order to block discussion and apparently seek to wear me down...or bait me to the point where ANIs are trotted out. CWNB people don't want to listen, and similarly none spoke up when WTM first showed up there with his strange rant about Air India, in the wake of which he started building articles without any clue of where he was talking about or the rest of Wiki-CanCan and dispute our very lexical norms with abstruse arguments. I tried to deal with it, nobody else did; but there are those out there who do listen to what I have to say and are capable of being able to understand it. Those who cannot or will not there is no more point in discussing the matter with; they don't want to read what I have to say and criticize me and presume to lecture and patronize me about how I write rather than what I say. I get respect from many others because they realize what I am talking about and if not informed on the topics, ready to approach the materials with an open mind; not to take a shagnasty to me and a muzzle too.Skookum1 (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Damnit Skookum, look at this post. Not even 20 minutes after I criticize you for incessantly attacking anyone who disagrees with you, personalizing the debates and complaining about how hard done by you are, you do those exact things. And you really wonder why so many people have tuned you out?  I will also add that you have declared in nearly every post that talking with me is a waste of time, yet we're still going  Fine... if you need the last word that badly, have it.  Make your final comment before I archive this. Resolute 18:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Christ on a crutch, man, quite aside from the virtues of WP:KEEPCONCISE, are you seriously claiming that failure to read your rambling essays constitutes "disrespect" and an AGF violation? Seriously?  It appears that your definition of "disrespect" encompasses as well "you're not agreeing with me/doing what I want you to do," which is less the characteristic of a staunch and virtuous upholder of the encyclopedia and more that of a street thug. Beyond that, you cite AGF often enough, but you certainly aren't practicing it.  Allow me to use myself as an example.  Resolute knows me; we've been collaborators on the hockey WikiProject for a decade now.  I am (and I'm sure he'd agree) an often-caustic, sometimes-combative editor, generally sure of the rightness of my views -- otherwise I wouldn't expound them.  And since Wikipedia works on consensus, sometimes people disagree with me, and sometimes they outvote me ... however much I think my opponents' positions are wrong, misinformed or idiotic, and however much I may know more (or believe that I do, anyway) about the subject than they do. This is the nature of a consensus-based project, and there are only two choices beyond a certain point: be a disruptive pain in the ass, or lose gracefully and move on. I don't think I'm ever wrong, but I know that sometimes I am, and I'm no more perfect or omniscient than the next editor. And neither are you.  There are many thousands of other editors who believe that their POVs are in keeping with the policies and spirit of Wikipedia.  There are many thousands of other editors who believe that they have credible expertise in the subjects that they edit.  There are many thousands of other editors secure in their grasp of procedure and policy, so as to be able to make useful edits in subjects where they aren't knowledgeable.  And sometimes, sir, you are outvoted.  You can either lose gracefully and move on, or, well, go with the other option.   Ravenswing   18:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Benedict XVI & Bud Selig
MLB seems to have taken its idea from the Vatican - Pope-emeritus & Commissioner-emeritus ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up question
Hi, Resolute. I saw your comments regarding flag icons at the Village Pump talk page discussion. Got a quick question for you: Can you share the short version of when you believe the use of flag icons is appropriate? I have wanted to tackle the flag icon issues for several years, both from the perspective of reducing obviously inappropriate uses (e.g. demarcation of natural geological feature, event locations, etc.), but also of providing explicit sanction for their use in certain situations where the article subject represents a country in some form or fashion (e.g., Olympic athletes, military personnel and units, members of national sports teams, etc.). Over the last three or four years, I have done my best to remove over use and inappropriate uses from articles (e.g., sports tournament locations, navboxes, succession boxes), while preserving what I believe are core appropriate uses (e.g., Olympic athletes, ship registries, etc.). I'm looking for an experienced ally or two to co-sponsor an RfC on point in the next several months. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Baltics
Though I'm in agreement with you & Djsasso, concerning the Balitcs. I'm hoping you both now, can understand better, my frustrations of the past in this & other topic areas. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is why I generally say just stay out of the area. Not even fully sure why I bothered engaging with this latest fellow. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Seeing as he (and those in agreement with him) is going to stalk & revert my random corrections, I've little choice in the matter. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Banff is lovely this time of year
Hey Resolute! I'm trying to help a librarian with the Banff Centre get in touch with Albertan wikipedians who might be interested in an editathon the Centre is putting on in March. I'd love to go, but it's a bit of a drive for me from Vancouver. I thought I'd mention it to you. Regards, The Interior  (Talk) 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship
Hi Resolute, as an editor of articles on sport can I interest you in a peer review of the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship? Besides being the first edition of the Wimbledon Championships it was also the first official tennis tournament and as such has historical significance. It is my first peer review request and so far it has not received any review comments. The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I am the major contributor, although it was not created by me. Hopefully it can be turned into an FA, which would make it the very first FA article of the WikiProject Tennis. If you have an interest and some time I would certainly welcome your comments. Cheers,--Wolbo (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi . I would be happy to give a review, but I won't have time until late next week. I will try to remember, but if I don't give a review by next Thursday, please ping me again.  Thanks, and good luck with the article! Resolute 01:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for willing to spend some time on this. User Brianboulton will also have a look at it after the weekend so maybe the review will still be running by late next week. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Have now replied to all your comments. The changes made have certainly helped to improve the article. Can you let me know if your points have been adequately addressed? Thanks.--Wolbo (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a notice to let you know, as a peer reviewer, that the article is now at FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/April 28, 2015
You know the drill. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? (If we fit the full team names for each team in, we'd have to cut a lot out, but maybe we could use just the city names or leave the city names out, if you want to mention them all?) I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, nevermind, I was able to fit all the team names in. Please check the links, though ... I see in at least one case (the Jets) you preferred a more specific link. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks! And yes, the Winnipeg Jets franchise from this article's time period is separate from the modern franchise, so the link you currently have is proper.  The blurb looks okay on a first pass, but I might try to come up with an alternate to avoid having it pretty much just become a listing of teams that came and went. Assuming I have both time and inclination.  Cheers! Resolute
 * I have the same reservation, but OTOH, I'm thinking of Main Page day and what's likely to happen at WP:ERRORS, if we list some of the teams but omit someone's favorite team from that era. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Halifax Explosion
Thoughts on coverage and organization of this article? Does anything need to be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - Oh wow. I got halfway through re-writing this article, got sidetracked and never got back to it.  It was on my 'must finish' list but I just never made the time. (I still have my layout thoughts sandboxed.)  Happy to see you picked it up! I see a lot of the things that bugged me about the old format (such as stub sections for individual survivors) have been removed, but the layout looks good to me!  Off-hand, I would say the blob of text that is the legacy section could probably use a subsection.  Much as I hate them in general, the popular media paragraphs might be the most logical split. I'll have to go through the article again for more concrete suggestions.  Were you thinking of making a GA/FA run on it? Resolute 13:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually considering cutting a bit more of that pop-cult stuff - Barometer Rising is an obvious inclusion, but there have been so many depictions that we could probably justify a Halifax Explosion in popular culture to contain the mass of it. I think I'll also steal the Ladd bit from your sandbox :) Yeah, I was thinking of doing the whole GA-A-FA run - I don't think it's too far off GA now, once I get the remaining references in. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Awesome! I'll definitely help you with the chase for the bronze star. Hopefully I can make some time this weekend to do a read through and get my own bearings re-set.  And agreed on being close to GA. A little bit of additional clean-up should get it there.  Off-hand though, I'd like to replace at least one of those memorial images in legacy wtih a picture of the Christmas tree.  Not sure how easy would be to find such an image though. Resolute 14:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty easy though it would be nice to have the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm about ready to send this to FAC - would you like to be a co-nom? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Is there anything you want or need me to do before you launch the nomination? Resolute 20:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of, unless there are some more improvements you want to make. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's alright. I'll give it another look over, but a nomination shouldn't have to wait on that. Resolute 22:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Template: NHL teams
Well, ya may aswell revert all the non-playoff team templates. We both know, I won't put up an argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you will just passive-aggressively complain about it after wasting everyone's time. And yes, I intend to revert all the changes. That the playing season is over is no reason to hamper the ability of readers to easily find the articles. The links to 2014-15 are fine until this season ends and the 2015-16 articles start to get created. Resolute 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Jim Rutherford
Firstly, please elaborate the POV comments. All comments are sourced, including the critics of the trade.

Please recommend which parts to cull before removing them entirely.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFanJohn (talk • contribs) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Honestly, I would cull nearly all of it. Even if you add more to the article - and I certainly encourage that - a 4000 character entry on a single trade is seriously excessive for someone with a history as long as Rutherford.  This is always something many editors struggle with - trying to find the right balance when adding info.  If you do re-add, please adhere to neutral point of view policies. Specifically, avoid puffery like "a talented young defenseman" and "an older defenseman already at peak potential". Also, please note that web forums like HFBoards and Reddit are not reliable sources.


 * I would say that, before re-adding, that you compile a list of moves you think should be mentioned. Both good and bad.  Perhaps use the article talk page to formulate it.  I suspect that once you get that written down, you will realize that no individual move warrants more than a sentence or two when faced with having to describe the overall body of work. Thanks, and feel free to ask any of us at WP:HOCKEY for advice and thoughts! Resolute 00:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(New Response) I am really more familiar with Rutherford as a GM to the Penguins, not so much to the Carolina days. I'd be comfortable adding a heading for his positive (based on critical and fan opinion) and a seperate heading for negative trades - the only one of which would qualify being the Despres one, possibly the Winnik for 2 (!!) draft picks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFanJohn (talk • contribs)
 * It would be better to do this chronologically, actually. If you want to focus on his time in Pittsburgh, that's okay, but the same limitations will still apply.  And it would be good to at least try to put some effort into filling in some of his Carolina history.  Keep in mind that he was GM of the Whalers/Hurricanes for 20 years - and won a Cup there - but GM of the Penguins for only 1.  By necessity, his Pittsburgh history will have to be a very small percentage of the whole article.  His bio on the Penguins website and in the Pens media guide could help you a little with identifying things to consider adding for his whole history. Cheers! Resolute 00:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, if you wish to focus on the Penguins trades in greater detail, consider the single-season articles like 2014–15 Pittsburgh Penguins season. Right now, that article is in need of a great deal of expansion.  For comparison, consider how I have written 2014–15 Calgary Flames season. Resolute 00:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(New response) The fan opposition is clearly noted as such, with fan discussion forums as sources. If I am citing "fan reaction" why are fan pages like HFforums not good indicators?

(New response) Only two sentences may indeed be subject to debate. The "some attribute the loss in playoffs to Scuderi, some attribute the loss to Lovejoy". These sentences can be removed, or amended to read that it is based on opinion pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFanJohn (talk • contribs)


 * Hi MacFanJohn, It would help if you kept posts in chronological order. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes (~), that adds a signature, helping people identify your posts! As to the question of forum discussions as sources, the reason why those are not acceptable goes back to Wikipedia's reliable source policies.  Wikipedia's purpose is to basically aggregate what reliable secondary sources say, and fan forums don't meet that threshold.  This project ultimately does not aim to cover everything, so we tend to draw the line around what the project has determined to be good sources.     Also, forum posts are easily manipulated.  A person could, for example, write a few posts about how they love the trade, and then cite that.  We have a rather large alphabet soup of policy and guideline pages that generally explain why we don't accept these sources.  WP:OR (original research), WP:SPS (self-published sources), WP:POV (point of view), etc.  Most blogs are likewise problematic.  In this case, I would stick to major media outlets for the basis of any additions.  Cheers! Resolute 03:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Failed notification
Hi, re "ping works better if I get your name right" - that one failed too, because you need to get it right first time. Going back and amending it won't re-trigger a notification, see WP:Echo. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail
--Super Bazooka (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 1, 2015
Hi Resolute, Brianboulton has scheduled your article for July 1, when a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think that's just about perfect. Thanks! Resolute 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations
There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

LMAO
If I had the power to edit the LA Galaxy lie, I WOULD'VE DONE IT MYSELF, but the page is locked/semilocked/whatever-the-ffff, and not letting me make any changes. THERE YOU HAVE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatiGOL85 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

THE LIE IS BACK
Some moron changed it back to the lie. Care to handle this again since others apparently can't do it themselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MatiGOL85 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Deftly
Can you do everyone a favour and stop insinuating motives that are not there or, at least, totally without evidence? In your recent comment at the open arbcom request you say that Corbett's "supporters" have "deftly buried" that the incident is his fifth transgression. They haven't "deftly" done anything, nor are the so-called "supporters" (I'm guessing this means the ones who do not agree with you) all approaching the issue from the same perspective. Methinks you should go write for a tabloid, if you do not already. - Sitush (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare coined a phrase for just this type of situation. Resolute 17:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I bother, but here are the facts
I don't know why I bother, but Sitush is correct that I'm on fairly frosty terms with Eric Corbett. I admire his work but have always avoided conversing with him. The last time I posted on his userpage was in March of this year. You can see me telling Eric to fuck off here, a couple of months ago. (Apparently he had never heard such language.) He answered me with an edit summary that made me so tired I've avoided him completely since, as indicated here. You know nothing of my relations with Eric, yet you pigeonholed me as being his "friend/ally" and as therefore making a proposal in bad faith. I don't know why, or what you meant by your comment (which now again holds its head high on WP:AN). I'm not aware of you and me having had any communication. (I may have forgotten something.) But I suppose it's possible a person can conceive a deep-rooted dislike for me just from seeing me around. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

1919 Stanley Cup
Hi Resolute. What's up with 1919 Stanley Cup Finals? I have a book and first: match 5 was held on March 29, not March 30. Second: match 6 was cancelled due to the influenza on April 1, 1919 five hours before the game starts. THERE is no winner this year, Seattle has not won the Stanley Cup, would you correct that please. Thanks. Friendly. --Danielvis08 (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like an IP vandalized the article about a week ago. I've corrected it.  Thanks for the heads up! Resolute 20:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hockey Sweater
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Hockey Sweater 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) 14:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Dave Gallaher FAC
Hey Resolute. I nominated the article Dave Gallaher at WP:FAC about ten days ago but haven't yet had a single comment (other than an image review). You did comment at the peer review (archived here), so I was hoping that if you had any time you'd mind commenting at the FAC nomination page (Featured article candidates/Dave Gallaher/archive1). You're feedback is always appreciated so I'd be very grateful. Thanks. -- Shudde  talk 08:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hockey Sweater
The article The Hockey Sweater you nominated as a good article has passed [[

Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]]


 * see Talk:The Hockey Sweater for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Montreal Expos
Though my ego laments that my extensive contributions to this article have now been scattered to the winds, I appreciate your rewriting the article, something that I was unlikely to do, given my tendency towards trying to keep other contributors happy by building on their work as much as possible. I've only given it a quick look so far; I'll probably do some copy editing in the days to come. Thanks for your work! isaacl (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was totally counting on your copyediting. ;)  And don't let your ego worry too much.  The previous version was my template.  It's all re-written, but still built on that. Cheers! Resolute 13:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the current article may be a little overdependent on a couple of sources. I haven't read Gallagher's latest book, but the previous Remember the Montreal Expos was very fannish, though filled with lots of interesting tidbits. And although I have the utmost respect for Keri, he is a huge fan too, and so I think some care is needed when including any personal analysis. Unfortunately I haven't read the two definitive volumes on the Expos published in French (not sure if English translations have been released yet). On a separate note, I think a little more info on the players and events of the day may be good: I will be trying to work in some mentions of Tim Wallach and Vladimir Guerrero, for example. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keri's book is pretty much the definitive English language history of the Expos though, which is why I used it as much as I did. Gallagher and Young definitely came across as fannish at points, so I tended to avoid that book for any statement not simply regurgitating a fact.  They were the best I could do though, as my local library is thin as hell on the Expos.  And let me tell you how annoying it is to source e-books.  And yes, please do add more on some of the players.  My first pass was more to organize the overall franchise history. Thanks, Resolute 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be some other books in French I'm forgetting; the one other notable English book I'm aware of is The Expos Inside Out, by Dan Turner, which covered the 1982 season and the history before that. Brodie Snyder had a couple of in-season diaries covering 1979 and 1981, The year the Expos almost won the pennant! and The year the Expos finally won something! which are great reading for fans, though at a lower level of detail than is needed for sourcing the Wikipedia team article. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't think I have access to those, unfortunately. Resolute 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment
An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry
Pardon our smoke. Sca (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahaha, thanks! We're used to getting smoke from fires up north, but this is rather ridiculous! Hopefully you guys can get these fires under control soon! Resolute 14:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alas, fires are pretty common this time of year due to sparse rainfall in eastern WA & OR and most of ID. Lots of dry 'fuel' in the forests. (Not nearly as common where I grew up in Minn. – whence we used to trek up to N. Ont. for great fishing.) My son works for the Forest Service, & he says some of those fires could keep on burning for weeks. Sorry!
 * Hope we get a real winter this year. Sca (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't bet on it. El Nino says dry, warmer winter is likely. Resolute 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Well, in case you're not familiar with the U.S. term real winter, here's what it means. Sca (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, we like to call that "spring" up here. ;)  Canadian winter.  Or hell, Canadian SUMMER, for that matter. Resolute 16:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Impressive, but you're not really so far north. If we'd won the Oregon boundary dispute you wudda been in Montana ... I think.
 * I used to know someone who had lived in Edmonton for several years. Now that sounded cold!
 * Where I grew up, real winter generally blew in from the Prairie Provinces, across N.D. (where my mom was from) and down to us. Here's a pic from Mom's hometown. Sca (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And more smoke. Sca (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Notable condo buildings?
Hi Resolute,

In regards to your vote Can you help me out by telling me which condo building in Canada is notable enough to have its own article here. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk)
 * Honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head. Condos, like most buildings, simply exist. The closest example I can think of, in Calgary, was the Erlton Condo fire in 2002 that sparked (heh) a 2009 lawsuit.  However, even though it was one of the biggest fires in Calagry's history, I still wouldn't write a Wikipedia article on it. It was still just local news.  And even if it did merit an article, the article would be about the fire rather than the dwellings. Resolute 12:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being honest (and for pinging me). I hope you are not saying that things that "simply exist" such as buildings and structures are by their nature not notable? Surely there can be some condo buildings in Canada (millions of Canadians live ine one) which are notable, no? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO, yes, most things simply exist and therefore are not notable. Could there be a notable condo building?  Perhaps - there is always exceptions - but the only "default" criteria I can think of would relate to Wikipedia's fetish for articles on the largest high rises in major cities.  Generally though, if you think such a facility is notable, you are going to have to do some work into writing an article about it.  The Las Brisas article, for instance, is just two sentences.  One that says what it is, and the other being trivia. If you want to improve the odds of any such article being kept, flesh them out more than that, and keep in mind that you will generally want more than just local news coverage, if possible. Resolute 12:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You are obviously in the minority believing that things such as building “which only exist” are not notable. There are thousands of such articles at Wikipedia. But talking of fetishes for articles on the largest high rises in major cities, this is exactly my point in when I say Las Brisas condominium should not be deleted— it is a moderately small building with only some 200 hundred odd owners, but the story about how owners discovered they each owed up to $66,000 for repairs is compelling, and the ramifications are not limited to the individual owners, to Ottawa, or to Canada. It could have happened anywhere to any of the tens of millions of people who own a condominium. It is obviously a story that development companies do not want to get very wide circulation, but I thought Wikipedia was above this? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are thousands of articles on buildings. Out of millions of buildings in the world.  Only a small percentage is notable.  As to the rest, Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. Resolute 02:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as your comments on the ANI thread from yesterday go, I wouldn't worry about it too much. In that case, the issue isn't so much that the user has had a lot of pages deleted, but why.  They have routinely ignored everything from good advice to well formed consensuses and have deliberately created articles on non-notable subjects against that advice and consensus to try and game new article creation records.  They have also demonstrated a five-year unwillingness to modify their attitude without the use of community sanctions. What finally prompted my report was an increasingly cavalier attitude about plagiarism.  Too many problems in too many areas there. Resolute 12:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?
You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)