Misplaced Pages

User talk:Resolute: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:27, 27 June 2015 editResolute (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users53,505 edits →Deftly: The Bard was a man ahead of his time← Previous edit Revision as of 14:02, 28 June 2015 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,309 edits I don't know why I bother, but here are the facts. Go on, wave them away with a Shakespeare cliché.Next edit →
Line 165: Line 165:
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. - ] (]) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC) 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. - ] (]) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
:]. ]] 17:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC) :]. ]] 17:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

==Not sure why I bother, but here are the facts ==
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. You can see me telling Eric to fuck off , a couple of months ago. (Apparently he had never heard such language.) He answered me with that made me so tired I've avoided him completely since, as indicated here. 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 ]). 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. ] | ] 14:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC).

Revision as of 14:02, 28 June 2015

Archiving icon
Archives

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10


Template:NoBracketBot

Peer review of 1877 Wimbledon Championship

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)

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/April 28, 2015

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

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)

Template: NHL teams

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)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Misplaced Pages

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

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs)

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 (talk • contribs)

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 Misplaced Pages's reliable source policies. Misplaced Pages'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

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

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)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/July 1, 2015

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

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)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

LMAO

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 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

THE LIE IS BACK

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 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Deftly

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

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. You can see me telling Eric to fuck off here, a couple of months ago. (Apparently he had never heard such language.) He answered me with an edit summary that made me so tired I've avoided him completely since, as indicated here. 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).