User talk:Resolute

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

Alex Ovechkin[edit]

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

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 (talkcontribs)


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, yes that revert was indeed a misclick :) Canuck89 (talk to me) 04:23, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ryan Getzlaf[edit]

The article Ryan Getzlaf you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

The Commmission for Public Complaints accepted the charge of failure to investigate.

It's official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Case Opened: Banning Policy[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Banning Policy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 12:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Trophy.png grammar
You were right on the Flames edit. BillVol (talk) 01:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
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[edit]

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[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) 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 Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub Contest award[edit]

Stub Barnstar.png The Stub Barnstar
To Resolute, thanks for getting involved in the Stub Contest and improving some stubs. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Valeri Bure[edit]

The article Valeri Bure you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; 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[edit]

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)

WikiCup award[edit]

Awarded to Resolute for participating in the 2014 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results[edit]

Flag of the Smithsonian Institution.svg
Flag of Wales.svg
Flag of Scotland.svg

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Scotland Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014[edit]

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

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[edit]

Regarding 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[edit]

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)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014[edit]

Peer review request for Dave Gallaher[edit]

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)