User talk:Resolute/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

NHL goaltender decision

I saw your edit with clarifying comments. I didn't know that goaltender decision is based upon who lets in the game-winning goal. Thanks for clarifying that.--Fogeltje (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attack Re: Ottawa Senators Article

No personal attack was meant toward Freshfighter9, only a description of his actions. Having a open discussion on a topic is fine by me, but his comments showed that he was not open to any discussion what so ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarcanuck (talkcontribs) 22:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

Hey Resolute! How long! I finally nominated Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics for Featured Article status, and I wish your review on it, as you passed this article to the Good Article status. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Congratulations (a little too late) on the victory of Canada over the United States in ice hockey during the Vancouver Olympics. Felipe Menegaz 21:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws

Hi Resolute,

Thank you for your support. As you may have noticed, the discussion has now been archived here.

I care a lot about this case and its more general implications. Could you please let me know how I can escalate it? I have seen many admin abuses before and some of them were even more disturbing, but this stands out as one of the most indefensible ones.

I have left a similar note to MickMacNee.

Thanks. 124.87.97.84 (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Truthfully, that situation seems to be stuck in a stalemate. Your best bet, I think, would be to make the effort to improve that article. Casliber has promised to lift the protection if someone is willing to do that, and since you are interested in the article, that would be the cleanest route forward. Resolute 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BCHL Express

Could you move the

Burnaby Express to the Coquitlam Express? The BCHL has granted the move for the start of 2010-11. Thanks! DMighton (talk
) 01:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or after this years RBC Cup has been awarded. DMighton (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Prolly best to do when they formally transfer operations to Coquitlam. If I forget, remind me and I'll make sure it gets done. Resolute 02:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for spotting and correcting my mistake on 2009–10 Calgary Flames season, sometimes these typo's or copy/paste mistakes sneak in and remain unnoticed. For some reason, when I double check my entry before submitting there's never a mistake but whenever I skip the double check there is one and thus makes it into the article ;) Guess it's a Murphy's Law. I'm glad this season is over. Hopefully better luck next year. Can't wait.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Navbox Image

I have to say I love that image everytime this debate comes up. It really is the perfect example of just how bad a trend these navboxes have become. I wish the entire wiki would wipe them out completely and then come up with a much more clean way to do it from scratch. As they do have some uses, but the current system is just rediculous. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The navbox problem is a pretty epic fail, I agree. That reminds me that I should probably get back to removing the draft pick and coaches navboxes, though the tedium pretty much stopped me. Resolute 17:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Hockey Navbox policy

Since you spoke up in my recent thread, I ask that you please check

WP:FOUR
) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Vancouver Canucks Media Guide

Hello, I recently asked a question on the [Canucks task force page] about division championships since I have been having trouble sourcing the period of time when the NHL had Divisional Playoffs. I was hoping that some one would have a Canucks Media Guide to help me source the correct number of championships, and DJSasso (talk) mentioned that he thought you had Media guides for all teams. I was hoping you could help me with this issue, essentially I need a reference that the Canucks won a division Championship in 1981-82 and did not win one in 1991-92 and 1992-93 before I attempted to get List of Vancouver Canucks seasons to FL status. Any help would be greatly appreciated--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will email the Canucks and I will make the suggested changes--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Brenden Morrow

I am working on improving this article, and was wondering if you had an image of Morrow in Team Canada duds? I noticed you had several guys from the Olympic camp, and figure I would check. Cheers! Canada Hky (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking! Canada Hky (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players

Please add your thoughts regarding my proposal found at Category talk:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 22:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

D 400 template

I voted the same way you did. I liked your comment "attempt to link articles with a non-defining attribute." Would you care to elaborate on this a bit more? I think you have hit on something that I would like to remember for future use. The articles are cities/places. Is the road a "non-defining attribute"? Student7 (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

in common

We have some things in common. One is Wikicup. I am in the second round but it will be very close whether or not I make the third round.

Another is policy ideas. You wrote "Generally, this guideline should reflect core policy: WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, etc. As a reflection of policy, it should not be made into policy itself."

Do you firmly believe this? This statement was so convincing that I changed my opinion about changing a guideline to a policy. So would you, in theory, be opposed to a policy based on another guideline? In theory, the policy might be made more broad (and less of repeating a guideline) or the policy rewritten to just govern broad policy and the guideline govern some more specific?

If so, I would like to begin a short discussion with you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Look here:

WP:ONEEVENT
. This is a guideline. It is neutrally written. It says that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate", if not, then no article. I like the neutrality that this guideline's language uses.

Now look here:

WP:BLP1E
. This is a policy. It is a mess. The mess includes:
1. It refers to the main document (link) as the WP:ONEEVENT guideline. A policy should not point to a guideline, it's vice versa. Links for info are ok but not the link that say "Main" as in main article.
2. The policy is not written in a neutral fashion. It basically is prohibits articles on people known for one event, except in exceptional cases.
3. The policy conflicts with the main guideline that it refers to. (see 1 and 2)

People should not decide on what to do based on their goals. Deletionists should not try to make things so difficult so that no article qualifies. Inclusionists should not try to say anything goes. What we should do is to make the policy and guidelines compatible. Actually, the guideline is written better than the policy. The policy might read that caution should be given about writing about one event people be somewhat vague. The guideline should then refer to the policy and give more specific advice. The guidelines would be subject to change more often and the policy would, hopefully, not change as often.

Let's discuss this before acting further. A study group working on this (you and me to begin with) might not be a bad idea. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What administrator has a good reputation, is well respected, and might understand this issue? The next thing to do would be to discuss among all 3 of us how to reword it. Once we agree, we can present a well thought of idea. If I, for example, just go there now and suggest, the product would not be as well thought out as if we discussed things first. This is not collusion but thoughtfulness. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad disclaimer

Is there a good reason why we can't be sensitive about this with a hatnote? It doesn't seem like a big deal to include... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, given it hasn't been discussed since 2008 I've bought it up again. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP ideas

Please review the following and let me know if my idea is too wacky. I do not want to propose a wacky idea.

Existing version

Subjects notable only for one event
Policy shortcut: WP:BLP1E
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.

Reason for replacement: You understand it well. A policy referring to the main article, which is a guideline, a policy which is not as well written as the guideline, etc.

Possible replacement

Subjects notable only for one event
Policy shortcut: WP:BLP1E
Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia:Notability (people) offers guidelines as to inclusion of subjects notable only for one event.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I start thinking about the long version. How about the contradiction? Guideline says beware, maybe but policy has evolved into a "prohibited unless Hinckley" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

new

The BLP1E section refers to the "main" article. You agreed that the main article was better written. Since it wasn't too long, I pasted it to BLP1E. After all, why have a poorly written summary when the main text isn't too long. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event

"centre" → "center"

Hey, remember not to change "center" to "centre" when the "center" in question is actually an HTML argument. Someone ought to change HTML so that the two terms are interchangeable... — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, oops! Thanks for the correction! Resolute 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

The Charity Barnstar
To Resolute, for crafting an incredibly moving and well-written article about Terry Fox. Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


I actually cried while reading this, and it's solidified my plans to participate in the next

Relay for Life in my town. Thank you so much. (and yes, this will be promoted to FAC later today) Karanacs (talk
) 14:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm honoured you feel that way after reading the article. Thanks. :) Resolute 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Many congratulations on the Featured Article, and thanks for the barnstar! --Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Second that. Great job! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

NHL/Stanley Cup Titles

so the Canadiens have 25 right? Warriorshockey1 (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

25 NHL titles and 24 stanley cups. The Stanley cup wasn't always the championship trophy of the league. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. It gets confusing because the Stanley Cup wasn't the NHL championship for the first ten years of the league's existence. The Canadiens have 25 NHL titles, 24 Stanley Cups and 23 Stanley Cups as members of the NHL. They won the NHL titles in 1919 (O'Brien Trophy) and 1925 (PoW Trophy) but failed to win the Stanley Cup in either of those two seasons. Resolute 17:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Reviewed this article, its currently on hold, looks pretty good, mostly some minor things, and a few omissions. Canada Hky (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Toronto FC

I thought that since 3 out of the 4 WikiProjects have it rated as B-Class, it might be good to have something on the talkpage to work with. Kingjeff (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator

Are you an administrator? Kingjeff (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently started
WikiProject Association Football competitions. There are a couple people who disagree with this WikiProject being set-up. Namely Jmorrison230582 has an issue with it. He/she has made several edits like this one. And I have readded the template without deleting the other template he is using. As showen here he even called my actions as "Perverse behaviour" which I am taking great offence to. So, what do you think should be done about this? Kingjeff (talk
) 19:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's point out a few facts here.

ownership of that project and has blatantly disregarded those valid points. Jmorrison230582 (talk
) 19:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It's too hard of a sell since they're trying to delete the project. Is there anyway you ca nrevert and protect the page. Kingjeff (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I think you might want to let this one go. They are right, you are just duplicating another project that is already in existance. Instead of arguing with them why don't you just try and work with them and make sure the existing project covers what you want it to cover. No use wasting yours and others time on duplicating work. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think officially, there are 3 members including myself. Kingjeff (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Here is the Member list to prove there are 3 members. I expect another one within the next couple of days. Kingjeff (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

wiki rules

You made an interesting comment to me before. Rather than cutting and pasting your comment, why not make the comment yourself. I posted in the talk page but no response for days. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP1E

Basically, that section lists a Wikipedia guideline as the main article. The main article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event ) is not very long, just about 4 short paragraphs. It gives clear examples. It is neutral. However, the short version ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP1E ) is not neutral and basically says no articles are permitted except for Hinckley type cases. I have both pasted the 4 short paragraphs as a replacement and also pasted a short summary of the 4 paragraphs. One person doesn't like it.

What I am asking you is not just another vote. What I am asking is that you know how to express your opinion and have a logical opinion (I need to read it again but I remember it was wise). Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

172.129.216.233

Not sure what happened with your block, the message showed on his talk page, and Huggle showed blocked, but he wasn't, and kept adding the same data! (He is now...)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Henrik Sedin copyedit?

Hi Resolute, I currently have Henrik Sedin on FAC and a reviewer recommended you for a copyedit. Would you be able to take the time to go through the article? So far the article has four supports (I think), an oppose and some lengthy comments in regards to prose. If you could take the time, it'd be greatly, greatly appreciated and hopefully be the final step to the article being passed for FA. Cheers. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the AFD

Tanks for putting Fort Mall up for AFD. I had considered doing it myself but had never done it. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

NP. I was looking over Canada/Alberta stubs looking for options to expand, and, well, damn! I've been to that mall, and I honestly can't figure out why anyone would go to the trouble to write an article about it. lol. Cheers! Resolute 23:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL me too :) -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for 1971 Memorial Cup