User talk:Resolute/Archive 7

Curtis Glencross
I've reviewed the article. Just a few minor points and I've placed it on hold, but there should be no problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Passed now, well done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, appreciated! Resolute 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Calgary hockey
If you get bored... I noticed the Calgary Buffaloes (AJHL) and Calgary Cowboys (AJHL) have literally nothing for standings... they can be retrieved here: http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_AJHL_Seasons

Just thought I'd tell ya... I'm in the middle of something else right now... but I know Calgary is your thing... DMighton (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
FYI, there is a question from an IP editor about a block you made back in January: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Peacock (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just happened to be reading ANI and saw that post. Was already replying when you left the note, which is most appreciated.  Thanks, Resolute 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Stampede FAC
Thanks for the notice and the heads up on the changes since the PR. I need to carefully reread the article before commenting on it at the FAC. I have been quite busy in real life of late, but should be able to do so in a few days. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK
Hi Resolute. Thanks for reviewing my DYK on Ethical Oil, much appreciated. I guess I could expand on the police intervention at the Saskatoon event, but I would need a much more authoritative source than the current one (which has only one sentence about it, and no context). I tried finding sources on various search engines, but to no luck. I used the following keywords : I did the best I could to write the article in a balanced and neutral way (it is a highly controversial topic, afterall) and I think it would be best to avoid including trivia that may break the current balance, especially if it has little context and is badly sourced. Your thoughts? Best, CharlieEchoTango 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Google)
 * (Google)
 * (Google)
 * P.S. I see you have quite a history of writing GAs and FAs. Do you think this article would qualify for GA, even though it is fairly short? I have reviewed the criteria (and some user standards, such as MuZemike's, and I would say it does, or at least could, without significant rework. Any thoughts or suggestions on that? Cheers, CharlieEchoTango 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Resolute, thanks for your suggestions. I've expanded a bit on the background and the original complaints (using what I think was the "ideal" passage you referred to), and added the China 'counter-argument' from The Guardian, which is indeed an interesting point. This should make the article a bit more complete, although there is room for expansion, especially with the recent events. I have also fixed the references using the citation template and using the usual italic markup (instead of the  parameter). If you have any more suggestions or comments, they're welcome! Thanks, CharlieEchoTango 20:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK nom for Jack Stewart (ice hockey)
Hi Resolute, I have reviewed your DYK nom for Jack Stewart (ice hockey) at Template talk:Did you know/Jack Stewart (ice hockey) and there is an ALT that I would like to suggest. Could you please look at the nomination page and leave feedback there? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Stewart (ice hockey)
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Max Bentley
r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Reg Bentley
r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Doug Bentley
r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Thanks! Resolute 13:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and to you on the Maple Syrup article! Resolute 03:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wildrose Alliance Party
I mentioned it three times because whoever created the entry mentioned their other poll results three times. Where is the consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.213.91.1 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My bad
Thanks for fixing that. My eyes need adjusting. Rklawton (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:98.228.248.208
This editor is once again mangling wiki articles in general, and hockey articles specifically. For example, removing details from hockey season articles because the "season is over". Anything you can do to get this editor to behave, or desist would be appreciated. Echoedmyron (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think their removal from the division articles is fair. The template is actually redundant to the tables, which also links to the season article for further info.  I would be fine with it included as well, but I view that as a content issue rather than behavioural. Resolute 13:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. My feeling in this case is that the editor has based his decision on the fact that the season is over, and that somehow the standings are no longer relevant; by that standard, they ought to have been deleted upon the conclusion of the regular season. I felt that the reason for the edit was suspect, and that it was removing what is in fact the most up to date information at this time, seeing as the next season does not start for a month. In general, this user is still problematic, and has not shown any sign of learning how to contribute in a valuable way, and continues to make edits for the sake of making edits. I would like to ignore this user going forward, but as pages in my watchlist keep getting mangled by this editor find it hard to resist. Will try to be less frustrated going forward. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I get that. The template could be left until the new season does start and new templates begin to get updated, so their removals weren't exactly necessary either. Even with the general frustration, I think this is one case where it doesn't pay to battle.  The new template will be in its place inside of a month anyway. Resolute 19:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your DYK nom for Lionel Conacher Award
Hi Resolute, I have reviewed your nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Lionel Conacher Award and have attempted to address an issue I found. I would appreciate feedback from you regarding my addition before passing the article. Please reply at the talk page. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lionel Conacher Award
Orlady (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

you deleted my edit
I wish to nominate my article. Why did you undo it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatbags (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I undid the edit because it seemed like a test edit. If it was meant to be serious, I apologize for not explaining futher.  However, your nomination had no chance of succeeding.  For an article to gain Good Article status, it has to meet several criteria.  Given the almost complete lack of references and numerous maintenance tags on the article, it was a quick-fail candidate anyway.  There is no chance the article would pass as a GA in its current state.  I certainly welcome you to work on the article, however, I recommend you read the the good article criteria linked above as it will offer a guideline of what is expected for this rank.  Regards, Resolute 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Value
"Well, I see no "encyclopedic value" in an article on a law firm, but you recently took one to GA status. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Resolute 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)"

I ask you to remove that comment and refrain from making this personal. Attacking me for what I choose to edit has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm more concerned about the length and content of the FA article, not choice of subject matter. I know of barely unencyclopedic subjects which have great articles written about them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bobbie Rosenfeld Award
Hello! Your submission of Bobbie Rosenfeld Award at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Redtigerxyz Talk 16:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nom for Max Bentley
Hi Resolute, I've reviewed your GA nom at Talk:Max Bentley/GA1 and there are several (minor) issues which I would like to discuss. Could you see my comments at the nomination and reply there? Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bobbie Rosenfeld Award
Orlady (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Leduc No. 1
Great work on that story. Thanks. pmbcomm 15:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Not done yet though.  More to go! Resolute 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. 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 receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question
I hope you have experience with this kind of question. If I'm completely off my rocker, let me know why and I'll withdraw it.

I was just clicking around in the list of OHL seasons and checked out the first entry, 1980-81 OHL season. I noticed the Toronto Marlboros used to have an OHL team but ceased operations (thus leading the current junior team to obtain the name), but I also noted the Kingston Canadians. They were sold and became the Kingston Raiders in 1988, and a year later sold again to become the Kingston Frontenacs, as they remain today. My question: since these are all essentially the same franchise out of the same city, should these not all be merged into one article? Or are they, because of having different owners, all correct as individual articles? CycloneGU (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In my personal opinion, I agree they should be merged. Renaming a team does not break continuity like a relocation does, in my view. Resolute 23:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All right, we have similar viewpoints on this, then. I looked at the Frontenacs article and noticed it already had some segments word-for-word from the other articles.  That makes this an interesting merge, if anything.
 * I just glanced at Newmarket Royals, which are now the Sarnia Sting. This is one merge I would have to take control of as I follow the Sarnia team and have worked on the Sarnia article.  I wonder if there is a place to propose other similar merges to these two?  CycloneGU (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I just read the bit about relocation. So, in the case of Cornwall -> Newmarket -> Sarnia, they should NOT be merged, but the Kingston one should be?  "History" at the Sarnia article needs to cover the first two, so it seems like it would be duplicate information elsewhere.  CycloneGU (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the Kingston example is all one franchise with a continuous history in the city, then yeah, I'd merge and make note of team name changes. If a team relocates (as in Cornwall -> Newmarket -> Sarnia) or if one of the Kingston teams replaced another that either folded or relocated, then no.  As far as proposing changes, could bring it up at the Hockey project's talk page for more input, and if you'd rather initiate a discussion rather than make a bold merge, WP:RM has the instructions. Resolute 00:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. =) I am now glancing at a page that needs to have some major work done on it; the London Nationals exist today but as a separate team from the London Knights, which the first iteration of the Nationals eventually became.  However, the history of both teams and apparently a third all seem to be merged in the history of the franchise on this page.  I don't even know where to begin picking this one apart.  My best guess: delete that one after making sure nothing else can be merged and put the other on that page, with a reference to the old 1965 one that someone can click to reach the Knights?  CycloneGU (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Max Bell
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wildrose Party
No, I will not move it back. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean versus the previous discussion I started participated in 2 months ago? There consensus wasn't in favour of re-naming. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

GA promotion for Doug Bentley
I promoted the article to GA. Good work on the article! You are an asset to wikipedia with all your efforts and success writing GAs. I didn't know anything about the Bentleys before and it was an interesting read. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the promotion, and the compliments. Always good to hear. Resolute 18:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You're right.
That isn't a radio station article. AFAIK, per WP:WPRS in radio station articles, the actual slogan the station uses shouldn't be used under sister stations like the IP editor believes. All other radio station articles I've seen show the calls, which is, I believe the proper method. As far as to why this makes sense, what if a station changes slogans? The information is immediately outdated. Stations usually don't change calls very often, but change slogans a lot. I just think it creates more of a hassle to have the slogan, despite that being what the station is known as. What I said probably doesn't extend to other projects or articles (such as the Calgary Flames‎) article, which is why I won't revert your edits any further.

Based on virtually all other radio station articles on Wikipedia, I will continue to revert edits that display the station slogan instead of the calls in the sister station field. -- ḾỊḼʘɴίcả  •  Talk  •  I DX for fun!  22:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I'm not going to suggest how radio station articles themselves are treated, as it seems you have a good handle on it. In the case of the Flames article however, simply leaving it as "CFAC" is meaningless as the station hasn't once ever identified itself as such in over a decade.  Even to people in Calgary, the call letters are unlikely to have meaning.  I get your point on slogans changing frequently.  In this case, the station has been Team 960, Fan 960, "Sportsnet Radio, the Fan 960" and now "Sportsnet 960, the Fan".  The last three all being in use within the last year. Fortunately, these team articles are highly viewed, so changing from "Fan 960" to "Sportsnet 960" is not a burden, nor is it likely that outdated information would be retained for very long.  Cheers, Resolute 22:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom mention
I have used diffs of your posts in an arbcom request filed at Arbitration/Requests/Case.

You are not listed as a party, and I have only used the diffs as examples of particular discursive moves. This notice is purely for your own information. -- Ludwigs 2 03:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Another case of "editing while tired"? ;)
Heh, LOL. Actually that's probably a case of wearing my glasses instead of contact lenses ;) Makes a bit of a difference as glasses have a negative magnifying effect (I can't come up with the English word for anti-magnification right now!) compared to when wearing contact lenses. I must have made the mistake earlier btw since I only changed the numbers. I guess I'm just out of shape ;) Thanks for spotting and correcting.--Fogeltje (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs
You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Jagr
Thanks. I realized after that somehow i deleted the whole article instead of the "greatest player ever part". I dont really know how that happened...lol Norum 01:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Can I ask your opinion about this? Talk:Muhammad/images --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

ANI stuff
Howdy Resolute. Though ANI isn't an overly laughing matter, I couldn't help but chuckle at one of the editors' abbreviating Who R you? as "Who", in his posts. It made me think of the Abbott & Costello routine "Who's on first?". GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad
Resolute, thanks for the recent discussion. Shall we post the compromise proposal to the images talk page? -- J N  466  09:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. Feel free to post it yourself, if you like.  Otherwise, I will try to do so myself later tonight.  Thanks, Resolute 14:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

My page
I apologize about that error on my part. I'll be sure that doesn't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinapanthers17 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyedit?
I'm trying to get Percy LeSueur through FAC, and it really needs a copyedit. I withdrew the FAC a few weeks ago. I was thinking of sending it to PR after a copyedit, and then back to FAC. Would you be willing to help with the copyediting part? I'm perfectly willing to go through your stuff, even Flames stuff; we beat them a few days ago in Calgary, and since the lockout, we now exactly one more victory there than the amount of appearances the Leafs have made in the playoffs. :D  Maxim (talk)  23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was going to say yes until you reminded me that your team beat mine a couple days ago. :p   But yeah, not a problem.  I'll take a look at it some time this weekend for you.  (and if you want to go by QPQ, I have Lanny McDonald at GAN right now... but eventually would like to go to FAC on that one, so a reciprocal copyedit would be of value). Resolute 23:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's the rationale on template "current sport-related"
Template:Current sport-related. Generally these things are superfluous, as the advisory at the footer of all articles -- General_disclaimer -- is that the article may be out of date, not accurate, and cannot be relied upon. Typically these current templates are used to warn not the readers, but the editors, on those occasions in which hundreds of editors are competing to revise an article, and to not step on each other's edits, and these occasions are actually quite rare, making the use of the templates rather narrow.

Best regards, Yellowdesk (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am well aware of what the general Current Event templates are used for. This one has a different purpose.  You will note, of course, that articles using this template are not added to category:Current events or any of its subcats.  That is because its purpose is not to highlight a rapidly changing situation, but to denote the current competition for that sports team/league/organization.  This use is actually codified in the template documentation. Please do not change them needlessly. Resolute 02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hockey Mountain
I think that adding the 15 players with 1,000 career points is a terrific idea. Like you said they are likely to be HHOFers anyway so why wait plus guys with that kind of longevity/skill are the types of guys who will be linked all over WP or guys mention on various broadcasts that readers will want to find information on. The fact that we are up to 1 in 9 at GA or better on the list is impressive plus there are others that have been expanded and are in way better shape than they had been. I have to tip my hat to you, the work you have been doing has been a significant chunk of that. I'm hoping to get back to making more regular contribs and get back to working on some of these pages but I've been in a lull for a while now. Keep up the great work. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

National emblem
IMHO, Quebec should be deleted from that article. As for England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland? they too, should be deleted - but it's best that I don't do it. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not a bad idea. ;) Resolute 00:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad
Hi Resolute, I thought we had a semblance of consensus for our compromise proposal, but have been reverted. -- J N  466  20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Resolute, I still see a fairly clear majority for your image proposal on the talk page. By last count, there were 7 yays (you, Anthonyhcole, Mathsci, myself, Eraserhead, Jarkeld, RobertMfromLi; Ludwigs2 would be in favour as well). The only editors to have expressed opposition are Johnbod and Alanscottwalker, as far as I can see. I am tempted to have another go at making the edit. But do you think it's wise, or would you suggest a different approach? Cheers, -- J  N  466  01:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe make a note on the talk page stating your view, and your intention to apply it? I have a feeling someone's going to try and revert either way, but at least nobody can say they never had a chance to comment... Resolute 01:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. It's a good idea; I'll give it until tomorrow. Cheers, -- J  N  466  01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Same result, same editor, who has never participated in related talk page discussions. I've left them a message on their talk page, referring them to you. Cheers, -- J N  466  20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not surprised, unfortunately. And look, Ludwigs is back pushing us around the same fucking circular arguments, yet again.  Which means others will follow suit.  So much for any hope of compromise.  I'm pretty much convinced that he is bucking for ArbCom, hoping he can get them to force his preferred interpretations against consensus.  I think this is where I bow out, until said case.  Resolute 16:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rejoining the discussion, Resolute, despite your misgivings. -- J  N  466  19:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Lanny McDonald/GA1
There are a few issues to resolve at Talk:Lanny McDonald/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Heritage Jr B
Hey, I was looking at your article on the Okotoks Bisons and was wondering where you got the results for 96, 97, 98, and 02? I can't find them anywhere! DMighton (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably a website page that has long since been removed or replaced. Resolute 18:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, I hate that. Standings are hard enough to come by as is. The HJHL website has 99, 00, 01, and 03 to present.  DMighton (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you kept records of the Calgary Junior Hockey League? I'm looking for goal totals from 06-07, and standings for 07-08 and 08-09.  Just wondering.  DMighton (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I've not done much of anything with the Junior B leagues in some time. Resolute 15:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Thanks
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for contributing to the promotion of Doug Bentley and Max Bentley to WP:GA status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Heh apparently I completely missed you working on this towards GA. I would have helped since I created the page....that being said you did an excellent job. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AN
In case you miss it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images Arbitration request
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests 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, -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew it was going back there eventually.... *sigh* Can't wait to see how much time I have to waste on this that could have been spent writing. Resolute 17:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit war at Occupy Marines
I responded to you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_at_Occupy_Marines JohnValeron (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Original Six
The name was actually spelled both "Black Hawks" and "Blackhawks" for many years. In recent years they settled on the single-word version. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was, but the majority of the sources I've encountered use "Black Hawks". As such, we try to consistently use the two-word spelling when discussing the team pre-1984.  Resolute 00:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the two-word version was much more common in the old days. Just wanted to be sure you were aware that "Blackhawks" didn't magically appear one day. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically it did happen one day. The team officially changed its name in 1986 from the two word to the one word version. Although as you mention common use was happening before that. -DJSasso (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images arbitration case
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Resolute, posting this here, as there is more than enough going on on the Workshop page ... Did anyone actually complain about things being done "in the dark"? I don't recall that. I thought your proposal was entirely above board; you posted it on the images subpage, where it belonged, and it was publicly discussed there. Cheers, -- J N  466  21:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is somewhere in there. I think FormerIP, but don't assume I am correct there.  Their point, IIRC, was that a relatively few number of editors made a decision at /Images while nearly everyone else involved was focused at WT:NOT. I didn't take it as a negative assessment of our actions, but rather a view that many editors never had a chance to respond before the attempted implementation.  I took it as being a procedural complaint rather than behavioural. Resolute 22:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Rosenfeld and Conacher Awards
Hello, is there a reason why there isn't a summary of sports in the two articles like there is at Lou Marsh Award? Would you object to me adding these tables? Thanks, Scorpion 0422  20:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I didn't see a need myself. But go ahead if you think there is value.  Cheers, Resolute 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The CP has another award, the Team of the Year (which will probably be announced tomorrow), and we don't have an article for it. I've looked for sources for it in the past with little luck. Do you know of any? And, are you going to be attending the gold medal game for the World Juniors? If so, could you try to get a nice image of the gold medal winners for our list of World Junior Champions page? -- Scorpion 0422  02:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've decided to take another try at a Team of the Year article. I'll let you know if I need help. -- Scorpion 0422  14:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Canadian Press Team of the Year Award. I think the award goes back to the '30s, but I wasn't able to find a lot of sources, and I don't have access to a newsbank at the moment. -- Scorpion 0422  16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I had done some prep-work for that at the same time I re-did the Conacher and Rosenfeld articles, but it is a pain in the butt to go through the Google news archives one year at a time trying to find it all.  Probably something to hunt and peck with over time. Resolute 16:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And yeah, I'll be at the gold medal game. Hopefully should be able to get some good pictures. Resolute 16:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup
Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Shattuck-St. Mary's
I too was under the impression that Shattuck-St. Mary's competed in a high school league – probably because the NHL says they do – until today. Now it makes more sense that a program with all these talented graduates has never won a Minnesota state high school championship.

Players can indeed be drafted out of midget major hockey due to some overlap in eligibility. In the US, players are eligible to play midget major hockey if they turn 18 in the calendar year that the season begins.(source) To be drafted, players must be 18 by September 15 of the draft year. Furthermore, Minnesota high school teams are limited to playing 25 games,(source) and you can check Eliteprospects to verify that the players in question played more than 25 games for Shattuck-St. Mary's. Finally, Minnesota Public Radio says Shattuck-St. Mary's left the high school league in favor of midgets in 1996.(source) The NHL is mistaken. I trust you'll reinstate whatever changes you reverted.  Two Hearted River  ( paddle /  fish ) 20:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank You!
We finally have a picture of Yakupov, that's great. I was waiting for him to come home and get a picture of him in Sting pre-game warmups (January 8), but you beat me with this one. This does beg the question, however; would the one with the OHL team be better in the header, or the Team Russia one since it shows he is active internationally? One can appear later in the article as well. I'm also going to try to get one of Brett Ritchie as well now that he's finally playing again. CycloneGU (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Personally I don't think it matters either way which image serves as the lead for Yakupov.  I'd go with whichever one turns out better, myself.  If we go with the OHL one that you will take, the Team Russia image can be moved to the body. Or vice versa.  Cheers! Resolute 05:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked was because he is known as a member of the Sting ATM. Next year there will likely be an NHL image of him somewhere since he likely won't be back in Sarnia.  So no matter which we use now, it will become outdated within the span of a year.


 * Either way, there will still be the section on his time with the Sting. That image needs to be in the article regardless even when next season's version goes up. =)  Maybe I'll just put it in the body and let the Russia one be replaced when he gets to the NHL.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture on Max Friberg's wiki
Hey, I saw the picture you posted on Friberg's wiki. It's a really good photo, but I'm 99% sure it's actually Rickard Rakell in that photo (he wore #24 during the WJC's). Here is another picture of Rakell while this is Friberg. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops. You may be right.  I was taking pictures of Friberg that game, and must have confused his 24 jersey for 14.  I'll get that corrected (and find one of Friberg as well).  Thanks! Resolute 16:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to snap any photos of Sundström or Collberg? Cheers. —KRM (Communicate!) 05:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure yet. I focused on players who were first round picks last year.  I tried to get as many players as I could, but as you might guess, a lot were unusable for this purpose.  I've got about 1000 pictures to go through though.  I'll see if I have those players specifically tomorrow. Resolute 05:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You might like this, though --> Resolute 05:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do, but the Larsson pick is my favourite. —KRM (Communicate!) 06:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, Resolute, are you one of the scouts or something? Kinda wondering how you are able to get all these pictures; the other possibility is you do editorials for a newspaper or something.  Either way, very nice that you're getting all these pics.
 * Yakupov is out of play ATM due to that knee injury in OT at the WJC final; I keep thinking if the game didn't go to OT, he'd be in the lineup at the game playing right now. I think there are a few bitter Sarnians today.  Ludwig is back, however, and we're currently losing 2-1 to Niagara...who just this week acquired Brett Ritchie.  Therefore, I can't get a picture of him after all.  CycloneGU (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just borderline obsessive-compulsive and have a decent camera. ;)  If you expand the pictures to full size, you can see they are often not *that* great quality - I'm shooting at maximum zoom through glass in most cases.  Though late in the tournament, I was toying with a new angle that worked well - the Saddledome has a small lower bowl, so row 1 of the second level with a good zoom put me over the glass with clear shots.  And I heard about Yakupov.  Definitely a tough break for the Sting.  Resolute 01:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominik Hašek
Do you have any idea who I could ask to spruce up Dominik Hašek, which has decayed a bit from its WP:FA promotion? I guess it could use about 10 or 15 citations of uncited facts for WP:TFAR by his January 29th birthday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Maxim has done work on goaltender articles in the past. He's semi-active again, so might be able to help. Resolute 23:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have dropped him a note.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"or start another edit war"
Your "or start another edit war" comment was not needed. You are absolutely pathetic man. You must literally have absolutely no friends. Grow up, get a life, and quit the crybaby bull crap. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Polite, as always. Resolute 02:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Seamus (dog)
The reason why I believe that the A7 deletion of the Seamus (dog) should be overturned is that A7 is for lack of significance, not lack of notability. Wikipedia defines significance as a much lower standard than notability. Wikipedia's guideline for speedy deletion gives the following as grounds for an A7 speedy deletion: ''An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability.... The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.''

This distinction between significance and notability is important because an article with a lack of significance can be immediately deleted by any administrator, whereas an article of questionable notability will be discussed on an AfD forum before it is deleted. Whether Seamus the dog should have his own article, or whether it should be part of the article on Mitt Romney is questionable, but I believe that the use of A7 speedy deletion is not appropriate here. Debbie W. 19:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was leaning towards overturn and list, but when I read the article as it stood at the time of deletion, I found that there was no real claim of notability for the dog itself. It was, in my opinion, a WP:COATRACK that failed to establish any claim of notability of the nominal subject of the article.  I stand by my assessment, even as I expect that it is most likely the article will be restored, only to be deleted (or redirected) again at AFD. Resolute 19:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After reading WP:COATRACK, I think you make a really good point. The article is more about Mitt Romney than Seamus.  I absolutely don't agree with the use of A7 speedy deletion for this article, but I agree that it probably will go to AfD.Debbie W. 23:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mickey MacKay
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Censuses and estimates
Hi Resolute, I don't think we've ever chatted directly before. You definately have my ear on a future discussion about the relevance of municipal census results and reliable estimates in infoboxes. I see merits on both positions, but we'll get into that later. I'm not too sure if you've noticed, but one of my hobbies is researching and tracking population growth of municipalities and unincorporated communities in Alberta. Therefore I'm aware of the provincial legisltation that allows municipalities in Alberta to conduct municipal censuses. I know Saskatchewan, Nunavut and Yukon have similar legislation. In my research, I've been unable to confirm if municipalities in SK, NU and YK take advantage of it (the City of Edmonton indicated in 2006 that they don't). Do you know of any municipalities outside of Alberta that undertake municipal censuses? Hwy43 (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not aware of any, actually. I'm certainly not as well versed in the matter as you are, so locale that I would have known, you undoubtedly would have been aware of too. Resolute 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Tim Thomas Stats
I am the IP address that you corrected my edits on Tim Thomas's stats. However, I noted one potential conflict with the stats. NHL.com reports Tim Thomas as having a win in the 1998 World Cup. Link:. I was wondering what should be done regarding the stat and I have changed it along with updating that 1+2+4+8+1=16 (goals allowed total). If you differ with me on this, please let me know so that we may avoid an edit war. 98.179.165.213 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely a discrepancy, so I did some digging and came across this New York Times story on the game that notes the US lost 3-2. Since all sources say Thomas appeared in only one game in that tournament, there is no way the NHL.com link is correct. And since Thomas was obviously on the bench for the stick throwing incident that led to the awarded goal (it would have been a penalty shot otherwise), it makes sense that he was not given the loss, since he wasn't on the ice for the losing goal.  However, thanks for correcting the GA total, I erred in reading the totals line in Thomas' entry. Resolute 16:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for solving the issue. You have better information than I do and now we know that NHL.com has poor career International stats for many people. However, I am confused as to why Tim Thomas would have been off the ice in a 2-2 game. Maybe there was a upcoming penalty on Latvia. If you could find this out, could you let me know? Thank you.98.179.165.213 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am only guessing, but I suspect the US was in a position where they needed to win to remain in the A pool. Presumably a tie would still have dropped them into that re-qualifying tournament that was mentioned, so they needed to try and pull out the win. Resolute 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical. Thank you for civily handling my uncertainty. The facts clarified here show how Wikipedia should be used: users work together to ensure proper information is put up on the internet (or, if one person is confused, another one can clarify it for the first).98.179.165.213 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images closed
An arbitration case regarding Muhammad images has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
 * 1) The community is asked to hold a discussion that will establish a definitive consensus on what images will be included in the article, and on where the images will be placed within the article. As with all decisions about content, the policies on verifiability and the neutral point of view must be the most important considerations. The editors who choose to participate in this discussion are asked to form an opinion with an open mind, and to explain their decision clearly. Any editor who disrupts this discussion may be banned from the affected pages by any uninvolved administrator, under the discretionary sanctions authorised in this decision. The decision reached in this discussion will be appended to this case within two months from the close of the case.
 * 2) Ludwigs2 is prohibited from contributing to any discussion concerning Muhammad.
 * 3) Ludwigs2 is banned from the English Wikipedia for one year.
 * 4) Tarc is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
 * 5) FormerIP is admonished to behave with appropriate professionalism in his contributions to discussions about disputed article content.
 * 6) Hans Adler is reminded to engage in discussions about disputed article content with an appropriate degree of civility.
 * 7) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to Muhammad, broadly interpreted.
 * 8) The participants in the dispute about depictions of Muhammad are reminded that editors who engage extensively in an intractable dispute can become frustrated, and that it is important to be aware that as editors we are limited in our ability to contribute constructively to a deadlocked disagreement. Our exasperation with a dispute can make us unprofessional or unreceptive to compromise. We therefore encourage the disputants of this case to consider if their participation in the coming community discussion of depictions of Muhammad would be useful, and we remind them that if they disrupt the community discussion they may be banned from the discussion or otherwise sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions provision of this case.

Mlpearc ( powwow ) 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

For the Arbitration Committee

Mais oui!
I'm concerned about Mais oui!'s recently contacting Walter Gorlitz. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about that post too much, but I definitely would take care to avoid being baited into drama over it.  FWIW, on articles like that, you might (or might not) get around their absolute literal take on WP:OVERLINK by linking to Canadian people instead of just the nation.  Chris Burke-Gaffney is a Canadian songwriter... Though, of course, that would only be an appropriate link for a native-born Canadian. Also, there are plenty of people who are very literal about OVERLINK, and such a re-target probably would not satisfy those people.  Linking to nationalities and dates is often a pit of argumentation, I have found. Resolute 19:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. PS: Gnoming has turned out to be tougher then I expcected. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I tend to avoid it. I don't have the patience for making the same edit to dozens or hundreds of articles on a regular basis. Resolute 05:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe, I luv repetative editing. GoodDay (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Resolute,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Former teams paramater
Hey there, I noticed your recent edit on Manny Malhotra's page. Could you provide some rationale for removing those former teams from his infobox? I imagine you removed them due to some lack of notability, but my understanding of the parameter is that all former professional teams are to be listed, unless I'm mistaken? Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for List of NHL goaltenders with 300 wins
Orlady (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael Cammalleri
The article Michael Cammalleri 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 needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Michael Cammalleri for things which need to be addressed. ♫GoP♫ T C N 12:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is now a Good Article! :)-- ♫GoP♫ T <sup style="color:red;">C <sub style="color:red;">N 16:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Matt Cook
DJSasso has suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey that you did not express a view one way or the other on whether or not Matt Cook should remain on the List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career. I thought you clearly had done so. Could you pop over to clarify? Thanks. 99.192.69.56 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

AN discussion
Please comment here.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Bill C-30
Because of the PCIPA title, it doesn't show up on the front page for a google search of "Bill C-30", meaning the article doesn't help to inform Canadians. I'd propose we move it to Bill C-30 so it shows up as the first hit for the frequently-searched term - and we can always move it back in six months when it is not a hot-button topic. Arrivalatheathrowairport (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a little too close to politicizing the article, I think. Also, looking at the traffic stats, The article has been viewed over 3000 times in the last couple days.  In the same time "Bill C-30" has only been searched for less than 200 times.  Very few people are searching "Bill C-30" on Wikipedia.  I suspect most of the traffic is coming from Vic Toews rather than any external link. Resolute 23:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

List of NHL goaltenders with 300 wins
Not bad job creating 300 NHL goaltending wins. I know it still needs some things to work, but pretty good job. I was the one who suggested it. BattleshipMan (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In Flanders Fields
I've finished the review at Talk:In Flanders Fields/GA1. I'm going to come back to that tonight and complete the paperwork, but given that I'd signed up to the review earlier and then got delayed, I thought it would be best to let you know when I'd finished it. I enjoyed the article, don't see any major problems with it, but wanted to let you know that I'd posted my review in case you were around to respond on the minor points I picked up on. Carcharoth (talk) 11:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Most appreciated, thank you. Resolute 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist ...
... on the Stu Burnie article. Truth be told, I didn't notice the newbie had prodded it until I saw the New Messages flag up. As it turns out (take a peek at his talk page for the repartee), the kid's got all of 1,200 edits, about half of them on NPP this month, and he's got a lot of screwups. The past day alone, he filed an AfD on a Eurovision competitor for lack of notability, a CSD on a LDS bishop for "no assertion of notability," a prod on a Billboard Top 40 hit for lack of notability, and a couple other boners. I think I'll keep an eye on his contribution list the next couple days, and if he keeps on making these egregious screwups, an anti-vandalism notice may be called for.  Ravenswing  01:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DRV notice
You participated in the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 24. Be advised that I have opened Deletion review/Log/2012 February 27.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Paul Reinhart
Hello! Your submission of Paul Reinhart at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusanLesch (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Paul Reinhart
Sorry for the delayed response.. I'll have a look around, but really all my sources are online. The Canucks All-Time Records PDF you sourced is already one of the main ones I use for Canucks articles. I'll see what I can do though. Anything in particular you're looking for? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's something you wanna include, but I took a look at the best statistical seasons for a Canucks defenceman at NHL.com. Looks like Reinhart came within striking distance of the team record for goals, assists and points in his two seasons. They still rank in the top five for each category: http://www.nhl.com/ice/careerstats.htm?fetchKey=20122VANDAHALL&sort=points&viewName=careerLeadersSingleSeasonForTeam Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Along the same vein, it looks like he left the Flames with the second highest points for a defenceman all-time, while his 82-83 season set a record for highest points single-season (though it's been passed on nine occasions since). http://www.nhl.com/ice/careerstats.htm?gameType=2&team=CGY&position=D&country=&active=&viewName=careerLeadersForTeam http://www.nhl.com/ice/careerstats.htm?gameType=2&team=CGY&position=D&country=&active=&viewName=careerLeadersSingleSeasonForTeam Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm.. Sorry, doesn't ring any bells.. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Paul Reinhart
Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing my original post
I don't see how my original post is A lot of smoke, very little light. sure, the discussion after it may be, but to collapse the original post is a bit harsh. I have inferred from this that my commentary is not welcomed. Frietjes (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not my intention. It wasn't your post that was at issue, but the conversation as a whole.  It degenerated into a considerable amount of bickering that wasn't benefiting anyone, most of which was completely unrelated to your original post.  I collapsed it to allow everyone to refocus on dealing with the concerns at hand. I certainly welcome any further input you have on how best to achieve everyone's goals with these templates. Resolute 16:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I just collapsed the entire section for the sake of simplicity. No implied comment on your argument was intended. Resolute 16:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * how about moving my original post outside of the collapsed section? Frietjes (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm about to run into a meeting... feel free to move it out if you like. Otherwise I might when I get back. Resolute 16:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Evander Kane's Photo
Kudos on the updated Winnipeg Jets photo for Evander Kane ! I was at that game as well, though cheering for the Jets (usually when I'm at the Saddledome, I'm cheering for the Canucks). Being originally from Winnipeg myself, it's great to see the team back, and appreciate your diligence even when enjoying your Flames playing. Keep up the good work! CanuckGod (talk) 23:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Appreciate it, thanks! Resolute 01:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada
Hello. Regarding the discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada, in which you have been involved, a MedCab case has been opened and User:Lord Roem has kindly volunteered to mediate. Please indicate at the MedCab page (here, specifically) if you accept Lord Roem as an intercessor. Thanks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming you're not bothering to waste your time with this ridiculous nonsense? → ROUX   ₪  14:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should at least look at it. Though yeah, my concern level with this is low. Resolute 14:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's going to drag on forever. → ROUX   ₪  14:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I get the same impression, and actually said so in my comment declining to participate. Resolute 14:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Igina's milestones
Resolute. I though I was doing as you wanted. I once posted a garbled post about Iginla's 500th, misspelled his name and the grammar didn't flow well. I'm still new to Wikipedia, and I am just developing my personal vernacular dialect of Wikipedian. Neverless, someone perhaps you (I'm guessing as there are lots of posts, which is very good to guide us to make descriptive posts to make Wikipedia colourful etc), posted a more descriptive account of this great accomplishment. (Posting goalie Nystrom (I believe, the goal of the game, the opposing team). I copied this approach for Iginla's 11th 30 goal season following this same model. But you corrected it, to the same descriptiveness of how I posted my prior post for Iggy's 500th. What am I doing wrong? Like this is as how ESL students first learn English, very choppy limited vocabulary, as the years go on they start to pick and chose more descriptive and very effective ways. But they start off very fustrated "Wiki-Ghomes" gaahhhh this sucks.... Well anyways hope you please tell me what I'm doing wrong so I can correct it next time I post a Iggy feat. (hopefully the you know know what ) I would really like to do that, in my dialect of Wikiese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin help
Hello Resolute. Your name comes to me from the past as a fair and well respected administrator. I was hoping to get you to weigh in on some controversy at Circumcision. Please feel free to disagree with me and I will respect your opinion. If your busy or just don't want to get involved, I understand completely. I have also asked Black Kite to comment. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Cycling seasons reviews
As I say to most people, better late than never I guess; so I appreciate you stepping in to review at least one of the articles. I shall get to those little issues in the coming days, but not immediately tonight of course; what with it being 1:30 in the A.M. here. In relation to the other articles listed, absolutely no rush to get them reviewed in one go; I know there was one other one listed from December, plus two each from January and February, along with the 2011 Giro d'Italia page that another user nominated. Take all the time you need, if necessary. So once again, thanks a bunch. Regards. Craig (talk)  01:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha, totally! Sweep the ones already listed out the way, and get your own articles to the status they merit; couldn't agree more with that. Craig  (talk)  01:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To your note about the noting of all their events in the season, I personally haven't seen any pages that lists just the races that they have competed at. Hell, it would make things a lot easier! ;) Craig  (talk)  21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Both teams' official websites definitively have calendars, but both they seem to list results for all riders in all races, rather than just their own. The closest I can find is Cycling Archives, but yet they still only have winning results rather than the rest. It's a shame, but not wholly expected that a site doesn't list them all. CQ goes top three. Getting there. Craig  (talk)  21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey man; just to let you know that the Europcar article is about complete. Including a little section for the name change, as you requested. Feel free to give it a copyedit, if you so wish. Craig (talk)  23:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific! Euskaltel next. Onwards and upwards. Haha. Craig  (talk)  22:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Vacansoleil done; rather large, although not as large as the Giro page! Haha. Craig  (talk)  12:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Giro may well be done, dependent on spotchecks of the article... Craig  (talk)  23:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Terrific; I shall pass the news on to her, whenever I get the chance. Cheers. Craig  (talk)  07:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A thanks
Thanks for your kind words at VPP and helping me find the right wording and the right venue. I just want you to know it never ever crossed my mind that we would make a special exception for Muhammad-- if I could go back and do it over, I'd definitely add some sort of wording to the RFC to make it extra clear that the ideal end state is adding this feature to all articles.

Ya live and ya learn-- thanks for helping me w/ both. :) --HectorMoffet (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. You can easily strike any part of your original statement you feel is inaccurate or no longer applicable.  That said, my comment on avoiding special case scenarios was not meant to dispute your proposal so much as to express my general feelings on such a widget. Regards, Resolute 23:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2011–12_NHL season
I've added research that still shows Anaheim qualifying for an 8th place tie; I do know for a final playoff spot there could be one or more tiebreak games played to decide who is in rather than elimination by numbers. Regarding the current scenario, however, can you add to my research backing your earlier statement that Anaheim can in no way make the playoffs? CycloneGU (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

John Shurna
Please revisit the John Shurna WP:GAC

LBW
Thanks for the review, and I have replied to your points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

McDonald
That section is much clearer to me now, and other changes looking good. Ping me when you put it up at FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Nystrom GA
Hi. I was looking at the GA nom for Eric Nystrom. I think it looks like a very solid piece and should pass. However, you may want to add a ref for his having a "gritty, hard working style". Btw, I know absolutely nothing about hockey, but I might have a bash at doing the review if no-one else volunteers. Good luck  Tigerboy1966   17:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a bit busy with IRL work and the fallout from the 2012 Grand National at the moment. But if no-one has picked up the review by next weekend (21-22 April) I will do it. Having non-specialists reviewing is very useful: my first two GA's were reviewed by people with a knowledge of horse-racing and they more or less went through unchallenged. The third was reviewed by an editor who knew absolutely nothing about the sport, which was very helpful as he pointed out that a lot of the terms I was using were actually pretty confusing for the general reader. I think the trick is probably to wikilink any potentially problematic terms. As for hockey, I have heard of Wayne Gretzky and know that most of the youtube clips involve large, semi-armoured men fighting each other. I'm sure that cricket is similarly incomprehensible for non-fans.   Tigerboy1966   18:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

For your efforts...

 * No problem at all; just glad someone stepped in to get those reviews over and done with. As I stated above, terrific work. Craig  (talk)  13:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Joel Otto
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review Sort of
See User talk:Ravenswing. Thinking about popping one or both of the articles mentioned up for GA. Since you are the pretty much the king of the hockey ga process do you want to take a look through it and poke what holes you can? -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.