User talk:Resolute/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Dallas Stars

Howdy, it's been over 2-months since the last appearance of the SPA (concerning the Stars roster), so I've gone ahead & removed the A from Lehtinen. PS: If the SPA returns & restores it? I won't revert him/her. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Memorial Cup champions

You need to stop this kind of ownership behavior immediately. My edit was not "bold" and did not need to be reverted. It added to the article. You seem to patrol all hocley related articles and deter them from advancing. Do you just sit home all day reverting the progression of all hockey articles ? Once again I think you need to learn Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Any edit that changes the layout or significant portions of content is bold (especially when the article in quetion is a featured list). No matter what it is. This is how wiki's work, if you make a change that others don't think is a progression then they revert it and discuss. Change happens alot quicker and easier if you work with others instead of attacking them like you are doing in this message. This was in no way ownership. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to learn what an attack is. Telling someone they don't own the article is not an attack. You do however need to stop reverting basic changes. You do not own all hockey related articles. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I need to stop reverting your basic changes? I got news for you friend; Of the two of us, I'm not the one with ownership problems. Resolute 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

LoL soon as I read that I laughed because he committed the perfect example of ownership right there. Your edits cease to be your edits the minute you hit submit. It even says so on the page. It tells you not to submit them if you do not want them edited mercilessly. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL, you guys are hilarious. Stereotypical. LOL. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Postal abbreviations

Greetings. Regarding "ON" for "Ontario" and other postal abbreviations, I think the relevant manual of style guideline is this one which states, "Current and former postal codes and abbreviations—such as TX for Texas, Calif. for California, Yorks for Yorkshire—should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text." I expect the reasoning is that those outside the country of use may not recognize the abbreviations. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The key to that is the wording in normal text which in my view means in prose. Postal abbreviations in infoboxes are very common. -DJSasso (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not saying you were wrong, just stating my interpretation. :) -DJSasso (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. I also think half the reason for that is that spelling out the state/province and country in the infobox would either widen it beyond value or force text onto multiple lines. I absolutely agree that we should never use abbreviations in prose. Cheers! Resolute 04:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unused image deletion

Please do not immediately delete unused images as you did with File:Pengrowth Saddledome logo.svg, as per guidelines there should be a seven day waiting period before deleting.--Svgalbertian (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bill Quackenbush review

Hello, I was wondering if you could do a favor for me. The Bill Quackenbush page is going through the review process and the editor only stated "This article needs a few improvements. It has some grammar issues. The errors were all over the article, but I believe they are mostly at the end now." Another editor left a message about needing to specify exactly what is wrong with the article and I would normally give the reviewer more time to respond but:

1. The review doesn't seem to have much experience and I'm not sure if he will check the review page with out any changes made to the article or how strict they will be with the 7 day limit with the On hold status.
2. I will be on vacation from the 14–17 so I won't be able to respond to other comments that appear in that time frame.

I was hoping you could do a copy edit of the article, to clean up any grammar issues that are in the article.

Also the reviewer made several edits before placing the article on hold. Some of the edits seem to make the page choppier. But as the writer that might just personal prejudice.

At any rate any help/advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 06:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the CE and all of the suggestions on the GA review page. They are all very helpful and will help to improve the article.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For all of your help helping improve articles. Specifically with Copy Edits for me and other hockey editors. Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Resolute 20:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Art Ross and FAC

Hate to ask, but would you be able to give Art Ross a quick copyedit while its up at FAC, as I've been asked to solicite another person to go through, and since you are currently leading the hockey project in FA's, I'd figure I'd ask. It shouldn't need much work, as I've had a non-hockey editor go through it, but still needs a bit of work. Thanks. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Jay Bouwmeester

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I commend you on your editorial contributions. Please post this on your user page.

This user helped promote Jay Bouwmeester to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Vitali Atyushov

Would you please use your Admin given powers to move the article Vitaly Atyushov over its redirect to Vitali Atyushov. This move is required to correct the article name to his commonly used name as an NHL player. Dolovis (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Given he was never an NHL player, I don't see why his NHL.com profile should take precedence. Most European sources spell it as Vitaly or Vitaliy, and the redirect seems to ensure that all spellings go to the right player. Resolute 23:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP Ice Hockey in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Ice Hockey for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Naheed Nenshi

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Essay

Thanks for your essay, which I found illuminating as to your beliefs and justifications for them. I've reverted it out because I feel quite strongly that such long discussion pieces on the merits of policy belong in more public venues than a user talk page. There is also the matter that there is extensive discussion elsewhere and I'm making efforts to stop it repeatedly overflowing into my user talk page, which I need to use for matters of predominantly personal import.

I encourage you to put this into an essay page of your own, either in your own user space or else in Wikipedia project space. Again, thanks for collecting and posting your thoughts. They do deserve wider discussion. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That is sound reasoning. I have added my thoughts to the AN thread. Cheers, Resolute 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Gnome task

Yeah I keep telling myself I will do that one. I have a number of AWB tasks on my plate than I want to do, but I just bought a house so they keep getting pushed aside while I pack. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

		The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
		Awarded to Resolute, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

cheers

noticed the pics added for Yip and Dupuis..great pic's as always. I'm sure many others and not just myself appreciate the time you spend to do this.. One day you'll have snapped the whole NHL! Triggerbit (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Bain

Incredible find there. Not sure how you found that, but it will be useful whenever I get a chance to spend some time on the article. Hopefully next week some time. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey team captains edit war

Hi Resolute,

I'm here to try to help offer my unofficial third opinion to help resolve the recent edit-war regarding ice hockey team captain.

My understanding is that Dolovis feels it is necessary to provide a brief introduction to the role of ice hockey team captains on each ice hockey team article. My understanding is that you believe that this should not be included as it does not relate to the article, instead it relates to the Captain (ice hockey) article.

So. As a compromise I have come up with the following solution, On each ice hockey article we can include the following line under the Team Captains heading:

Further information on Team captains in ice hockey: Captain (ice hockey)

I believe this serves both purposes, and conforms to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It allows the reader to easily be able to view further information about Team captains in ice hockey, without added detail which may not be specifically related to the article.

Please let me know if you think this is an appropriate compromise, or if I have misjudged your intentions.

Kind Regards, Aeonx (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ching Johnson Possible Images

I saw that you had nominated Ching Johnson for GA, I did a quick search to see if I could find an image old enough to be in the Public Domain, I couldn't really verify some of the images I found but I came across a couple of things that could be usable. First is a trading card which was published by O-Pee-Chee, I'm not sure if trading cards follow the same laws as photos but being that it was published in Canada prior to January 1, 1949 if it does follow the same laws it could be used. Second thing I came across was an image of Johnson wearing the "face mask" to protect his jaw. not sure if this would qualify for a fair use image since it shows the mask, but it helps to understand exactly what the article is talking about and not some steel goalie mask. Don't know if either helps but I figured I'd point it out. Cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Relevance

Just because an article has a low relevance to the project doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. Any article that falls into a hockey category should be covered by this project. The best way to deal with these situations would be to implement the importance attribute that pretty much every other project has. Even though I know that would end up with all kinds of hassle for a short while. In the case of the original NHL Network, they definitely should be. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I noted in one of my edit summaries, if a TV station broadcasts a hockey game, that doesn't make it a hockey article any more than a station that broadcasts an episode of The Simpsons falls under the scope of WP:Simpsons. Of the three articles I removed, the word "hockey" wasn't even mentioned once in the article body. Resolute 20:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those are really the same situation. The Simpsons are a sydicated show that can be shown at anytime anywhere on any network. Whereas an actual television network is different. Lack of hockey info on it is reason for improvement and adds all that much more weight to the reasoning for needing such tags. ;) Besides what harm does it do if its tagged? Other than in a few rare cases show up on things like the top 100 viewed articles which isn't that big a deal. -DJSasso (talk) 20:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding these articles on the various cleanup categories related to the hockey project. Personally I do think it is a similar situation, however. There is nothing we could write about these local stations other than "they broadcast(ed) hockey games". The project tag just seems to be clutter at that point, imnsho. Resolute 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Like Resolute, I hardly see the relevance with ice hockey broadcasting. Djsasso, then I think we probably should add the {{ice hockey}} template to The Sports Network too. The Sports Network's talk page mentions WikiProject Canadian sport. Is the relevance here that these TV channels broadcast ice hockey-related events? Do they specifically broadcast only ice hockey-related events in regards to sport? On the other side, "hockey" is never mentioned in any of the three articles you, Djsasso, reverted. HeyMid (contributions) 21:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference. And Heymid wasn't one of your unblock conditions to not get involved in discussions on other peoples talk pages that you weren't a part of? -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The goal as I see it is to eventually sort all the articles in the wikiproject into a few major areas such as the WP:CANADA tag does. For hockey we would probably do bios, teams, arenas, leagues, broadcasting. While maybe not super high priority articles, they do complete the picture of hockey broadcasting in the united states being the first national hockey network. -DJSasso (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: hockey template

My fault. I notified TonyTheTiger because he seemed to post a lot in the last discussion. I've just notified the other three who haven't voted yet. Again, I'm sorry. - PM800 (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

dude

you beat me to it--Львівське (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Theoren Fleury

I've only just seen the issue you raised regarding language back in May, so I'd like to point out that "Fransaskois" is not an assertion about language in any way. A person from Saskatchewan who has French Canadian ancestry, even partial, is "Fransaskois" regardless of whether his primary language is English or French, in exactly the same way as it's ancestry, not day-to-day language usage, that determines whether someone is Franco-Ontarian or Ukrainian Canadian or Polish Canadian, etc. — it's an ancestry category, not a language one, and what language a person speaks or doesn't speak does not change their ancestry. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't even remember what the original debate was about anymore, but thinking on it independently right now, I would like to see some verification that this category is applicable. Has Fleury ever been described as "Fransaskois", or is this an unreferenced addition? He has been called, and self-identified, as being Metis. Not so much as a Franco-Saskatchewanite. Resolute 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The very definition of Métis inherently requires that there be some English or French Canadian ancestry in the mix, and with that name the European portion of his ancestry certainly didn't come from the British Isles. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I've little doubt of that. None the less, our own assumptions, reasonable as they might be, are not what we should be classifying people on. I'd long since forgotten this issue, however, and whether or not the category was restored I'm not likely to revisit the issue. Resolute 01:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ace Bailey Benefit Game

Hello! Your submission of Ace Bailey Benefit Game at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ace Bailey Benefit Game

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Substing

Hey, in case you didn't know, the template {{prod-2}} isn't supposed to be subst'ed. No worries, though, I unsubst'ed it for you on the page Rob Proudfoot --- cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bah, lost track of which templates are subst'ed, and which arent. Thanks! Resolute 15:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, mate. I do it allll the time. There's lists of templates that should, shouldn't and must be subst'ed over at WP:SUBST. I usually just use that as a reference guide

Ching Johnson GAC

Just a heads up that when I get up in the morning I'm going to start reviewing the article. At a quick glance it doesn't look like there will be much, if anything, that needs to be done to it, so it shouldn't take long. Kaiser matias (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2011 WikiCup!

Hello, happy new year and welcome to the 2011 WikiCup! Your submissions' page can be found here and instructions of how to update the page can be found here and on the submissions' page itself. From the submissions' page, a bot will update the main scoresheet. Our rules have been very slightly updated from last year; the full rules can be found here. Please remember that you can only receive points for content on which you have done significant work in 2011; nominations of work from last year and "drive-by" nominations will not be awarded points. Signups are going to remain open through January, so if you know of anyone who would like to take part, please direct them to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2011 signups. The judges can be contacted on the WikiCup talk page, on their respective talk pages, or by email. Other than that, we will be in contact at the end of every month with the newsletter. If you want to stop or start receiving newsletters, please remove your name from or add your name to this list. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember these....

two babies that never hatched? The GBL & the second WHA. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The WHA II very well, as they played a couple seasons as a junior league in BC that included a team in central Alberta for a while. The GHL... well, I recall several discussions of proposed leagues, but not that one specifically. Nice find! Resolute 04:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember the proposed WHA though, with Commissioner Bobby Hull? GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

punch up in piestany

you have done a lot of work on this, thought I would ask you. The potential medal situation in the article seems to defy basic math: Finland and Canada had tied each other, Finland was a plus 22 with 45 goals, Canada began the game at plus 18 with 41 goals. IIHF rules would indicate that Canada would need to win by 4 and score at least 5 to be assured of the Gold. Didn't want to just change it in case I was overlooking something.18abruce (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I think you misunderstood. My point is that the paragraph on the game summary is incorrect. If head to head were equal, and goal differential were equal, then total goals scored would settle it. By IIHF rules Canada could have won the game 6 to 2 and won gold. That is not winning by 5 or more.18abruce (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rene Bourque GA

Heads up that I reviewed the article and put it on hold. Let the Canucks-Flames race on GA continue eh? Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing the sorting issue in the List of outdoor ice hockey games article. Very appreciated. By the way, are you planning on promoting this article to featured list status? HeyMid (contribs) 18:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw that you were trying to fix it, and realized that I had completely forgotten the sorting bugs when setting up the table. And yeah, I do hope to take it to FLC, but probably not for a couple weeks, as there are currently a high number of people tweaking, adding and changing. We'll have to let it settle into a steady state. Resolute 18:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned featured list here. Regarding the sorting bug, I think it's related to commas (you removed them when you then fixed the issue), but I was inclined to believe the sorting issue was intentional, because when sorting, the 2010 IIHF game appeared at the top; it simply seemed too planned to be a some kind of randomness. HeyMid (contribs) 19:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not just the commas, but the need to note which figures are estimates. Sorting is buggy as hell, and makes things tricky. You wouldn't believe the pain I went through with List of Calgary Flames draft picks to make it work there. This one was a piece of cake as a result. Resolute 20:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly something that needs to be addressed in the MediaWiki software in the future, then. HeyMid (contribs) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for List of outdoor ice hockey games

Dravecky (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New Dion pics on Flickr

Hey Resolute. Just thought I'd give you a heads up that Bridget Samuels uploaded a gravy boat of new Leafs pictures to her Flickr account (the stream is here, and there are some spectacular shots of Dion Phaneuf like you might be interested in using in your GA article of him. Figured I'd let you pick what you think is best, as I'm having a hard time doing so! Cheers! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! That will definitely make the people jonesing for a recent image happy! Resolute 19:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 14, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch^Talk and C. 20:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Calgary Hitmen are a major junior ice hockey team based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. The Hitmen play in the Western Hockey League. They play their home games at the Scotiabank Saddledome. Their name is derived from local-born professional wrestler Bret "The Hitman" Hart, a founding owner. Established in 1994, the team has been owned by the Calgary Flames hockey club since 1997. They are the third WHL team to represent Calgary, preceded by the Centennials and Wranglers. The Hitmen have had the best record in the WHL four times, and have qualified for the playoffs every season since 1998. In 1999, they became the first Calgary team to win the President's Cup as league champions, and the first to represent Calgary in the Memorial Cup since the Calgary Canadians won the national junior title in 1926. The Hitmen hold numerous WHL attendance records, and in 2004–05 became the first team in the Canadian Hockey League to average 10,000 fans per game. Thirty-two former Hitmen players have gone on to play in the National Hockey League. The Hitmen are the defending league champions, winning their second title in 2009–10. (more...)

Cool... I guess that gives me a couple hours to polish up the prose! Resolute 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, moved to January 14. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 21:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. That gives me time to do a long overdue copyedit before it appears! Resolute 21:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ace Bailey Benefit Game GA Review

I just finished a review of the article. There were just a few things I had comment/concerns about, any questions feel free to ask. cheers--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 22:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Calgary Hitmen

I had a read-through, and tightened a few things up, I hope I didn't muck things up too badly.  ;) Canada Hky (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hey dude. Sorry if I appeared flippant last night in that deletion review. I hoped that my subsequent explanation went some way to explaining what my shorthanded keep clearly didn't. No offence meant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Red Dutton

I just finished up leaving some comments on the GA Review for Red Dutton. Let me know if anything needs clarification. Canada Hky (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyMid (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Message received at 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hockey Fights Cancer

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! I noticed your activity as a Good Article reviewer, and wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Your user page

Hello! At least you might want to consider semi-protecting your user page for excessive vandalism. HeyMid (contribs) 10:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. One little child playing isn't enough for me to be concerned. Thanks for the suggestion, however. Resolute 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for not noticing this. HeyMid (contribs) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Scotty Davidson

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Chaka Fattah

Uhhhhh......I am totally at a loss as to why I just got a warning from you about inserting "unsourced defamatory content" into Chaka Fattah. If you'll look back at my edits, you'll see that I was the one who requested protection for the page. Please advise as to what, frankly, you are talking about. EATC (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay well I have to apologize, I just realized that an IP user (206.190.68.46) must have taken one of your talk page warnings, and dumped it into my talk page, using your name and everything. Apologies again, and you should be aware that some clown is going around issuing phoney warnings with your name attached.EATC (talk)

No worries! They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... Resolute 01:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Nutter Vandalism

I just recieved a vandalism warning concerning my recent edit to the Michael Nutter article from an anonymous IP address, but with your UserName attached to it, which leads me to suspect that another user may be impersonating you. With regard to my recent edit to that article, it was relatively minor and hardly intended to be vandalism or anything negative, and I would be willing to undo or revert it if in the judgement of another established user if it could be considered controversial. Any assistance from you in resolving this matter would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Same as the above incident. Someone spoofing him. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, I appear to be making friends left, right and centre lately. Probably related to our Craig MacTavish vandal. Resolute 17:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:66.224.33.163 just re-added the warning to my UserTalk page using your Username and also reverted grammatical changes I made to my own comments on my UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've just blocked them for a couple days. You'd think someone staying at a Holiday Inn would have better things to do... Resolute 23:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I was about ready to take the matter to the AIV noticeboard. --TommyBoy (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm have the exact same problem with User:75.145.77.185 who is using your UserName signature. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Howie Morenz Memorial Game

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed Rendell

What in the WORLD are you talking about? Not only was my edit to the Ed Rendell page non-defamatory, but it was sourced as well. Why are your sending me this note, Resoulte? ABCxyz (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

BC political articles need outside help

Hi Resolute, I know we've had our political differences in the past and we're clearly from different parts of the spectrum, but I know you to be a responsible and experienced Wikipedian. I'm tiring of the edit wars and ongoing personal attacks against me for contributions etc I didn't make (though reversed deletions of them), and it's clear the SPA warring with me is trying to make it personal, i.e. to "make it about me".....quite frankly I'd rather be working on history and geography articles and/or out playing my guitar (I'm a songwriter) but I have this sense of, er, duty to the truth....usually it's election campaigns in BC that are called the "silly season" out here, right now it's the party leadership races, the BC Liberal one in particular, and it's playing over into Wikipedia via the activities of User:Sirjohnhackett, a SPA with clear COI/POV intent, who originally was frustrated by his attempts to wash/control the Christy Clark article and has since moved on to attack-edit/add to the Adrian Dix and Glen Clark and Kevin Falcon articles.....I'll let you review his usercontributions and you may have already noted the BLP/COI-related notice I put on WP:CANTALK in relation to the Adrian Dix article, and have reported to BLP's noticeboard. BC politics is a quagmire, even stinkier than Ottawa, and the cans of worms are bipartisan and as I've observed elsewhere it's often the blogs and independent journalists, or the Toronto papers (the G&M mostly) who report on it more honestly than the Sun and Province ever have in all the time of their existence. Some blogs like Brian Kieran's, Rafe Mair's and Bill Tieleman's are by established journalists, others by well-recognized reseachers like Laila Yuile; the BC Mary blog is generally a compilation-with-commentary of both news and blog cites and is considered one of the "core" sources for BC Rail Scandal material/news....that article I'd rather be working on rather than having to wrestle with campaign staff on bio articles, to be sure, and it's long been in need of updating/expansion but the issues are so vast and complex those of us aware of it shy away from undertaking it; it's too important to go neglected much further......in a week or two I'm going to have to take a pretty-much-hiatus as I'll be starting full/overtime work in the film industry and between it and the gym and sleeping I won't have much wiki-time....I may de-list the political articles and just keep an eye on geography/history articles....if not for this, and stupid stuff like the endash/hyphen and wine region madnesses, I'd have written some pretty good materials on teh Alaska Boundary Dispute, and on my own draft History of the Lillooet Country, which I have ap ublisher lined up for but no time or money to spend in the archives and museums to do it properly....anyway, I'm hoping that you or other WPCAN folks will undertake to reign in the SPA's COI/POV activities, he's WAY over the line....and it's difficult for me to work on BC political articles without being POV - or without being accused of it. the facts are what they are; but apparently some thinkg that NPOV means getting rid of things that make one side or the other look bad....please review the articles mentioned in the CANTALK post and see if you're inclined to do what must be done....I think there's grounds for an ANI and block (he may be a sock of User:BCLib1045, for one thing) but I'm not the guy to file such a thing, given my notoriously testy and verbose style ;-> Thanks for your consideration and patience, if available....I'm not trying to poll, though think Bearcat and others from outside BC may be people who could take an interest in this without being accused of partisanship.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Player milestones

According to the recap on NHL.com, Regehr played his 800th career NHL game. Is that worth noting on 2010–11 Calgary Flames season? I'm asking since we already listed the 750th game so I don't know if it's "convention" to list or skip the 800th game.--Fogeltje (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is why I'm not a big fan of intermediate games played milestones. I would say to list one or the other, but not both. Resolute 17:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, the question would be 750 or 800. I'd lean more towards 750, being 3/4 to a 1000, but that's entirely arbitrary at my part. I'm sure someone could make an argument for 800 saying it's consistent with other milestones (always being a full 100). I'll leave the 800 game milestone out (usually I don't even bother with milestones, trusting others will add it, but I just happened to read about this one).--Fogeltje (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charlie Conacher Humanitarian Award

Hello! Your submission of Charlie Conacher Humanitarian Award at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Bobby Orr

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for being one of the people that helped to raise the quality of the Bobby Orr article.

This user helped promote Bobby Orr to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

René Bourque

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to note my appreciation for your effort to raise the quality of the René Bourque article.

This user helped promote René Bourque to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Charlie Conacher Humanitarian Award

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Canucks–Flames rivalry

I started the page Canucks–Flames rivalry and started the build on it. However, you nominated it for deletion. I was in the process of putting it together when it was being done. It is a notable rivalry, especially due to the Calgary – Vancouver regional rivalry, as also seen in the Canadian Football League between the BC Lions and the Calgary Stampeders. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 02:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Going further, I have a lot of information and other notable events in the rivalry and yes, I do plan to build the article. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 00:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick question about the Sharks player list

Hello, I notice that you responded about doing some work for keeping the List of San Jose Sharks players at FL status, I was wondering if I updated the table would you be willing to expand the lead? Changing the tables over to sortable is a long, annoying process since they have to add the sort key system to ensure proper sorting and it will probably eat up a lot of my editing time over the weekend, meaning I won't want to or have time to update the lead. If your busy with other things no big deal I'll try to get the lead worked on next week or try to cram it in this weekend. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just an FYI I managed to get the list updated and changed over to sortable over the weekend.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw, good work! The whole Expos nonsense occupied too much of my Wikipedia time on the weekend, but I still intend to look at ways to expand the lead. Resolute 16:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I got involved in that after the ridiculousness of the canvassing accusation. Noticed you expanded the lead. Thank you! I think that should prevent the demotion.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice for canvassing

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, --Jojhutton (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, well. My estimation of the good faith of your request is certainly being tested. By all means, run to ANI because I notified a relevant project that you failed to notify. It seems your argument in the ANI report tells me why: because you believe that notifying the Canada project would reveal opposition to your proposals. I'm sorry that I ruined your hope of hiding the proposal long enough to sneak it through. Resolute 03:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Expos

Though bringing articles to Featured Article status isn't a burning desire of mine, I have been slowly working at improving the Montreal Expos article. My main constraint has been finding the time to track down sources for everything. A great deal more discussion of the downtown ballpark saga is warranted, for example. I've always wanted to eliminate the Historic Games section and merge any significant events into the Franchise History section, but because it needs to be done all at once, the challenge of first finding sources for everything notable has been daunting. In any case, I will contribute whatever efforts I can towards improving the article, regardless of wherever the content ends up existing. I am strong at writing and so, at a minimum, I can assist with shaping and copy-editing any raw info. I realize that the unsung drudge work of finding sources is the real work of improving an article; although I will do my best, unfortunately, I can't realistically promise to spend more time on this than I have in the past year. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2010-11 AJHL

It's that time of year again! Would you be willing to put up season results for this year for the teams of the AJHL? DMighton (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about that yesterday while watching the Mustangs obliterate Olds. Resolute 04:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been sticking to LaSalle Vipers Jr. B, Essex 73's Jr. C, and Windsor Lancers CIS games. Essex and Windsor are already out... LaSalle remains, but it doesn't look pretty. BTW... I just finished months of AJHL research today... I have every playoff bracket, Doyle Cup, and Anavet Cup the AJHL was involved in from 70-71 to present on the Ice Hockey Wiki now if you wish to use any of it. Could be useful... especially the playoff brackets. DMighton (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 February newsletter

So begins round two of the WikiCup! We now have eight pools, each with eight random contestants. This round will continue until the end of April, when the top two of each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers of those remaining, will make it to round three. Congratulations to The Bushranger (submissions) (first, with 487 points) and Hurricanehink (submissions) (second, with 459), who stormed the first round. Casliber (submissions) finished third with 223. Twelve others finished with over 100 points- well done to all of you! The final standings in round one can be seen here. A mere 8 points were required to reach round two; competition will no doubt be much more fierce this round, so be ready for a challenge! A special thanks goes, again, to Jarry1250 (submissions) for dealing with all bot work. This year's bot, as well as running smoothly, is doing some very helpful things that last year's did not. Also, thanks to Stone (submissions) for some helpful behind-the-scenes updating and number crunching.

Some news for those who are interested- March will see a GAN backlog elimination drive, which you are still free to join. Organised by WikiProject Good articles, the drive aims to minimise the GAN backlog and offers prizes to those who help out. Of course, you may well be able to claim WikiCup points for the articles you review as part of the drive. Also ongoing is the Great Backlog Drive, looking to work on clearing all of the backlogs on Wikipedia; again, incentives are offered, and the spirit of friendly competition is alive, while helping the encyclopedia is the ultimate aim. Though unrelated to the WikiCup, these may well be of interest to some of you.

Just a reminder of the rules; if you have done significant work on content this year and it is promoted in this round, you may claim for it. Also, anything that was promoted after the end of round one but before the beginning of round two may be claimed for in round two. Details of the rules can be found on this page. For those interested in statistics, a running total of claims can be seen here, and a very interesting table of that information (along with the highest scorers in each category) can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Blake Geoffrion

Hello! Your submission of Blake Geoffrion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK talk page. Yoninah (talk) 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

And another new note. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OC Sports Template

Is there a particular reason why you removed the Orange County Sports template from some articles? One of the sections in the template includes important figures in the county's sports and the likes of Teemu Selanne and JS Giguere are definitely important figures in OC sports. Sure, a link to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the defunct Anaheim Amigos basketball team, or Mike Scioscia and Tim Salmon is irrelevant to Teemu or Giguere, however they are most certainly a part of the sports culture here just like the Angels, Amigos, Scioscia, and Salmon. --CASportsFan (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, if it is inappropriate to have such a template on articles concerning players (even if they are a huge part of the sports culture in Orange County), Henry and Susan Samueli should definitely have it on their pages because they are (more or less) a permanent fixture in OC sports. --CASportsFan (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Blake Geoffrion

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Some say source requirements for ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to WP:BLP living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.

We're on the 6th day. Traditionally, these polls go for 7; unless there's no obvious consensus, when we go for an additional 7 days.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Moose Johnson

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Calgary Flames seasons

You may or may not already know this. DF is a ghnome type editor, who's rarely joined in on article discussions & even more rarely responds to postings on his talkpage. I don't understand this obnoxious side of him, except that everybody's got a different approach to collaboration. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was aware, but thanks for the note. I've no problem with editors that choose not to utilize talk pages as a matter of course, but in this case, he certianly does need to discuss his preferred changes. Resolute 01:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, you'll need it. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I see DF gave your '3RR warning' his typical response. GoodDay (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's alright. Blanking a warning is little more than proof that the editor has seen it. So long as he stops the edit war, that is good enough. Resolute 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Just read the vandalism examples you pointed to on your user page. The one about calling in the army was hilarious. I laughed so hard I almost wet myself! Nine-year-old sports fan? Drug-addled 'retart'? Greets from tropical Queensland, Australia, where the water never freezes.

Peter S Strempel  Page | Talk  14:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I remain amused by that as well. And I can't imagine living where the water never freezes... hard to play hockey on liquid water! ;) Cheers, Resolute 14:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What source for the Expos no longer existing as a franchise?

Do you have a source to provide that says that the Expos franchise no longer exist, or folded, or went defunct. Most sources say that they moved from Montreal to Washington, and took with them the team history, records, and players. You may think that they no longer exist, but you must provide some form of source to back up this claim, as the Nationals web site tends to disagree with you. The Expos may have a separate article from the Nationals, but there is no justification to referring to them as a defunct franchise, when there is no source to back that up.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

At no point did I say the Expos are a defunct franchise. I said the franchise known as the Nationals exists, but the team called the Expos does not. The lead, infobox and article body very clearly states that the franchise continues to exist as the Nationals. Please stop wasting time with this pedantic nonsense. Resolute 15:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So are you refusing my good faith request for citations to back up your revert? I was just asking for citations to justify referring top the Expos as a defunct team. Please respect my good faith attempt at discussion and please per WP:BRD, as not every request is wasting time with this pedantic nonsense.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, not every request, but certainly this one. But if you want a citation, open up a newspaper. I just did, I looked at the Grapefruit League standings, and lo! no Montreal Expos. And you had me so convinced the Expos still exist! :( Resolute 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:V, most importantly WP:CHALLENGE, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You have restored wording without providing a source when it was requested in good faith. It is not up to me to open the paper, its up to you to provide a source when asked for one in good faith. Also, it is a sign of tendentious editing to demand that others find sources for his/her statements, or to ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors. I have asked for a citation for the wording and have yet only had my attempt at good faith WP:BRD referred to as nonsense. In fact this is not the first time that you have called good faith attempts at discussion nonsense.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't prove a negative. What kind of source would you like that shows that a team by the name Montreal Expos does not exist? Every paper in the country will show you that when you look at the standings. It becomes hard to assume good faith when you keep trying to push a point of view that clearly doesn't have consensus. Either way I am not sure what you are objecting to, the current sentence says the exact same thing yours did with much better english. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

How cute, wikilawyering. But fine, fine, if it will put an end to your arguments. (lol) The statement I restored was thus: "The Montreal Expos (French: Les Expos de Montréal) were a Major League Baseball team located in Montreal, Quebec from 1969 until the end of the 2004 season, when the team was moved to Washington, D.C. and became the Washington Nationals." Sources for these facts: [1] "They're not the Expos anymore, they're the Nationals", [2] and probably a hundred more if you like.

But, that really isn't the point as you are now just wasting my time with wikilawyering and tendentious arguments of your own. The point is that we are discussing how the opening statement of an article on a team that existed between 1969 and 2004 should read. As DJ notes, the current wording says in clear English that the team was founded in 1969 and relocated to Washington in 2004. Your suggested wording attempts to push the same POV that was overwhelmingly rejected in the latest merge proposal. Resolute 16:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you try and Poison the Well with the whole wikilawyer defense, and I was wondering when you were going to bring up the merge proposal. More well poisoning. Your citations are good, but only confirm two things. That the franchise no longer plays in Montreal and that they are no longer called the Expos, which is exactly what I wrote. Does not say that the Franchise no longer exists.

The Nationals own web site confirms that the team name changed, records were moved, and history was retained. Of course the Expos name won't show in in the MLB standings because, as was already written, it was the Former name. Therefore, the franchise that was formerly in Montreal as the Expos still exists under a different name in Washington. This was exactly the wording that was reverted as Pedantic nonsense:

The Montreal Expos (French: Les Expos de Montréal) was the former name of the Major League Baseball team located in Montreal, Quebec from 1969 until the end of the 2004 season, until the team was moved to Washington, D.C. and changed its name to the Washington Nationals.

The wording now seems to reflect that team no longer exists, which clearly is not true. And in MLB, team and franchise are the same thing. So what is the reason to not referring to the Expos as the former name, if the franchise still exists? Is there is a source saying that the Expos franchise no longer exist? I am asking in good faith, otherwise saying that the Expos were the former name of the Nationals is not only correct, but verifiable per the sources.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is getting old. First you come in challenging me to prove an argument I never made, then you try to wikilawyer around that. Then you try to wikilawyer around the fact you are wikilawyering. The rest of your arguments were already discussed in the failed merge proposal, and I have no disire to waste more time by repeating myself over and over. Your arguments have already failed. The sooner you accept that fact, the sooner we can all go do something productive. Resolute 17:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

All I asked for was citations saying that the Montreal Expos were defunct or no longer exist as a franchise. The sources were good, but only conform that the team moved and changed its name, as I had written. Changing a teams name usually means that the old name is referred to as "former". Call it wikilawing if you want. I've seen that type of argument before and it usually never flies when faced with needing to provide real facts. Not sure why you oppose the wording. Could you elaborate a bit, as perhaps I missed the reasoning from some of your previous comments. --Jojhutton (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What you asked for was for me to prove an argument that was never made. I never said the franchise no longer existed, and as per the merge discussion, your argument that "it is the same franchise" has already been rejected. So yes, I do believe that continuing to bring it up again as if it is something that matters is just a waste of time. We all know that the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals are two aspects of the same franchise. That is not what this article is about. This article is about the Montreal Expos aspect of that franchise. That aspect is gone. Done. Dead. Historical. The Montreal Expos are not a "former name" of the Washington Nationals. They are an entirely separate incarnation. Once again, same franchise, but once again, something entirely different.

You keep talking about how the history has transferred. I call bullshit. Statistics transferred. Player contracts transferred. But I said it the last time around: The Montreal Expos and their history belongs to Montreal, and to the fans who cheered for the team. It does not belong to Washington. And it never can. Few Nationals fans would care about Blue Monday, and even less likely know what it refers do. Washington fans don't understand the disappointment the 1994 strike created in Montreal. They don't understand the sense of betrayal from MLB. They can't appreciate how Jeffrey Loria and MLB ripped the heart out of Expos fans. Nationals fans wont find meaning in the 1981 pennant. Gary Carter, Rusty Staub, Delino DeShields, Henry Rodríguez and Vladimir Guerrero are just names to a Nationals fan. And likewise, I find it impossible to get all that excited about Strasburg - beyond the dispassionate viewpoint of the fan of another team. Nationals fans wont feel the same chill down their spine when they see a replay of Jim Van Horne calling out "El Presidente! El Perfecto!" I do. And that moment, that perfect game, is only eclipsed in my mind by Joe Carter's WS winning home run.

That history, those emotions and those memories are what makes up the Montreal Expos. And that is gone. That never relocated. It can't. The Montreal Expos were far more than just a name, which is what your suggestion reduces them to. Your argument cheapens that history, and trivializes what the Expos were. What they were is gone. What the Nationals are now is something entirely different. Resolute 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you keep bringing up the merge discussion, I must point out that the discussion was about whether or not the two article should be merged, not whether or not the two teams are the same franchise.

As far as the disappointment towards MLB. I can empathize. I live with the San Diego sports curse in my town. At least Montreal has the Montreal Canadiens with their Stanley Cups, so I think I'm one up on you. But it wasn't MLBs job to fill the seats, it was the people who buy the tickets. So its hard to make money in a town that won't buy the product.

As far as the history of the team goes. We can't let our emotions control how we edit, although that is impossible at times. The Expos history legally transferred with the team to Washington. Its a MLB thing. It doesn't matter if we don't like it or not, its a fact and is verifiable. The Nationals didn't help their cause in the beginning, and took a lot of grief from sports writers and fans when they didn't recognize the Expos history, records, and retired numbers. Yet things appear to have changed in the past year. They have added all of the Expos history, records, as well as retired the numbers of the Expos players onto their web-site, which they have the right to do, because they legally own the stats and history.

Yes it will be impossible for the Washington fans to appreciate the Expos history, but this is wikipedia, and we have to present the facts as they are given to us through reliable sources per WP:V. But I now see where you are coming from as a fan.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not just as a fan. Editorially, I consider the Expos and the Nationals distinct. They are joined as one franchise, but calling the Expos a "former name" of the Nationals is inaccurate. The Expos as they were are gone, and the current opening statement accurately reflects that. Just as it reflects that what was once the Expos is now the Nationals. Resolute 21:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thought this might be handy for you since you are one of our resident FA guys.....

Wikipedia:Credo accounts -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that before, but forgot. Signed up, and we'll see if it helps! Resolute 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Caesar (cocktail)

The article Caesar (cocktail) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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:Caesar (cocktail) for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

your advice on the pics?

Hi, I'm concerned at the difficulty of arranging the pics, and sizing them, in F and A. At issue is the need to optimise for a huge range of resolutions and window widths (like, full width window on a 27" monitor, right down to small monitors. I use less than half the width of my 27" Mac.

Can you tell me what you use, and how you see the text vs image relationship on the F and A page? Tony (talk) 03:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Res. I removed the breaking template (-) as you suggested, then put FS below the map. It does work better for large window widths, as far as I can see, and doesn't damage the display of images and images vs text in narrow-width windows. In previous editions, there have been problems with the centred pic at the bottom overlapping with the side pics. Not this week, though. Tony (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Nail Yakupov

It's currently in my user space, and since you mentioned in the discussion that Yakupov is a lock for OHL:ROY, I thought I'd link you to the announcement that he got it. Further, your opinion would be welcome in the deletion review as you had previously participated. CycloneGU (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not a forum

Though I agree injecting personal views can be detrimental to a collegial editing environment, to be fair, if the personalities are put aside in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Article_structure_if_the_Coyotes_return_to_Winnipeg, the gist of the comment is that it's premature to discuss this event at the moment. I believe this is a reasonable point to make, and personally I wouldn't take someone to task for stating this, even if they used somewhat dramatic phrasing. isaacl (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems minor in a single instance, but its something that he does frequently with a number of topics and has been taken to ANI for it a number of times. We do have to start taking him to task for it or it will just keep happening. -DJSasso (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly cases when opinions were interjected where they were not specifically relevant (for hockey-related pages, most notably non-sequiturs on the use of diacritics). But in this case, I think it is reasonable for someone to say that the situation can be handled when it comes up, and often opinions will be expressed a bit more colourfully on Wikipedia. To put it more colloquially, don't sweat the small stuff. As long as the bigger stuff is attended to, I think not making a big deal of the rest is the best approach. isaacl (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But that isn't what he said, all he did was make a complaint about the board of governers. If he had made a comment saying, lets wait until it happens then that would be fine. If you don't catch the repeated small stuff then it becomes big stuff is I guess how I look at it anyways. But anyways, whats done is done I guess at this point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If what he said was that it is premature to discuss, that would be fair, albeit unnecessary given the entire point of the discussion was "what will we do if...". The point was to come to a premature consensus in the event a relocation happens because if it does, we can expect an edit/move war to happen otherwise. The problem is that GoodDay somehow feels the need to comment, repeatedly, on how he thinks the NHL hates Canada on every single discussion that ever happens on an article related to expansion, relocation, contraction, etc. It is irrelevant to the discussion and only serves to distract. And yes, is very much an ongoing problem with him. Resolute 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the second mention was gratuitous, but let's face it: Wikipedia talk pages are full of gratuitous comments, as many people like to repeat themselves even when there is plenty of evidence to suggest that their first comment was heard and understood. For better or worse, in Wikipedia's "assume good faith" environment, and with the egalitarian inclinations of most editors, the small stuff pretty much has to be let go for everyone except the most egregious offenders. As with most Internet forums, ignoring it seems to be the best approach. Unfortunately, this places the burden on those who follow the rules versus those who don't, but that's the way Wikipedia is. (Honestly, it is at least ten times more work to follow the rules than not: someone can add an unsourced note to an article in one or two minutes; and you can take ten to twenty minutes trying to track down good reliable sources, since in accordance with Wikipedia policy, if it isn't obviously wrong or controversial, you're supposed to take on the burden of sourcing the info. And "assume good faith" makes it very hard to call anyone on their intentions; just doing so tends to invite a counterclaim of assuming bad faith.) isaacl (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes’’’. cooldenny (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question per deletion

Recently Luke Walker (ice hockey) (Avs prospect/Monsters player) was deleted because it doesn't meet notability for now. Just curious if there's a way to retrieve the deleted page when it passes the muster? Sorry to bother! ..but figured you'd probably know. Cheers Triggerbit (talk) 12:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but the answer is yes, all pages can be undeleted. Which is what we usually do when a player eventually meets notability. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup. We can even undelete and move to your user space for a time (not indefinitely) if you wish to work on improving the article ahead of putting it back in mainspace. Resolute 14:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Paranoia gone wild

Howdy Resolute. Is this guy for real? GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

He's passionate, that's for sure. He's blocked, and he claims he's left, but I doubt it is permanent. With luck, he'll return a calmer editor. But if not, the best bet is to just leave him be unless a situation calls for interaction. Resolute 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Stampede

Hi Resolute, saw the great work you are doing on the Calgary Stampede article. Just a hint to check the animal welfare section at rodeo, which has weathered some major attacks from the PETA sorts. I also have a sandbox with some material, let me know if I can help. I also have a sandbox for rodeo-related chat, with some source material you may find helpful. Later, I'd love some neutral view work to clean up or merge the current disaster that is Animal treatment in rodeo if you want to help! (Which was not my article...sort of was a sandbox for the PETA crowd) Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Ron Hextall/archive1

Hi, I've seen from some of the GA reviews that I've carried out that you've done a fair bit of good work for WP:HOCKEY, and have a fair idea of the requirement for GA, and maybe even FA. I've expanded (quite dramatically) the article on Ron Hextall, the scourge of attackers everywhere (their legs at any rate) and have created a peer review for the page. I was hoping you might be able to have a look and give me any feedback (or just a quick copy-edit). Thanks in advance for any help you can provide, Harrias ^talk 10:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

2011 Canadian Federal Election - 33rogers

Having the same issues again with 33 rogers. He seems to feel that any improvements not to his liking can simply be reverted. 100% of his objections are based on not being able to keep/add information slanted against a specific party or info slanted to favor another. I've tried to bring balance to the article after is was largely bult from a specific POV. I've also been careful to treat all sides equally, but 33rogers continues to apply double standards to info that works in the favor of a specific party. There have been several discussions started on the talk page, with well thought out points made which are either ignored, or responded to with refusal rather than discussion. I'm not going to suggest what action should be taken, but ask that you and possibly other editors review his conduct to decide what is appropriate. Macutty (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be modest. Your edit summary clearly states what action you think should be taken.

"Ignore the mirage, look in the mirror" - Duceppe

--33rogers (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He is right, however. You're right back to reverting people without discussion to try and enforce your preferred version. Truth be told, you're both just reverting over top of each other. I've asked that these debates get taken to the talk page for wider discussion, but if that does not happen, I will full protect the article until such time as consensus is reached - even if that takes us right through election night. Figure it out on the talk page, not on the article. Resolute 22:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I;ve started a couple topics on the talk page and look forward to engaging constructively. Macutty (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe 33rogers hasn't been blocked already; he's violated 3RR again, something like the third time this week on that same page. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

New edit for Boston Bruins page

Please accept my apologies, I have had a Wiki account for a few years now, and this is my first attempt to add to a page. I got the first message that indicated that I could not include a YouTube external link, so I removed it as I wish to comply with the rules of the road here. I did not realize upon resubmission that the other link would also be a problem. I would very much like to include the information on "Let's Go Bruins! Let's Go!" as it is the most specific fan song that has ever been written for the team. Before I add the information to the article again, are there any other things you could help me with to make sure that all is in compliance with the existing content? Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.--Mblak (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Seriously..

Surely we can both be happy about Morrison's GAN? :P At any rate, I think I'll start some preliminary reviewing for Tanguay's GAN. I'll let you know when I'm done. Cheers, Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

2011 NHL Entry Draft

There are currently 30 picks planned for the 1st and 2nd rounds. If an extra pick is awarded at a later date, then (and not before) the article can be updated with reference to a verifiable source. Dolovis (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was started on this talk page, and should continue on this talk. The following reply from Resolute [3] (below) has been move to this page so the discussion can be more easily followed:

Actually, the existence of a compensatory pick was already entered, and already referenced. Your faulty assumptions coupled with lazy editing wiped that out. You also introduced a counting error half way through the table that soccerholic had to fix. But then, forcing other editors to clean up after you is nothing new, is it? Resolute 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I had corrected the counting error. New Jersey forfeited their 3rd round pick - so when counting the number of picks, New Jersey's should be skipped. I had corrected that error, but now some editor is going to have to needlessly clean up the counting errors that have re-introduced to that article by yourself and Soccer-holic. Dolovis (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your duplicate 68s was not a result of the Devils pick, which again, had you read the talk page, you would have seen there was already discussion about whether that pick is skipped in the numeric order or not. Resolute 22:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Threat of improper use of admin powers

It is my opinion that if you are to follow through on your threat [4] to use your Admin powers to unilaterally delete articles that I have created, then you will have exercised your powers in a way which is not accordance with established policies and guidelines, and community consensus as outlined at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Such use, in my opinion, would be an abuse of your admin powers and I would be seeking to address such issue at WP:ADMINABUSE. Dolovis (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually his actions would be fully within the bounds of WP:BLP. -DJSasso (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Go right ahead, as I've already deleted them. And I can't say as I am surprised that you have chosen to ignore the good advice several editors have given you. I'm heading out for the night, but will certainly respond to your report at WP:ADMINABUSE in the morning. Cheers! Resolute 01:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, if you had been around all those years ago, during the hockey dios wars, you'd have a better appreciation as to why many are reluctant to go down that road again. It was those dios wars, that brought about the compromises at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't about dios GoodDay. It was about deleting one line stubs on BLPs. -DJSasso (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I got carry away with playing the good semaritan. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI: WP:REFUND#Fifteen ice-hockey players. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw that, but thank you for the note. I was hoping Dolovis would take a step back and consider ways to improve his work, but I expect he'll just go to DRV instead. Resolute 14:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be informed that I have listed 15 articles for deletion review. Dolovis (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted article (Žiga Jeglič)

Hello. I see that you have deleted the article about Slovenian ice hockey player Žiga Jeglič. Why was that? Obviously every new article starts as a stub and there is no reason to think that the article wont be updated in the future. Especially since Jeglič is one of the biggest prospect of Slovenian hockey, plays for the Slovenia men's national ice hockey team and is the current member of Södertälje SK, a prominent ice hockey club from Sweden. I would appreciate if you would return the article, so it could be updated in the near future. Thanks, Ratipok (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The article at Ziga Jeglic was restored, but I overlooked this redirect. Thanks for the note, as I have now restored the redirect as well. I would add that Dolovis is correct that cut and paste moves should not happen. If you wish to move the article back to the title with diacritics, please follow the instructions outlined at requested moves. Thanks, Resolute 18:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Al MacInnis

GA review is posted, not too much to take care of. Drop me a note if anything is unclear. Canada Hky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Year ranges

• FYI: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year ranges.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Celtics-Lakers WP:NFCC

Hello. You recently removed the Celtics and Lakers logos from the Celtics-Lakers rivalry page, citing WP:NFCC. While I have some understanding of NFCC from the review, what I'm not sure is how you distinguished this from the other rivalry pages you reverted stating that such use was probably free use: Yankees–Dodgers rivalry, Dodgers–Giants rivalry, Cardinals–Cubs rivalry, Mets–Phillies rivalry. They all seem the same to me - sports franchise logos. Could you just explain in layman's terms why you believe Celtics-Lakers violates WP:NFCC but not these others pages? I've been working really hard on Celtics-Lakers the past month to make a crappy article a good one with organized sections and verifiable citations, and believe that the addition of those logos really adds to the page (I'd also note that the logos are used on the individual team pages for Celtics and Lakers, as seems to be the case on every sport's teams page). Thanks. TempDog123 (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference, as I realized after a few removals, is that the baseball wordmarks are claimed to not be copyrightable because they are just simple text, and therefore lack the originality to pass a copyright threshold. The logo designs used in various basketball and hockey rival articles were a different situation. Consequently, the "NY" logo for the Yankees is public domain and can be used, but the Celtics leprechaun logo is copyrighted, and in the context of the rivalry articles, are just used as decoration. Resolute 19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2011 Slave Lake wildfire

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Calgary Canucks

Did you hear about Evan Bayko of the Calgary Canucks? That is so sad. DMighton (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I hadn't. Damn. Resolute 16:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll send you an article... http://www.americanjuniorhockey.com/news/news_detail.php?news_id=73348 Very sad. I was thinking of putting something on the article... but I know it was one of your local teams... DMighton (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to semi-protect List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams

Due to the current Atlanta Thrashers situation. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC) It's only the odd editor every couple days. Nothing too big, but I'll watch for any further problems. Resolute 04:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Stub-Spam RfC

Hello Sir Resolute. Just to say that I'm going to have to get off to bed. I think that we should get an RfC going as soon as possible. If you can start one in the next few hours then that's be great; I'll back you 100%. Otherwise I'll try to formulate something when I get up; which won't be any time soon. Any way, keep me posted. — Fly by Night (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Upset

To both you and User:Djsasso *Takes deep breath*

I've taken a couple of pot-shots at both of you over the last couple of days, for which I'll apologize here (for talking about both of you, rather then to either of you). I'm pissed off at both of you though, because I'd really like to contribute to the coverage of NHL topics on Wikipedia but I don't feel that I'm able to do so due to decisions that both of you have made. You're both administrators, and leaders of Wikiproject Ice Hockey, so (regardless of the supposed "it's no big deal" idea) either I can go along with whatever either of you feels is the Right Thing™, or I can do what I've been doing and mostly ignoring the hockey topic on Wikipedia. It really bugs me, but... oh well. I take solace in the fact that Wikipedia itself isn't going away. Things will get changed, eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Just sayin' hi

Yo buddy, just starting to seriously get into the editing/creating game and it's nice to see a fellow Canadian and hockey fan is already a heavyweight around here. See you on the internet! juan^less 19:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated. Good luck with your efforts here! Resolute 22:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 29, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 29, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), My comment was grammatically incorrect? Correct it! → Click here for terms and conditions 05:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Theoren Fleury is a Canadian former professional ice hockey player for the Calgary Flames, Colorado Avalanche, New York Rangers and Chicago Blackhawks of the National Hockey League (NHL), Tappara of Finland's SM-liiga, and the Belfast Giants of UK's Elite Ice Hockey League. Drafted 166th overall by the Flames in the 1987 draft, he played over 1,000 NHL games between 1989 and 2003. One of the smallest players of his generation, Fleury played a physical style that often led to altercations. As a junior, he was at the centre of the infamous Punch-up in Piestany, a brawl that resulted in the disqualification of Canada and the Soviet Union from the 1987 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships. Fleury scored over 1,000 points in his career and won the Stanley Cup in 1989 with the Flames. He twice represented Canada at the Winter Olympics, winning a gold medal in 2002. Outside hockey, Fleury overcame his drug and alcohol addictions and became a businessman. In 1995, he was diagnosed with Crohn's disease, and his annual charity golf tournament has helped raise more than $1 million for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada. Fleury co-wrote Playing with Fire, an autobiography released in October 2009, in which he made allegations that he had been sexually abused by former coach Graham James. (more...)

If you need a hand

I notice a certain user is posting a bunch of animal rights stuff all over the rodeo articles including your Calgary Stampede one. Should you need a hand, let me know, I have that article watchlisted, as well as all most of the other rodeo ones. I've dealt with this stuff before. Um, it would not be my first rodeo with that crowd  :-D , and keeping NPOV can be a real hassle, often involves calling upon admins and such ... but anyway, just to let you know others are around.  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 04:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for The Ride to Conquer Cancer

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/98.228.248.208

IP User 98.228.248.208 has started working their way through sports articles again, making silly useless edits, often with poor grammar, for what I can only guess is an attempt to get noticed and some attention. You attempted to put some constructive criticism to the user at Talk:2011–12 Calgary Flames season, which the used later deleted, and after I restored it, they struck it all out instead, including your comments. I've restored again, and slapped a couple of cautions on the user's talk page; I don't know what to do with this person. The edits themselves are relatively harmless, and read as though made by a fairly young person. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm . Thanks for the note. My first impression last time was a language barrier, but youth might well be it as well. There is definitely a bit of a competence issue here, as they don't seem to realize that encyclopedic tone is different than what you would see in a blog or forum. I'll keep an eye out. Resolute 22:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I think someone ought to keep an eye on the user, I just don't think that someone ought to be me. :) Echoedmyron (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words on Jimbo's page. The-Pope (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are apparently a problem user....

Check my talk page, you are a problem user and I am going to get banned.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw. Apparently I also called you into the article to help me win that edit war! And yes, I do tend to be a problem for edit warriors and tendentious editors. UrbanNerd's history is long and illustrious in this regard, it is not at all surprising that he's responded with edit warring, threats and attempts at intimidation to get his way. And, oddly enough, no attempt at formenting discussion on the talk page. Thanks, and shame you ended up involved here. Cheers! Resolute 03:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Rhinos!

I have to admit that bit of vandalism has migrated to my "snarkives." LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 17:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about sports logos on Commons

FYI: Commons AN: Sports team licensing questions. I guess that I'll nominate them for deletion in a couple of days, barring a reply convincing me that doing so would be the wrong course of action. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Kinda forgot about this for a couple of days, but I just went back to the link above and saw the replies there... it's interesting, I think that we've all been conflating copyright and trademark/servicemark. Looking at the New Jersey Devils terms of use, it doesn't appear that they are claiming copyright on their logo; it's quite clear that they are claiming trademark, of course.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

They don't have to make a claim. It is automatic under both Canadian and American law. The examples on Commons are not copyrighted because either the copyright term has expired (Yankees logo), or is so simple that it does not qualify in the first place (LA wordmark). The other logos (Devils, the Dodgers' logo itself, etc) does qualify for copyright, and their terms have not yet expired. Those logos are covered under both trademark and copyright law. Resolute 00:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's true... if you read the terms that I linked to above, they specifically claim copyright on everything except the logos and wordmarks, where they claim trademark. Commons' Commons:Threshold of originality seems to suggest that none of these logos are actually copyrightable anyway (see the entry on "NFL abandoned its copyright claims on the fleur-de-lis"?)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Copyright on emblems
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The NFL abandoned their claim on the fleur de lis because variants on it have existed for something like 1500 years. The NFL couldn't sustain a claim of copyright any more than someone could make a claim over an Egyptian hieroglyph. The claim is noted at nhl.com: "All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P. © NHL 2011." Also, the US copyright database sucks, but from the Canadian, the copyright paperwork on the Flames crest/logo: [5]. Resolute 01:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, but read the terms. the text is copyright, the logos and wordmarks are trademarked. Trademarked = "property of the NHL and the respective teams", but that isn't the same as copyright. In many ways it's more restrictive (you couldn't add them to a commercial product without written permission, primarily), but for our purposes... apparently all we're concerned with here is copyright, although we're required to mention the trademark.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Flames (being a Canadian team/company) situation may, unfortunately, be different from American teams. I don't know if threshold of originality applies in Canada as it apparently does in the US. The NHL, and the Devils (and Rangers) specifically, are US companies (Limited Liability Companies, at least)...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am quite certain the logos are copyrighted in both countries. Resolute 02:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

As Resolute says, there is no need to assert copyright. In any case, the initial paragraph in section 2 explicitly says no license is being granted for copyright, and section 2.2 says the user agrees to not copy any of the web site content (which includes the images within). Section 2.1 (iv) also asserts copyright on all materials; sections 2.1 (i) to (iii) additionally assert trademark rights, but this does not invalidate the other sections. isaacl (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the fact that assertion of copyright is not required. Trademark is certainly being claimed, that is not in dispute. The question is, do a stylized and interlocking "N" and "J", the word "Rangers" overlaid on a shield, a B superimposed on top of a spoked wheel, among others, meet the threshold of originality? The flame on the Calgary Flames logo, unfortunately, probably would meed that threshold, but based on the fact that we're specifically disclaiming copyright (while maintaining that trrademark exists) on many other logos seems to indicate to me that several NHL logos (the Devs, Rangers, and Bruins logos, at least) probably don't qualify. The Canadians, logo, the NHL logo(s), the lightning logo, maybe the Flyers logo... and several others, seem questionable (the Penns logo, on the other hand, probably meets the threshold).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I would say yes in all cases. The lack of originality in the LA wordmark for the Dodgers is the result of the logo being nothing more than letters. The introduction of other elements (the shield, the spoked wheel, the horn and tail) would make the logos a work of creative art. The only one I am not convinced of would be the Canadiens logo, only because pre-1949 versions of it are likely copyright expired in Canada. That said, I am certain that someone on Commons with a greater understanding of it all than I will eventually weigh in. Resolute 03:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I was only responding to your repeated reference to the terms of usage on the New Jersey Devils web site; sounds like you agree that examining them any more closely is not required. Yes, I do think that the addition of non-typeface related elements to a logo makes it more than a simple collection of letters, and thus a creative work that is covered by copyright. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)