User talk:Resolute/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Resolute. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

You can nominate it for FLC, there's only 3 trophy lists at FLC currently, and two of them are at the bottom. Maxim_(talk) 13:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You have some. --Maxim_(talk) 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I like your season template and have been working on some older seasons as I ran into a few problems with the current template. How should we handle leading the league in points before the Presidents Trophy? Maybe a NHL League Champions tag, and maybe other divisions, such as the American Division? Also, ran into a problem with the Detroit Cougars name plate for the 1926-27 Detroit Red Wings season. In the box I don't want to put Detroit Cougars (NHL) and if I just put Detorit Cougars it heads to a disambig page. Just some thoughts as we start working on older seasons. Let me know! -->Schmackity< 15:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On 4 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Calgary Tigers , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the anon IP revandalized the Heatly article after your final warning. I'll wait for the block before trying revert, as there's no point in doing this over and over. ThanksShawn in Montreal 18:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick work! Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

So why do you get to decide what is noteworthy? I never got a response as to my last comment. Therefore, my page was deleted without reasoning. Are you note worthy? I believe so. So why do you define what is or is note noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjarows (talk • contribs)

As defined by Wiki: Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.

The impact: it broke a news story of a franchise moving. Therefore it follows this guideline. It had the story before the newspapers in both cities. I consider this noteworthy. Tell me why it is not. Rjarows 03:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoy this! I understand everything you are saying. However you say the claim is unverifiable. Check the Las Vegas Gladiators page on wiki. It lists an article in the Las Vegas newspaper, Cleveland newspaper, and then my blog. All dates of the written articles can be seen. My blog broke the story first. Therefore it is undeniable that I broke the story. Also, as far as searching google, you can find the blog that way. I've done it before. I also received a good number of hits in 2 days, so it was seen by a large group. It was cited by other who were talking about the story on messages board as well.

I look forward to your response Rjarows 03:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand your feelings as far as conflict of interest, however in no way did I report in my entry an opinion such as "I am the greatest writer of all time." I merely stated a fact, I broke a story. You seem not to have read the two newspaper articles which both show they were written after the date of my post about the move of the team. This is VERIFIABLE. Newspapers are viable sources. I don't believe a story needs to be written about me breaking a story to consider it to be viable. For example, I see that you are a hockey fan. If Barry Melrose broke a story that Sidney Crosby will be suspended for the rest of the year, for me to list that in Barry Melrose's wiki entry does fox sports have to write an independent story about how Barry Melrose broke it for it to be verifiable? Because merely showing it on ESPN's website would not be good enough since it is not independent of Melrose, it is his employer. Similiarly, I "work" for my blog. Therefore listing a story on my should be the equivalent of the situation I described.

I would like one final reply, if anything just to see how my latest response could be disputed. However, I am very disapointed in the innerworkings of Wiki. This was my first venture into creating an entry. Frankly, I think its incredibly unfair. I understand the rules, I disagree with them. This whole "notable" thing is subjective in my eyes. Who is to say what is a credible source? As previously stated, we are in an era of free flowing information online. Provided what I enter is not bias (it was not, it was fact based and not opinionated), vulgar, or demeaning, I see no reason why it should not be considered viable. Its more information! Isn't that what Wiki is about? As of right now I am unsure and questioning why I will continue reading it

Rjarows 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Anon IP User:198.103.96.11 has resumed vandalism following the expiration of the 48 hour block. Given the persistent and chronic nature of this vandalism, would a permanent block be in order? thanks, Shawn in Montreal 16:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Res, I was wondering if you were going to going to make the Crowsnest Pass Timberwolves article we talked about a while ago. You removed the T-Wolves from the Oilers page and said you were going to make an article for it. DMighton 04:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:CalgaryFlames20th.PNG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That page has been sitting in its FLC for a while, and I was just wondering if you could take a look at the page and make some comments on the FLC page. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If you could, would you be able to contribute to the discussion and try and settle it down a little? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I created an article for one of the Atlanta seasons and created the template {{Atlanta Flames seasons}}. I don't know if you can make a mention of this in the Calgary Flames template. Maple Leaf 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have nominated a recently successful WP:FL. There have been two recent proposals to begin a List of the Day feature on the main page, which have both received majorities but have not been approved as overwhelming support sufficient to change the main page. WP:LOTDP is a new proposal to try to get the ball rolling based on the original proposal. You can voice your thoughts on its talk page. Basically, what the proposal entails is attempting to run an official trial, and then vote after the trial run on whether to change the main page. Support to run a trial requires much less consensus than support to change the main page. Should we succeed at eventually getting such a feature on the main page it would tentatively look like this. Whether or not you support an experimental trial or not you should come discuss the matter at WP:LOTDP's talk page. I apologize if you have either already voiced your opinion on this matter or already tired of hearing about it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Cannons.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I am contacting individuals in the order of the number of featured lists that they had created by Novemeber 10, 2007. You have created several. So you are among the first. There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The Maple Leaf Award

For your excellent coverage of ice hockey topics in Canada, I award you this red maple leaf. --Qyd (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just had a few questions about Calgary Flames notable players and award winners. Please see my questions on the talk page. Thanks--Billy (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already replied on Talk:Calgary Flames. Regards, Reso lute 06:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest obtaining consensus in this case? The article's talk page is "permanently" protected, and there isn't much activity on related articles. --Core desat 00:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that merging and redirecting doesn't delete the history and is virtually the same as "keep" as far as AFD is concerned. --Core desat 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumb — It gives me great pleasure to award these imperial triple crown jewels to Resolute in thanks for significant contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of ice hockey. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Imperial Majesty, excellent work and happy holidays. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, Merry Xmas to you as well. Reso lute 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How long before the AfD is decided? Nshuks7 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please take a look and tell what's missing from the article? I think this much should be enough, or should there be more notable points? I don't think this figure needs a "Personal Life" section. What's missing? Nshuks7 (talk) 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

20.

I am trying to make the Heroic cthulhu article an upstanding artile that doenst meet the rules for speedy deletion. it has a fair presence on the internet and deserves it's own wikipedia article. You deleted it just before i finished my Make it importent rule edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolus69 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I was looking at the new AJHL website and I cannot find their past seasons standings like they had posted on the old one... by any chance do you know where I could find them? Or, by any chance did you copy them to notepad when you had the chance? DMighton (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically just the entire list of standings... I am doing season article on the Ice Hockey Wikia... thought I would post the AJHL's. Can you e-mail it to me? DMighton (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... slowly... me and a guy from Quebec are slowly building it up... it is a new frontier of sorts lol. We are up to about 1150 articles. You can hop on too if you wish. It is no different than here really... just no outside interference. http://icehockey.wikia.com/ ... Presently I am punching in season pages for the SJHL. DMighton (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a look on HockeyDB... they have all the seasons I need posted on their site except for 1964-65, 1965-66, 1997-98, 1998-99, and 1999-00. If you could locate these five years I would be greatly appreciative. DMighton (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know: http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_AJHL_Seasons ... btw, congrats on adminship. DMighton (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just appreciate the help!... come by whenever you want. DMighton (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My entry to the "Ip2location" has been deleted. I have included non-commercial sources as reference. I'm new to wikipedia. Please guide me if I did anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgotchi (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you please review MS Nindawayma. I have made numerous edits to the article to improve flow and writing style. User:81.86.230.16 believes I am biased. Please see Talk:MS Nindawayma. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 46 support, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thanks for supporting me!

-Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My baby is all grown up, and I'm thinking it has the potential to be promoted to a GA. I realize it is missing photographs (unfortunately, I was unable to attend the event to take photos myself), but other than that I think it is in good shape. Since you've had experience with getting articles to GA before, and I have not, I thought you might be willing to take a look at it and let me know what issues you think need to be addressed. Thanks! Skudrafan1 (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input! :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind taking a look at Hockey Hall of Fame which is a GA and I hope to have it ready for an FAC by the end of the month. As well as a quick look at List of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame, which could be ready for an FLC now, I'm just waiting for another FLC of mine to pass and I'm also a tad concerned because the tables are too... Skinny. Can you think of anything to add? I'll do a copyedit of Calgary Flames for you, which looks pretty good. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a book (I got it at Chapters for $15 a year ago and I never thought I'd find a use for it. They also have a similar book except for NHL trophies, so that one might be worth picking up) and as far as I know, that is the proper way to cite things because the book has no credited author. For example FAs like The Simpsons all use the same book as a citation multiple times and thats how the references are formatted. However, I will look into it, just in case I'm wrong. And ref 13 will be removed. Thanks for taking a look at it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This is probably off topic for AN, but in response to the discussion there.. No, thinking someone who made a particular mistake may have also made similar mistakes elsewhere is not remotely a case of failing to assume good faith. Look at what the actual words say- assume good faith. This means we assume people were trying to do the right thing- it has nothing at all to do with assuming they were successful. That is an utterly crucial difference. Someone can act out of the best of faith, but if they're incompetent, they're going to make mistakes. Heck, even the most competent people you can find are going to make mistakes (they'll just presumably tend to make smaller mistakes, and/or fewer of them.) This may sound like a fine point, but I consider it pretty important. I can't count how many times I've seen someone say "I think so-and-so was wrong in doing this.." and then someone chimes in with a completely irrelevant "assume good faith!" It's nonsensical, and it distracts from meaningful discussion of the issue at hand. A bull in a china shop may have good intentions (i.e. he is acting in good faith), but he's still bad for business. Making useful contributions requires good faith and competence. That last ingredient is utterly essential. An editor who runs around exercising piss-poor judgment is still disruptive, no matter how good his intentions were. Friday (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the last month, you have created a new WP:FL. From what I can tell, you are a veteran and have produced others in the past. Congratulations! You may be aware of WP:LOTD and have probably heard from me in prior months. We are experimenting with selecting Lists of the Day so similar to the current WP:TFA and WP:POTD features that run on the main page. I am invite those who have created new FLs in the last month to participate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

On 12 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Punch-up in Piestany, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

---- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline someplace recommending that editors not use diacritics in NHL related articles, or is it just a convention due to the fact that the NHL itself tends not to use them? I'm trying to understand the logic here because it seems a little weird and arbitrary to me. Zytsef (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger. Thanks for clarifying for me. Zytsef (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Resolute. I noticed that you created this template so I wanted to talk to you. I tried to add a field for the player who leads the team in Plus/Minus and I cannot get it to work. I was wondering if you thought this was worthwhile to add. Cheers Maple Leaf (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

. What was the reason for not using them, considering it is their name? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense! Thanks for digging up that thread for me. ^{GO WINGS!} - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know. Coming off of a 3 game loss we're bound to let the opposition get a point. Don't worry though; it won't happen again! - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My gratitude for catching that -- I was misled by the phrasing of the article.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me sort out the Voodoo page business? I created a disambiguation page and sorted some links out.

I think you just broken them by delete so quickly. Thanks --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You guys are too fast! (and those templates too big and heavy ...) --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad we could help. :) Reso lute 23:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why that was taken out. All of the independent leagues have that saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Yes but all independent leagues articles say that. Every single one. Even a league that started up just last year. TelusFielder (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you broke this. It's printing a parser function on the pages that don't have images. (→Zachary) 23:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I could probably put these categories up for mergers myself, but I would feel much more comfortable that it was done right if someone more experienced such as you did it.

I've noticed that some of the overcategorization of hockey players by team (by league) has also resulted in some categories which overlap. For example, there is Category:Tulsa Oilers (CHL) players, but there are also Category:Tulsa Oilers (1964-1984) players and Category: Tulsa Oilers (1992-present) players. Similarly, but more bizarrely, we have Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-1995) players and Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-2000) players, which makes no sense whatsoever to me. I understand why Category:Kalamazoo Wings (2000-) players exists as it does (it was the UHL, but now it's the IHL, but the other league was the IHL too... man, why couldn't they have just left it as the UHL?), but the first two seem to just be complete overlaps. By the way, there is no plain-old Category:Kalamazoo Wings players. *sigh*

I'm sure there are more examples than these two, but these are the only ones I've spotted so far. Any help, or at least a suggestion? Thanks. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind setting up the CfD for the Wings categories? You probably have that process down pat by now, right? :) As for the Tulsa Oilers categories, I see what I did not see before (about it being two different league). I will focus my energy de-populating Category:Tulsa Oilers (CHL) players and moving the articles into the appropriate time frames. Thanks! Skudrafan1 (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I just finished emptying Category:Tulsa Oilers (CHL) players, so if you wanna zap it, be my guest. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no plain old Category:Kalamazoo Wings players category from a cfd a month or so back. I don't think when I did that cfr that I noticed there were two seperate Kalamazoo categories for the wings prior to 2000. I only had the 3rd one changed from Kalamazoo Wings (UHL) to (2000-). I think there is no single category because they hopped leagues and it wasn't just a name change the first time they hopped leagues like it was when the UHL changed to IHL. -Djsasso (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually upon looking at it. Mayumashu as usual created the Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-1995) players after the cfd last month that moved the Category:Kalamazoo Wings players to Category:Kalamazoo Wings (1974-2000) players. I don't think during the cfr that it was noticed that they change their name for a period of 5 years. -Djsasso (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominated for merger to clean this up. Reso lute 18:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You might actually want to look at my comments on the issue at the nom. You edit conflicted with me when I was putting a nom up haha. -Djsasso (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Katz has the power to make all decisions now. Katz is the informal owner. Thing is, being from Calgary, I'm inclined to think you would be laughing your ass off if it was declined. But back on topic. For all intents and purposes, Katz is the owner of the Edmonton Oilers. Cheers. Killswitch Engage (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it's guaren-damn-teed to happen. I'm totally against it, but I have to live the fact that Katz is the new owner. He's already being referred to as such, and from my readings, has already been maing some decisions. Cheers. Killswitch Engage (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean other than the fact that the statement is technically untrue? Killswitch Engage (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reported this user's uncivil behaviour at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As you're involved in the discussion at Talk:Dominion, you may wish to comment.--Gazzster (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)--Gazzster (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited to a discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo.--Gazzster (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to take out the entire trivia section? But what about the sourced statements? Do we keep those? TelusFielder (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see Keeley Dorsey before nominating any more of the like for deletion. Editor of the wiki 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please unclose the Muhammad (no images) AfD - look, I love pointless drama and escalating conflicts as much as the next guy, but this isn't the time for it. This is a GD important issue and time needs to be taken to talk it over, even if the outcome is likely. Process is important in this case.Wily D 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, yes, I suspect it'll delete. At the very least, a much stronger mandate coming out of the AfD would be valuable in future discussions. Wily D 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

All I see from prolonging this is making a point of counting the !deletes. I've made my own point on the AN thread, either there or VPP is where the discussion should be taking place. As I said at AN, I'm not sure people are looking at the page source and understanding the whole thing. And even (and especially) if they are, how big is a snowball once it's melted? Franamax (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I will leave it to another admin to re-close the debate, if they so choose. Reso lute 16:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me of the supposed athletes articles that got deleted that you mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination). Editor of the wiki 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The correct version is {{Olympiacos squad}}; please don't just delete the deleted template. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem - it took me a while to work out why there was a slew of footballers popping up on CSD, then I noticed that a template had been deleted for being a duplicate even though it was still in use. As I started to update the pages, I realised you were doing so too, but in another way! No worries. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is getting to that time of the year again! How would you feel about updating the AJHL teams when the season ends on February 27th? I've already did the OPJHL, SOJHL, 5 out of 6 OHA-C leagues, MLH, EOSHL, GMJHL, SJHL, and EOJBHL... it is the busy season! DMighton (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the AJHL looks tough this year... real tough... some really stacked teams. I just hope that St. Mikes, Vaughan, or Huntsville can survive the OPJHL deathgrind that is known as their playoffs to meet one of these AJHL teams this year. DMighton (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to delete this article as well. I would, but I don't know how to do it. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

why was the page on Rev. Talbert W. Swan, Ii deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revtswan2 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#24.67.51.33_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_deleted_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29? Maxim_(talk) 01:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone else got to it before I came online. Reso lute 03:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw your response, and so I can tell you obviously didn't mean this, but Religion of Peace has acquired a sardonic meaning since the early part of the decade, when the term was actually used seriously. -- tariqabjotu 21:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would keep an eye on Deletion Review for awhile, because you know this is definately going to be relisted there without us being notified. -Djsasso (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. There is a straw poll for consensus you may be interested in going on at Talk:Rorschach inkblot test Regards--Garycompugeek (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Request third party admin to unhide picture per consensus during any mediation that may take place see talk page.--Garycompugeek (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Request warning or block on User:Ward3001.Examine users history comments. Taunting and trying to start an edit war. (again) dialog about image placement is ongoing on talk page.--Garycompugeek (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought the AWHL article might be of interest to you. If you know anything about that, it needs major cleanup. It links to some articles you've contributed to. Also, please have a look at Talk:Great Falls Americans, and leave any comments there if you could. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that underages can play at the age of 14. This holds true for all levels of junior hockey in canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs) 06:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FYE - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. You sent me a message saying I vandalized an article which I never edited in the first place. I'm afraid my account may be being accessed by a third party and wondered if you know how I could confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.173.189 (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I re-added some of the trivia [only the cited ones]. But I didn't bring back the ice quality of Rexall Place citation because I agree that the ice isn't that great anymore. I've been noticing players slip and slide more often the last 2 seasons than ever before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TelusFielder (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

edit

WikiProject Ice Hockey Newsletter

Dear Resolute/Archive 2! You are receiving as you are a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey There's been many more new things going on at WP:HOCKEY; this newsletter will be sent every two weeks/months.

If you wish to not receive the newsletter, please remove your name from the newsletter mailing list. Thanks!

edit

New recognized content

By The Pancake of Heaven!
There has been numerous new recognized content, so much that it's too time-consuming to sift through the "trophy cases" on WP:HOCKEY. Some interesting achievements:

2016 NHL Draft has been newly created and has immediately become a GA status article.
The Vancouver Canucks task force has become active again, thanks to Canuckian89!
J.D. Watt has been declined at WP:AFD.
Drafts related to the OHL have been published!

edit

Task forces

By The Pancake of Heaven!

We are working to create a new task force within the WikiProject to deal with topics related to the Pittsburgh Penguins. It hasn't been created yet; but it aims to expand articles based on former and current Pittsburgh Penguins players and articles. Good luck!

edit

New Administrators

Currently 0 promoted admins! Be the first one at WP:RFA.

edit

Featured Topic Drive

By Maxim

The original featured topic drive, initiated by Scorpion0422, has concluded succesfully. National Hockey League awards is now a featured topic, with 24 articles in total. Of them, 20 are featured lists, one is a featured article, and the other three are trophy articles that were too short to become featured lists. Eight users signed up to help out, shown here. The next Featured Topic hasn't been decided upon, and the ideas and organization for it fell apart. If you have any ideas, don't hesitate to share them at WT:HOCKEY.

edit

Notes

More editors are needed to help out with the newsletter. The newsletter creator doesn't have an infinite nor perfect supply of ideas, and thus he might omit some interesting news.
Portal:Ice hockey is being considered for featured status.
Should Chris Pronger have been suspended for more than eight games for stomping on Ryan Kesler? Vote here!
Help Patrik Stefan -- one of the greatest NHL draft busts -- become a GA status article.

Note: You have received this because your name is on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter/List. If you no longer wish to receive this message, remove your name. MonoBot (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[Moved from Userpage; posted by User:71.229.127.129] You tell me only to put facts regarding Downie so I do and you still remove it, name me 1 fight downie takes his visor off for. He is know around the NHL for keeping his helment and visor on while he swings and it should be recorded.

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats. I noticed your comment about microfilm reels. Yeah, I know what you mean. I have spent a lot of time lately on the original Sens and early hockey. The only thing out there for a lot of that time is microfilm. One thing the Toronto Library has online is Globe and Mail dating back to 1840s. It's searchable, but the OCR scans of the early text is bad and you can't do searches that far back. But I think it is the future, and easier to look at than the microfilm of old newspapers. Although the old newspapers are pretty interesting to compare with today's coverage of sport. I don't think it is getting better, in some ways, like local coverage Alaney2k (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. There is a debate going on with the Carolina Hurricanes seasons list about it being a WP:FLC. Since you were a major contributor to Calgary Flames seasons and an administrator, I am asking if you would contribute to the debate. It can be found here. Thanks, PG Pirate 19:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the various lines indicating a team won the Division/Conference/etc., I think that it is possible this could be added to. For example, the template as currently designed does not have room for indicating when a team wins the Conference Regular Season Championship. Also, there is no way of expressing the two sorts of Division Championships that were available for a time (regular season and playoff). Is there a way to add this functionality? MrArticleOne (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Such banners do exist. See http://picasaweb.google.com/joelhakim/AnaheimDucksDetroitRedWings/photo#5125425165666379506 and http://picasaweb.google.com/joelhakim/AnaheimDucksDetroitRedWings/photo#5125425200026117890. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What are NHL-awarded banners? What reference(s) are you basing this distinction on? How are you differentiating between banners the Red Wings put up, and ones issued by the NHL? The only avenue I know of to get at how "things are done" is to see what NHL teams do, because I am not familiar with any more definite policy. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that it looks like the Canadiens only put up banners for Stanley Cup victories. This suggests to me that the banners in many arenas for the Presidents' Trophy, Conference and/or Division Championships are no more NHL-awarded than (say) the Conference Regular Season Champion banner in Detroit, unless they're all NHL-awarded and the Canadiens are just more selective in what they choose to put up. See http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/77721470.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193A242DD909DF1BD4B4EE64286CEDA771A284831B75F48EF45. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Dallas Stars put up a Division Champions banner, a Presidents' Trophy banner, and a Stanley Cup banner, but no Western Conference Champions banner in 1999. See http://www.thesportsroadtrip.com/dallas08.jpg. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note, I've never been in any NHL team's arena, so all I know to go by is what I see on television. No arena's arrangement is familiar or otherwise "feels normal" to me. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not regarding the superfluous banners ("Thank you fans" "Inaugural season" et al.). I just don't know how you're differentiating between what the NHL "recognizes" and what it doesn't. I get your point regarding the fact that certain achievements are accompanied by a trophy. But, what I don't understand is how you tell the difference between the NHL "recognizing" the Division Championship banners, and "not recognizing" the other ones that we've talked about here. The only way I could possibly tell what the NHL "recognizes" is what it allows its teams to put in their arenas; I can't think of any other way of accessing the NHL's protocols. I just can't discern any way to differentiate the Division Championship banners from the ones you're saying are disfavored. MrArticleOne (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, if the NHL "awarded" the banner, then it's curious that Detroit's Division Champions banner looks identical (other than the wording) to the ones that aren't "awarded" by the NHL. I see no superficial logic to the NHL specifically regulating the recognition of Division Championships, but then letting the team do whatever it feels like with other accomplishments that (under your approach) the league apparently considers of dubious authenticity. Of course, it's possible you're privy to inside information that I am not that makes this clear (perhaps you work for the NHL, or a team), but if you aren't, I am just not understanding what basis you're using to differentiate between the ones you think are "in" and what is "out." MrArticleOne (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never been in any arena, so I have no real basis of comparison. Your point regarding western Canadian teams, though, is seemingly as ad hoc as anything else; I don't see where it necessarily indicates what the league does or does not "recognize." One telling fact would be whether the league gives/gave a cash bonus to the team/players for doing this things (e.g., will the players for Montreal or Pittsburgh get a bonus for being the non-Presidents' Trophy-winning-but-still-1st-in-the-East team). I am not sure where to find out such information. I know the Presidents' Trophy is accompanied by a cash bonus, and it seems like I have read in the past that the Division Championships are. If the league does award a cash bonus to those teams, that would seem to be just the sort of "recognition" that you speak of. MrArticleOne (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references that division champions in the 80's and early 90's was the 2nd round playoff winner? The Flyers consider themselves 82-83 Patrick Division champions based on this picture even though they lost in the division semifinals. Another one. --Ulf17 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

E-mailing the league if a good reference doesn't turn up is a good idea. I would like to have some proof if I'm going to be making changes that contradict the team's banners and some websites. --Ulf17 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's possible both Regular Season and Playoff division champions are recognized. Some teams recognize RS championships, others PO championships, and some, like the Penguins, recognize both apparently.

Hello Resolute. Should the IR's be left on, at the non-Playoff NHL team rosters & the corresponding Roster Templates? GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll romage through the 14 (non playoff) team articles & remove the IRs & injury tags. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review Talk:MS Nindawayma. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering something seeing your edit. I'm wondering what goes into the "Decision" field. I thought it was the nr. 1 star picked from that match. According to the summary on NHL.com, that should have been Nabakov. Do you use a different source perhaps or does something else go into this field? I'm just wondering since I filled out the field for the third match presuming that the nr. 1 star goes there, since the previous games had Kiprusoff and Nabakov listed, which were the nr. 1 stars for those matches.--Fogeltje (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, it makes perfect sense now. --Fogeltje (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it tomorrow. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you took part in the recent FLRC for List of Arsenal F.C. players and thought you might be interested in participating in a new discussion. The FLRC was closed as no consensus and it is clear the the issue of incompleteness in longer FLs is not over, so a discussion page has been started here. Please feel free to comment. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On 18 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Calgary Cup, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cirt (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I made the page an FLC, but I think the page may have to be withdrawn because as far as I can tell, the Challenge cup section is loaded with OR and games that aren't mentioned anywhere else. At first I had removed the section, (and just added a list of winners by year) but someone objected, and I readded it. There are more details at WT:HOCKEY and I was wondering if you could shed some light. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! A list you have been involved with was selected a WP:LOTD for May. You may want to add the {{ListoftheDayheader}} or {{ListoftheDaylayout}} templates somewhere in your userspace. Other template options are at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/templates. Your list will appear as WP:LOTD twice. If you have any date preferences in May let me know by April 25th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At one pint I also nearly created a page for him because I was going to create pages for every member of the committee that didn't have one, I made one for Yvon Pedneault, but never got around to the rest. I've also considered creating a list of selection committee members, but I doubt I'll ever be able to find sources for the pre-Internet era members. As for Chynoweth, he probably will be inducted this year, and I'm surprised that isn't already in, considering that the selection committee members have a history of inducting themselves. Chairman Jim Gregory was inducted in 2007 and I'm surprised that I can't find a reliable source that criticizes it, considering the stink that was made over Gil Stein's induction. By the way, if you need another source for the Chynoweth article, here is the Hall of Fame's official statement. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another source for the Chynoweth article -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ichc logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to reverting it. Looks like I stumbled onto another case of that Radio Station in Detroit going nuts. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Resolute. Go ahead and delete the templates. I have taken the actual game logs and put it in the articles so that there is no need to work on two pages. The only reason I did the templates is that in various basketball and baseball articles, the game logs are on a template. Maple Leaf (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Calgary Radz.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A preliminary Commons WikiProject Canada has been created. Please help adapt, modify and expand it, to coordinate and organize Canadian media on commons. It will provide a common area for media discussion, PD issues and naming on the commons WP talk page. Well, already the Commons WikiProject Canada has a This gallery has been requested for deletion deletion tag and discussion started because a wikiproject is not a gallery. Do you want to edit the intial Wikiproject start up or comment if it is needed on commons or not at the deletion discussion. Oh my goodness! SriMesh | talk 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On 7 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Darryl Brinkley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royal broil 05:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hitmen are promoted. Maxim_(talk) 01:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Nice topic that I would not have read about otherwise. --Laser brain (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, according to {{NHLHistory}}, the most recent "era" of the NHL is from 1991 to the present. Because the game changed so dramatically after the lockout, I think it'd be most logical to end that era in 2004 and eventually create a "post-lockout" (or "New NHL", since that's the buzzword) article that covers the last three seasons and onward. Of course this is assuming that each link in that template covers a new article.-Wafulz (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You can go ahead and nominate the 1917-1942 article. I think my WW II material would be better placed in the next article as a retrospective.-Wafulz (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind reverting this the redirect on this page (if you feel it appropriate) and the edits by User:Crzycheetah to Minnesota Wild and Template:Minnesota Wild and lock the List of Minnesota Wild head coaches so that an actual discussion about the merge can be had? I am involved and if I revert again 3RR will bite me. -Djsasso (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You said that you've been down this road before. Please direct me to the discussion, or where this rule of standardization can be found. Fact is that it's actually not a diacritic. Thanks. -Elizabeth Bathory (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a newspaper article about the Saskatoon Club: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?k=29454&id=3f841654-5aa0-4fd0-aa27-c71bd86ad3f3 You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatoon Club --Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I figured being at the end of the queue, I'd have a little more time to finesse the article (I'm thinking here specifically of the "MLA and Minister" section, which needs more sourcing and some expansion). Your quickness is definitely appreciated, but please don't quick fail on the basis of the stuff I thought I'd get done before somebody picked it up! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed the requested issues - it should be ready for re-assessment, I think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for that. If I may ask another question: I have no experience with the FA process, but I think, unlike with most of the articles I work on, there are probably enough sources about Stelmach to get him there. Would you be able to give me a brief assessment of what would need to happen to the article to do that? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I agree that the "background/personal life" stuff will have to be expanded, which is likely going to be the hardest part - that seems to be every bit as low-profile as most of his political career. Pictures shouldn't be a problem - I've started contacting some people on Flickr who have pictures of him up. And I'll definitely do a peer review, but I thought I'd get a quick informal one before I plunged in, so I could address the issues first. Again, thanks for your work with this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The article History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, 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:History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) for things needed to be addressed. Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 05:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1917–1942) for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Lego K^ontribs T^alk M 22:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Resolute! I was wondering if you could move Anton Gustafsson (ice hockey) to Anton Gustafsson, which was a redirect page for the Anton Maiden article. The other Anton Gustafsson was more known for his stage name Anton Maiden, and IMO a professional hockey player is more notable then someone who does this... --Krm500 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Your 'work' on the lolcat page is NOT appreciated. (and I am on a shared IP and not signed in now, so don't bother looking up the history on this ip as 99% is not me). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.192.4 (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. Reso lute 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

further comment on why you are so wrong has been posted in the lolcat discussion page.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.192.4 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you are right about the thorn. Blocked him today for another 48 hours. -Djsasso (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

um hey have no idea how to send you a message so sorry to edit your page but jsut wondering why did you delete mattism under vandalism? sorry again for editing your page to ask this but i dont know how to send message through wikipedia

Moved from your user page -Rushyo (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Responded on the IP's talk page. Reso lute 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha you are fast, good to know I am not the only one to have someone on a watchlist. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Those were some good humour pages... though I feel like I need to get into an edit war or two to really pull of the WikiDragon persona. ;o) Reso lute 18:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I probably just did a search on Google Images, and took the first one. That was back in the day before I knew how bad the imaging issue really is. It's probably a good idea to reload the HHOF one so it can be citied properly. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the GA pass. Appreciate you taking the time to do that. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to give it a second look, and am grateful for the tips you offered. Thanks! Highway99 (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Today, both of our pages were vandalized by the same person, someone I don't know. Before that, I didn't know you, either. Chergles (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still working on it; I'm a bit busy now, and I'll probably resume working on in the evening (EST). Hopefully, this time, I'll avoid labeling vandalism as copyediting. Maxim_(talk) 13:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Enter the discussion page and you will se what you revert to is far from being the concensus version. Thats the reason i allow myself to revert back to it! The one who sterted restoring it is a Montreal fan so what do you expect. Enter the talk page, see what other users said, i brought a quote from anothers user talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.167.107 (talk) 19:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I havent broke any 3RR!!! I havent edited this article and i dont know what it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.167.107 (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But thats the whole point, i dont push my POV. If i would see a POV you would see CSKA as the greatest club ever. What i want is an NPOV formulation. For example, Montreal veing most succesful in the NHL by number of titles is not a POV, it's a fact if to look by number of trophies. Montreal being most succesful in the world it's a POV.

If you to have an opinion about how the formulation should be, please enter the talk page of the article. The reason i reverted is that previously i was ignored when tried to get an NPOV and found users who tried to make a Point, you would see that in the discussion with the user on his talk page i had. I copied at it to the Montreal talk page. Enter the discussion there. I dont mind not reverting but having a discussion, where there is a discussion and not many users who try to make a Poine. If you'll see thru the revert history of the article you would see i changed my formulation many times trying to get a compromise with those users, which are two. One a Montreal fan, the other trying to make a Point againt "My way" (i asked him many time to enter my discussion with the other user, what he havent done). State your idea of a formulation there, more users will state, and a concensus will be built without reverts. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A brand new account? entering the discussion? What's going on here (could it be Checkuser time?). GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no point. The IP we are debating with stated on the Canadiens talk page that he has registered this nickname. It is the same person. Reso lute 19:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with their opinion, it's their right. But i dont really think articles are suppose to include opinions. I dont try to include mine, but try to say that we should include checked facts and not opinions or points. If i would include ny opinion i would say it's the best in the world only after CSKA Moscow in the article. I havent, and i wont, write in the Detroit Red Wings article because im their fan and this might hurt my objectivity. I try to NPOV things. The dude with the Red Wings (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This article relates to the reserve team of the famous club AFC Ajax. Clearly the club itself is notable, but I disagree that its reserve team is notable/important/significant. I have asked the folks over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Club reserve teams for their view. – ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for reviewing SummerSlam (1988). I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Nikki311 01:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, keep up the great work on the history articles, I've had them on my watchlist and they are progressing quite nicely. I was wondering if you were going to add a team timeline as you did in Part one. I think it would keep the articles style similar and make it look like one series, which is what it is right? I was thinking about working on Timeline of the National Hockey League, I like the style that you used on the first one, maybe I'll change it to match that. I'll be sure to proof-read 42-67 for the peer review at the latest, assuming you're gonna do that again. Black ngold29 05:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you made that timeline in Excel. Whenever you have time would you mind making one from 1917 the whole way through 2009? It would be cool to keep all the timelines in the same style, and I think yours looks better than anything a template can produce. I'd be glad to help with the lead, and maybe we could make it more in depth and add a few paragraphs going through every team and their reasons for forming and leaving. I'm sure you're probably busy trying to get the article up to an FA level, but I'm in no hurry. Thanks! Black ngold29 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll work on the prose in my sandbox, feel free to jump in if you want I'm sure you know about it than I do. Black ngold29 01:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've worked the prose up to the Original Six. I used the 1917-42 article as a guide and used some of the same sources, but if you can fill in any citation gaps that would be cool, since I don't have those books. I did however pick up Brian McFarlane's History of Hockey at the library and it seems like a solid book, so I'll use it where I can. Black ngold29 22:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds cool. We could do a section (Prose, chart) for each era (1917-42, 42-67, etc.) I think that would work fine. And we could use the same timelines that you've already created. I wrote out the 1917-42 stuff in my sandbox, although it could probably use some work on readability because it's basically "Team A was formed in this year. Team B in this year. Then Team A folded due to financial trouble." So it's a pretty dry read, but it's a start anyway. Black ngold29 01:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I know the Leafs aren't your team, but I recently started an FLC for the article, but I'm going away on Monday or Tuesday for a few days and I need someone to keep an eye on it for me. It will probably still be going when I get back on Friday, but you just need to make sure it doesn't fail until then. Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be pretty swamped this weekend, but I will keep an eye on the FLC and article and do what I can to assist in this article's passing. Reso lute 01:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Resolute! I was wondering if you could help me with an article I'm writing. I've been looking for information about the Pengrowth Saddledome, too see if it was in any way inspired by the Scandinavium arena. I'm currently working on the Scandinavium article, hoping to get it to GA, and so far I just found references to them being almost identical in structural design. --Krm500 (talk) 10:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will check it out, thanks for the tip. Since you have experience with the GA process can I ask you to make a quick review of the article when I'm done with it? --Krm500 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just added two sections to the Scandinavium article. If you have some time please look over them and give me feedback on my talk page. I estimate that these two sections will cover less then one third of the finished article. I will add the Structure and facilities & Uses sections which are partially finished as soon as I have found good references. Regards. --Krm500 (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your review of this article. I have replied to your comments and made some changes to the article. Please let me know what you think. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I moved the article to Sarah Stock, and I moved the GA review to Talk:Sarah Stock/GA1 to update the paper trail in the interests of transparency. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for your review! I have made some adjustments to the article and comments on the talk page, which I hope will have brought it closer to GA status.--Diniz (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. You seem to have been involved in a messy situation involving the Max Mosley article, and I noticed that you have removed yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles. Are you able to complete your review of Forti? Thanks,--Diniz (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the update!--Diniz (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review and listing it as a Good Article!--Diniz (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I feel I should apologise for the hassle you were put through over the GA review on that one - not that I was directly involved, but obviously we have created a cursed article! (For example, it was nearing the end of FAC when the whole 'Nazi orgy' thing blew up, resulting in instant failure). Thanks for taking the time to look at the article, and I hope subsequent events haven't caused you too much stress. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Resolute - the "Tony's stats" thing was simply to ensure you used a more encyclopedic "Statistics are correct.." rather than "Stats are...". Also, for the guys whose positions are unknown, either an en/em dash or a N/A, whatever looks best, but include a key which explains whatever you choose. Hope that helps? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you get those very cool bragging icons alongside your username on your userpage? benjicharlton (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Resolute! I've just noticed your edit at Calgary Flames, changing the lead statement from "is" to "are". "Is" is actually grammatically correct, as the subject of the verb is one single thing: the team itself. It can be confusing as Flames is in the plural, but the verb should remain singular. I didn't want to revert without letting you know; you can revert yourself if you wish. Cheers! Maedin\^talk 19:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a difference between British and Canadian English as well. Teams are a group of individuals as opposed to a single entity. -Djsasso (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is common usage, but team is a collective noun and therefore treated singularly (at least where I come from). Often when teams are referred to in the plural it is because the emphasis is on the players and because it's colloquial usage. However, I accept fully that it is a "Canadian" article and that your version "reads" a little better, so I'm certainly not going to push it. I'm sorry if I came across a little strongly at first :) Thanks, Maedin\^talk 20:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No no...no problem at all. You actually aren't the first one. It came up on the talk page of the article itself earlier in the day. -Djsasso (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only just seen that, lol. Should have looked there first, 'doh! :) Maedin\^talk 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries, and I see my secretary, Djsasso, has already replied. ;o) Reso lute 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't help it...been watching the page all day and its main contributer to make sure you weren't the victim of vandalism. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

He's got your back! Good teamwork, have you just ganged up on me . . .? lol :D Maedin\^talk 20:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

National Hockey League awards

Email

Template:NHLTeamSeason

Did you know

Dany Heatley vandalism

FL Main Page Proposal

Viable complaint

Resumption of vandalism

Okotoks Oilers

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CalgaryFlames20th.PNG

+/- Award

Talk:Gilbert Perreault

Atlanta Flames seasons

LOTD proposal

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Cannons.gif)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

Award

Calgary Flames notable players and award winners

Swalwell, Alberta

Franz Josef Strauß

Imperial triple crown jewels

Jim Wadia

AJHL

Speedy Deletion

MS Nindawayma

RfA thanks

AMP Energy NHL Winter Classic

Would you mind taking a look at a couple of articles?

On assuming good faith

WP:LOTD

DYK

Diacritics in NHL articles

Template:NHLTeamSeason

Revert

My declined speedy

Voodoo

Golden Baseball League

NHL Player infobox

Minor league hockey categories

RE: Oilers Ownership

Quizimodo

Rexall Place Trivia

Mickey Renaud

Unclose the Muhammad (no images) AfD

Athletes

Deleted template

AJHL Final standings

Stefan Blaho

Are you avaible?

"Religion of peace"

Mickey Renaud

Image Straw Poll

America West Hockey League

CHL

Rich Winter

Vandal warning

Rexall Place

WikiProject Ice Hockey March 2008 Newsletter

Downie

New policy proposal that may be of interest

GA of Ottawa Sens

Carolina Hurricanes seasons

NHL Team Season template

Injury status on Non-playoffs teams

MS Nindawayma

2007–08 Calgary Flames season

Reply

Comprehensive long lists‎ discussion

DYK

List of Stanley Cup champions

WP:LOTD

Re:Ed Chynoweth

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ichc logo.gif)

Thanks

TfD nomination of Template:2008–09 Atlanta Thrashers game log

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Calgary Radz.gif)

WikiProject Canada on Commons&nbsp;??

DYK

Congrats

History of the NHL articles

WikiProject Canada on Commons ??

Calgary Flames: Is & Are