User talk:Resolute

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


Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship[edit]

Hi Resolute, as an editor of articles on sport can I interest you in a peer review of the article on the inaugural 1877 Wimbledon Championship? Besides being the first edition of the Wimbledon Championships it was also the first official tennis tournament and as such has historical significance. It is my first peer review request and so far it has not received any review comments. The article has GA status since mid 2013 and I am the major contributor, although it was not created by me. Hopefully it can be turned into an FA, which would make it the very first FA article of the WikiProject Tennis. If you have an interest and some time I would certainly welcome your comments. Cheers,--Wolbo (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wolbo. I would be happy to give a review, but I won't have time until late next week. I will try to remember, but if I don't give a review by next Thursday, please ping me again. Thanks, and good luck with the article! Resolute 01:28, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for willing to spend some time on this. User Brianboulton will also have a look at it after the weekend so maybe the review will still be running by late next week. Cheers, --Wolbo (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Have now replied to all your comments. The changes made have certainly helped to improve the article. Can you let me know if your points have been adequately addressed? Thanks.--Wolbo (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Just a notice to let you know, as a peer reviewer, that the article is now at FAC.--Wolbo (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2015[edit]

You know the drill. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? (If we fit the full team names for each team in, we'd have to cut a lot out, but maybe we could use just the city names or leave the city names out, if you want to mention them all?) I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, I was able to fit all the team names in. Please check the links, though ... I see in at least one case (the Jets) you preferred a more specific link. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dank, thanks! And yes, the Winnipeg Jets franchise from this article's time period is separate from the modern franchise, so the link you currently have is proper. The blurb looks okay on a first pass, but I might try to come up with an alternate to avoid having it pretty much just become a listing of teams that came and went. Assuming I have both time and inclination. Cheers! Resolute
I have the same reservation, but OTOH, I'm thinking of Main Page day and what's likely to happen at WP:ERRORS, if we list some of the teams but omit someone's favorite team from that era. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Halifax Explosion[edit]

Thoughts on coverage and organization of this article? Does anything need to be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

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

I'm about ready to send this to FAC - would you like to be a co-nom? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Template: NHL teams[edit]

Well, ya may aswell revert all the non-playoff team templates. We both know, I won't put up an argument. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you will just passive-aggressively complain about it after wasting everyone's time. And yes, I intend to revert all the changes. That the playing season is over is no reason to hamper the ability of readers to easily find the articles. The links to 2014-15 are fine until this season ends and the 2015-16 articles start to get created. Resolute 16:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

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

Re: Jim Rutherford[edit]

Firstly, please elaborate the POV comments. All comments are sourced, including the critics of the trade.

Please recommend which parts to cull before removing them entirely.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFanJohn (talkcontribs) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@MacFanJohn:. Honestly, I would cull nearly all of it. Even if you add more to the article - and I certainly encourage that - a 4000 character entry on a single trade is seriously excessive for someone with a history as long as Rutherford. This is always something many editors struggle with - trying to find the right balance when adding info. If you do re-add, please adhere to neutral point of view policies. Specifically, avoid puffery like "a talented young defenseman" and "an older defenseman already at peak potential". Also, please note that web forums like HFBoards and Reddit are not reliable sources.
I would say that, before re-adding, that you compile a list of moves you think should be mentioned. Both good and bad. Perhaps use the article talk page to formulate it. I suspect that once you get that written down, you will realize that no individual move warrants more than a sentence or two when faced with having to describe the overall body of work. Thanks, and feel free to ask any of us at WP:HOCKEY for advice and thoughts! Resolute 00:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(New Response) I am really more familiar with Rutherford as a GM to the Penguins, not so much to the Carolina days. I'd be comfortable adding a heading for his positive (based on critical and fan opinion) and a seperate heading for negative trades - the only one of which would qualify being the Despres one, possibly the Winnik for 2 (!!) draft picks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MacFanJohn (talkcontribs)

It would be better to do this chronologically, actually. If you want to focus on his time in Pittsburgh, that's okay, but the same limitations will still apply. And it would be good to at least try to put some effort into filling in some of his Carolina history. Keep in mind that he was GM of the Whalers/Hurricanes for 20 years - and won a Cup there - but GM of the Penguins for only 1. By necessity, his Pittsburgh history will have to be a very small percentage of the whole article. His bio on the Penguins website and in the Pens media guide could help you a little with identifying things to consider adding for his whole history. Cheers! Resolute 00:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you wish to focus on the Penguins trades in greater detail, consider the single-season articles like 2014–15 Pittsburgh Penguins season. Right now, that article is in need of a great deal of expansion. For comparison, consider how I have written 2014–15 Calgary Flames season. Resolute 00:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Failed notification[edit]

Hi, re this edit "ping works better if I get your name right" - that one failed too, because you need to get it right first time. Going back and amending it won't re-trigger a notification, see WP:Echo. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Resolute. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

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

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 1, 2015[edit]

Hi Resolute, Brianboulton has scheduled your article for July 1, when a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear. Was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I think that's just about perfect. Thanks! Resolute 21:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

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

LMAO[edit]

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

THE LIE IS BACK[edit]

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

Deftly[edit]

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

Shakespeare coined a phrase for just this type of situation. Resolute 17:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why I bother, but here are the facts[edit]

I don't know why I bother, but Sitush is correct that I'm on fairly frosty terms with Eric Corbett. I admire his work but have always avoided conversing with him. The last time I posted on his userpage was in March of this year.[1] You can see me telling Eric to fuck off here, a couple of months ago. (Apparently he had never heard such language.[2]) He answered me with an edit summary that made me so tired I've avoided him completely since, as indicated here.[3] You know nothing of my relations with Eric, yet you pigeonholed me as being his "friend/ally" and as therefore making a proposal in bad faith . I don't know why, or what you meant by your comment (which now again holds its head high on WP:AN). I'm not aware of you and me having had any communication. (I may have forgotten something.) But I suppose it's possible a person can conceive a deep-rooted dislike for me just from seeing me around. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened[edit]

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1919 Stanley Cup[edit]

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

Looks like an IP vandalized the article about a week ago. I've corrected it. Thanks for the heads up! Resolute 20:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

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

Your GA nomination of The Hockey Sweater[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Hockey Sweater you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction[edit]

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

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

  1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
  2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
    1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
    2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Dave Gallaher FAC[edit]

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

The Wikipedia Library needs you![edit]

[[

File:Wikipedia Library owl.svg|110px|right|link=WP:The Wikipedia Library]]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services


Sign up now


Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Hockey Sweater[edit]

The article The Hockey Sweater you nominated as a good article has passed [[

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

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

Montreal Expos[edit]

Though my ego laments that my extensive contributions to this article have now been scattered to the winds, I appreciate your rewriting the article, something that I was unlikely to do, given my tendency towards trying to keep other contributors happy by building on their work as much as possible. I've only given it a quick look so far; I'll probably do some copy editing in the days to come. Thanks for your work! isaacl (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I was totally counting on your copyediting.  ;) And don't let your ego worry too much. The previous version was my template. It's all re-written, but still built on that. Cheers! Resolute 13:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the current article may be a little overdependent on a couple of sources. I haven't read Gallagher's latest book, but the previous Remember the Montreal Expos was very fannish, though filled with lots of interesting tidbits. And although I have the utmost respect for Keri, he is a huge fan too, and so I think some care is needed when including any personal analysis. Unfortunately I haven't read the two definitive volumes on the Expos published in French (not sure if English translations have been released yet). On a separate note, I think a little more info on the players and events of the day may be good: I will be trying to work in some mentions of Tim Wallach and Vladimir Guerrero, for example. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Keri's book is pretty much the definitive English language history of the Expos though, which is why I used it as much as I did. Gallagher and Young definitely came across as fannish at points, so I tended to avoid that book for any statement not simply regurgitating a fact. They were the best I could do though, as my local library is thin as hell on the Expos. And let me tell you how annoying it is to source e-books. And yes, please do add more on some of the players. My first pass was more to organize the overall franchise history. Thanks, Resolute 15:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
There may be some other books in French I'm forgetting; the one other notable English book I'm aware of is The Expos Inside Out, by Dan Turner, which covered the 1982 season and the history before that. Brodie Snyder had a couple of in-season diaries covering 1979 and 1981, The year the Expos almost won the pennant! and The year the Expos finally won something! which are great reading for fans, though at a lower level of detail than is needed for sourcing the Wikipedia team article. isaacl (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Don't think I have access to those, unfortunately. Resolute 17:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

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

Sorry[edit]

Pardon our smoke. Sca (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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