User talk:Resolute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8

Contents


DYK for Max Reinhart [edit]

Updated DYK query On 16 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Max Reinhart, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Max Reinhart made his National Hockey League debut for the Calgary Flames, the same franchise his father Paul began his career with? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Max Reinhart. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Your comment about me [edit]

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

I don't consider commentary on actions to be a personal attack. In the overall context of that battleground, I believe my comments were fair, much like my comments on GoodDay's habit of being a drama junkie which you so aptly used to damn him. You both may be decent editors overall, but neither of your behaviours in this topic area have been particularly flattering. So with respect, I will not refactor. But as it was not meant to be a comment on you as a person, only your actions in this dispute, I do apologize if that was not as clear as could be. As to the ANI stuff, no apology is necessary. I took an action to protect the article from further edit warring, and I do not fear scrutiny of my actions. You were within your rights to do so, and the report ultimately resolved to all parties' satisfaction. Resolute 02:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think you would struggle to find any evidence of "battleground mentality" on my part, unlike in the case of GoodDay. Your equating his behaviour with mine appears to be more a function of your assumptions and thus could be construed as a PA for lack of evidence to the contrary. So I still ask you to remove the reference to "battleground mentality" on my part. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is currently fully protected because you and Jaan engaged in a tag-team edit war with Marc87. Not to mention some curious interpretations of policy and guidelines, in some cases completely fictitious, to try and justify your participation in the edit wars. Resolute 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Again that is not true, as any examination of the edit histories will bear out, and I have to say your claim that of "some cases completely fictitious" is a lie and rather unfortunate. A person's interpretation policy and guideline isn't evidence of "battleground mentality", but your seemingly hostile response to my reasonable request to the point of making easily disprovable statements like "some cases completely fictitious" would certainly be viewed by spectators of this page as bordering on battleground. --Nug (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Article protection lifted on March 27. Six hours later, you revert to your preferred version. You and Jan subsequently each make two additional reverts over the following couple days, countering Marc87's reverts to his preferred version. Situation raised to ANI, page re-protected for another three weeks due to the edit war you three engaged in. As to your fictitious guideline arguments, I was quite partial to your insistence that the hockey player infobox "required" the use of an ISO 3166-1 code, even though the template documentation does not state such anywhere. It does link to Country code, an article that lists ISO 3166-1 as an example of a country code, but that hardly supported your argument. Though I have to admit, as far as wikilawyering goes, that was one of the most creative interpretations I've seen in nearly eight years on Wikipedia. Resolute 03:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, edit histories don't lie, but the problem can lie in disingenuous interpretation. I was certainly justified in reverting the article per WP:NOCONSENSUS to the last stable version as the RFC was closed without consensus. The template doc clearly states, and this was clearly pointed out at the time: birth_place (city, then comma, then country code; use country's abbreviation) (the template documentation was updated after[1]). You said "completely fictitious", which is not the case at all, the template doc does require the country code and links to the country code which says "The best known of these is ISO 3166-1", I think that is a reasonable interpretation by any standard, your "most creative interpretations I've seen in nearly eight years on Wikipedia" thus seems to be at best a gross exaggeration, and certainly falls far short of proving any kind of "battleground mentality". That Marc87 cannot seemingly abide by either WP:NOCONSENSUS or the Template's own guid[2] doesn't seem to concern you at all. --Nug (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"I think I am right" is not, never has been, and never will be a justification for edit warring. As far as Marc87 goes, he isn't the one at my talk page trying to justify, trivialize or rationalize his participation in that edit war. Resolute 23:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you are the one who claimed I exhibited "battleground mentality", but alleging edit warring on the basis of a single edit[3] while a certain colleague of yours reverted four times[4],[5],[6],[7], certainly does not rise to the level of evidence of "battleground mentality", thus it remains a personal attack which I asked you to withdraw. --Nug (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

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

The claim of "tag teaming" is also an unjustified personal attack, given the behaviour of many of your WP:HOCKEY colleagues. I came here to kindly ask you to refactor your comment. Instead you clearly are refusing to do so, exaggerating that I make "completely fictitious" claims and seemingly attempting to steer this thread off some tangent to deflect from the fact that your comment "Given his own battleground mentality in this topic area, Nug is likely commenting because he believes it will help him win his war" is offensive, how do you know what I believe. It seems somewhat ironic that you would accuse me of "battleground mentality" given the banner you created at User:Resolute/Mafia and proudly display on your user page has a clenched fist. Thus further discussion is evidently pointless. --Nug (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Funny you should bring up the "hockey mafia" userbox, given it's origin. The box is satirical, mocking those who waltz in and expect everyone to kowtow to their wishes. Indeed, that has been a defining aspect of this entire drama. And yes, given that that was now the third time you tried to deflect a discussion of your behaviour onto someone else, I think we are in agreement that further discussion is pointless. Resolute 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

GNU C-Graph [edit]

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

1994 Giro [edit]

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


2012 Dauphiné [edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 22 April 2013 [edit]

Accidental use of rollback [edit]

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

LeBron James [edit]

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

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

Jim Balsillie [edit]

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

The Signpost: 29 April 2013 [edit]

Conroy / Gelinas picture [edit]

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

Conroy had retired by the time of the Heritage Classic, so no, he wasn't in the main game. He was in the alumni game, however, which is what the image is from. It is Gelinas in the Habs jersey, even though he never played for Montreal. Unlike the alumni contests at the Winter Classics, this alumni game was put together relatively close to the contest by the Flames alumni association. They basically put Gelinas on the Montreal team to help balance the rosters. Conroy would have made more sense, however, since he had just retired as a very popular Flame, I guess they felt they had to leave him in a Calgary jersey. The Gelinas article is one on my todo list, but I'd have to go back and search through some of the press clippings to cite that in prose. Thanks, Resolute 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Would make a decent DYK hook if it ever came to that. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Jarome Iginla [edit]

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

WikiCup 2013 April newsletter [edit]

We are a week into Round 3, but it is off to a flying start, with Republic of Rose Island Sven Manguard (submissions) claiming for the high-importance Portal:Sports and Portal:Geography (which are the first portals ever awarded bonus points in the WikiCup) and Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) claiming for a did you know of sea, the highest scoring individual did you know article ever submitted for the WikiCup. Round 2 saw very impressive scores at close; first place New South Wales Casliber (submissions) and second place Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) both scored over 1000 points; a feat not seen in Round 2 since 2010. This, in part, has been made possible by the change in the bonus points rules, but is also testament to the quality of the competition this year. Pool C and Pool G were most competitive, with three quarters of participants making it to Round 3, while Pool D was the least, with only the top two scorers making it through. The lowest qualifying score was 123, significantly higher than last year's 65, 2011's 41 or even 2010's 100.

The next issue of The Signpost is due to include a brief update on the current WikiCup, comparing it to previous years' competitions. This may be of interest to current WikiCup followers, and may help bring some more new faces into the community. We would also like to note that this round includes an extra competitor to the 32 advertised, who has been added to a random pool. This extra inclusion seems to have been the fairest way to deal with a small mistake made before the beginning of this round, but should not affect the competition in a large way. If you have any questions or concerns about this, please feel free to contact one of the judges.

A rules clarification: content promoted between rounds can be claimed in the round after the break, but not the round before. The case in point is content promoted on 29/30 April, which may be claimed in this round. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Calgary Flames [edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 06 May 2013 [edit]

POV activity on British Columbia Liberal Party [edit]

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

think I'll have a little look at IP activity on the other party pages now....hmmmm.Skookum1 (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW I see stuff like this before anyone else because I'm 14 time zones away or so (depending on which part of Canada). Late-evening edits from British Columbia IPs happen in the wee hours in Eastern Canada, of course.Skookum1 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
That looks like garden variety political vandalism, actually. Same as we often see at Conservative Party of Canada. You've pretty much done what we usually do: revert and forget. These tend to be one-off acts, and the IPs often don't return. Resolute 12:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice [edit]

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

A kitten for you! [edit]

Kitten-stare.jpg

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

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

A barnstar for you! [edit]

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

The Signpost: 13 May 2013 [edit]

Vote on colour of weatherboxes [edit]

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

The Signpost: 20 May 2013 [edit]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Resolute&oldid=556401593"