User talk:Djsasso/Archive 6

Duncan MacPherson

FWIW, I undid your reversion of the latest edits to this article... It's not perfect, but Seawaggg did make an attempt to remove the puffery and POV that he had previously. More cleanup is needed (and I'll try to get to that soon), but I think his latest edits do reflect the sources provided. Cheers! Resolute 17:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't read the whole thing...just a couple sentences which still had the Puffery....but if you think it looks better. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely toned down, but I agree there is still some. He did try to implement some of my suggestions though and removed most of what I directly challenged from his latest attempt. I'd say his latest revision was a good faith attempt, rather than just a blanket revert to his original version. Resolute 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hockey Mountain

Thanks for the comment but it's more of just concept I don't know if anything will ever come from it.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When unblocking users

When unblocking user accounts, remember to always also lift their autoblock(s), if their autoblock hasn't expired yet (an autoblock lasts for at least 24 hours after the initial block was made). I think you can read more at WP:Autoblock. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of that thank you. Please keep your ridiculous comments to yourself. They are the reason many people are close to blocking you. You've been warned a few times to keep your nose out of business that doesn't involve you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can we calm down here? Your temper is starting to get noticed even on WP:ANI LiteralKa (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Moorsmur (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Just to let you know, per WP:BLPPROD, the prod can only be removed once the article contains "at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography." The article will need a reliable source before the BLP PROD may be removed. Regards, GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and for the case of BLPPROD its been determined sites like IMDB are deamed reliable enough to remove BLPPROD but not for notability which is why when sites like imdb are added we remove the blpprod and replace it with refimprove. You can see the talk page for info. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a very recent discussion and doesn't exactly establish consensus on the matter. Meanwhile the word of the policy page is reliable sources, not simply any sourcing as is being discussed on the talk page. This is also reflected by the BLP PROD template itself; it can't be removed simply because the article contains any source at all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the link you point to says the same however, in borderline cases, such as where a source of arguable but questionable reliability has been added, the biography should be listed instead at Articles for Deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that ImDB has undergone some pretty extensive discussion and it's been determined that it isn't reliable. But whatever, I'll self-revert my last addition and simply take it to AfD. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that you got there first. That seems to be 3 reversions now... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine since it takes 4 to go past 3RR. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Either way I could care less if its deleted. It probably should be...but I am getting a bit frustrated that people are using BLPPROD incorrectly. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly the policy page agrees with my use of the BLP PROD, and as I'm sure you're aware, 3 reversions is a limit, not an entitlement; I'm not going to perpetuate an edit war, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, its not an entitlement. Just like i could say you were claiming ownership of the template on that page and edit warring with me and another user to keep it on that page. So it swings both ways...before constantly re-adding something you might want to actually talk about it on the talk page of an article next time. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see this is a waste of time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, being confrontational instead of co-operative usually is -DJSasso (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There I have even done it for you? Was it that hard? -DJSasso (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually IMDB has not been deemed a sufficiently reliable source to justify removal of a valid BLPprod, only to prevent one in the first place. BLPProds are only for completely unsourced articles, not for poorly sourced ones. So if an article already has an IMDB link that mentions the subject that is sufficient to prevent a BLPprod being added, even though adding an IMDB link is not sufficient to justify removing a valid BLPprod. In the recent RFC on the BLPprod I tried to get it widened to articles where the only link was to Facebook, Utube, Myspace or LinkedIN and since that didn't get consensus I doubt we'd get consensus to disregard IMDB. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no difference, if its sufficient not to add one then its sufficient to remove one. The quality of the link doesn't change if it was added prior to someone coming along to add the tag. It's either good or it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the link does not change, but the BLPprod policy is not equal between links that are there before the prod is applied and links that are added to remove the prod. I appreciate that makes for a complex policy, but things are not always black and white. It is entirely possible that someone can submit a new article so poorly sourced that it merits tagging with {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} but if they haven't added the IMDB link before the BLPprod is added then they need a reliable source for at least one fact about the person. The article might then only be improved to the point where it still merits a {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} tag - not a good state for an article to be in, but no longer amongst the worst we have. This new additional deletion method was specifically targetted on the totally unsourced BLPs, not poorly sourced ones. ϢereSpielChequers 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then that is a ridiculous flaw in the BLPPROD policy. This is supposed to be a bright line test, not one where certain links are treated with differing rules based on random time frames. Changing the rules like that seems to play straight into external accusations that Wikipedia is both too hard to edit, and ruled by a small elite that thrives on being policy wonks. Resolute 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I think too, the purpose of it was supposed to be a brightline test, its either completely unsourced or it isn't. This was supposed to be a black and white test. If it has a IMDB link then it is sourced (poorly), if it doesn't then its completely unsourced. I don't really see why its being treated differently. As you say its not about poorly sourced ones, its only about unsourced ones. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They are two different brightline tests. Before you add a sticky prod you check if there is any link in the article including prior to any vandalism, and if that link supports anything about the person then it is not totally unsourced. Removing a valid sticky prod is also a brightline test - Do we now have a reliable source for at least one bit of information about that person? An IMDB link would pass the first brightline test but not the second. However I suggest we adjourn this to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#IMDB_as_the_lone_source_on_a_biographical_article ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not threaten users with a block

Djsasso, you will please refrain from threatening a user with a block for something that you are involved in. Please and thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat, it was a warning and its a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially when it was clear he was a sockpuppet of a user who has been doing this for some time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You warned him not for being a sock but for removing your PRODs. That is highly inappropriate and the ANI thread holds consensus on this. There is no shortage of ArbCom and community consensuses declaring that you may not use your admin tools if you are already involved, unless there is a clear emergency happening. Shall we visit those ArbCom decisions together? Basket of Puppies 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right and I would not have been the one to block him, someone else would be, and someone else did. I never said /I/ would block him. I am very careful not to cross that line. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"it was clear he was a sockpuppet". Could you explain that a little further? It's not enough saying that it was "clear". Also, as Basket of Puppies says above, you didn't even mention "sock", but "PROD". If you don't listen and take care of other's advices, you may end up at ArbCom, where you may end up being de-sysopped (losing your administrator privileges). /HeyMid (contributions) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not calling for a desysop -yet- but rather wish to help you understand that your reaction was inappropriate. Is this something you might be willing to consider? Basket of Puppies 18:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I wrote that he "may end up being de-sysopped", which does not mean he will be de-sysopped. Being mentioned in an ArbCom case as an admin may lead to a de-sysopping. Also, I am not sure whether you are asking me or him. Please clarify. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Mid. I am talking to Djsasso. Basket of Puppies 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

HeyMid, stop talking to me like a baby, this is why I got upset at you before. Things like putting (losing your administrator privileges) is extremely condescending. I have been here for many years. I understand what a desysop is. Please refrain from getting involved in conversations on my talk page that do not involve you. Thank you. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless HeyMid has been banned by the ArbCom or administrators from interacting with you, I don't see why he needs to stay out of the conversation. As long as he keeps it civil and cool, I don't see an issue. I think you can ban him from your talk page, if you wish, however. Basket of Puppies 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call threatening me with ArbCom cool would you? I am more than willing to discuss almost anything with anyone, but I don't react well to people coming at me assuming bad faith right off the bat without getting my side. Or in his case, messaging me about things that don't involve him treating me like I have no clue what anything is. I could ban him from my talk page, but I don't want to be mean, I just would like him to stop escalating the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, HeyMid has been blocked for a week for his habit of butting into discussions that don't involve him and seeking to escalate situations. I think you are betting on the wrong horse in this race, BoP. Resolute 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to HeyMid's block on his talk page. Please understand- I am not betting or siding with anyone or anything. I am just curious. Basket of Puppies 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

KQED and hockey?

A bit confused as to why Talk:KQED rates an ice hockey project tag? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was part of a national network of stations that used to broadcast National Hockey League games. More simply put its in the category Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates. All hockey broadcasters past & present are added to our project. Some like this one just have never been tagged and got tagged as part of a cleanup of articles missing tags. -DJSasso (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Okanagan Hockey School

It is very well known out here, so I would say that if a hockey school is notable, this one would qualify. I can find Google news mentions back to 1975, but mostly trivial. That said, the Flames run their hockey school in partnership with the OHS, and there is a related Okanagan Hockey Academy. Someone with the dedication to search off-line sources could probably find a reasonable amount of RS material for it. Resolute 01:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I remember it well when I lived in Calgary. Just couldn't decide. But yeah what you say sums up my opinion. I won't prod it then. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers Page

Can you allow me to edit the Hartford Whalers page. I was the one who added most of the relavent information that actually took place prior to the team moving in 1997. There is still one paragraph at the end of the departure from Hartford section that shold be deleted because it pretains to hockey in Hartford and not a a prt of the whalers actual existance from 1972 - 1997. I wish these people who keep putting in information on the cultural impact would just create a new page on Whalers Sports and Entertainment.Whalerguy1 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention that in the thread on the Hartford page, the page opens back up in a week and whatever the result is can be added. Since that paragraph was there prior to me locking the page I won't remove it since it would be part of the discussion I want people to have. I don't want to perpetuate the back and forth that has been going on. Perhaps discussion on the talk page will help to create a better page. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hockey backlog

Thanks for the comment on removing the backlog. Though I thought that the list was finally under control when you go ahead and make it all large again. Will give me something to do on weekends for a while. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't gone through the entire category tree looking for tags in about 2 years so there were alot of articles missing tags. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

FSN Baseball Report

Re your edit comment "a show that was on a national network is likely notable...take it to afd if you want or better yet look for some sources.". compared to My prod comment "A search for references did not sufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I was not able to determine if the show is still aired. Fails WP:V and WP:N". I looked for references then prodded the article. Would you care to look for some references to add to the article? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I will take another look, but I had found numerous mentions of the show, enough to write an article, maybe not. But enough for me to think prod'ing was not appropriate. A nationally televised show is very likely to be notable, even if its no longer on the air since notability is not temporary. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a few but most were blogs (Not WP:RS) or on Fox (Primary source). Did not find much in gbooks for published and could not see how long it ran. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I will say before I even take a look, that I don't object to an AFD at all. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. see WP:NRVE just being nationally televised does not make it notable. Though I agree it has a good chance of being notable if nationally televised. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I just mean its likely, just might be harder to find sources because of the fact its name is splattered everywhere across google. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you want longer to look for references before I take it to AFD? I looked at gbooks again 3 hits and "Books LLC" is wiki-mirror, another is TV guide from 2005. I am not seeing this article passing WP:N JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and Afd. I have no problem with an AFD. Just didn't think it should go by way of prod. :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of FSN Baseball Report for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article FSN Baseball Report, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FSN Baseball Report until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi there. I'm new at this so bear with me. I recently added a link to my list of pond hockey tournaments from my website. I added it to the entry for 'pond hockey', as well as the pond hockey section for the entry on 'ice hockey'. Both were deleted in minutes by you.

I'm not challenging those deletions, but I honestly believe I have a very helpful FREE listing of pond hockey tournaments. The pond hockey article in particular lists four events. My listing has over 50 events. I would think that someone looking up pond hockey on wikipedia may find my list of value.

So my question is, if my free listing provides a value to someone who might be searching for pond hockey tournament information, what is the correct way to add a link to a wikipedia entry?

It is not my intention to linkspam whatsoever. It is my intention to point people to something that is VERY relevant to the article. If that is not allowed on wikipedia then so be it, but I hope that's not the case.

Thanks!

Rjproulx (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. The reason it was deleted of course was that it looked like linkspam. Take a look at WP:External links It explains what is ok and not ok to add in these situations. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured that was the interpretation. I've since looked at the guidelines, and I'm hoping we can include the links in both sections by referencing these guidelines:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Also:

Links to be considered:

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the 6 Djsasso/Archive 6 at Curlie template.

After reading the guidelines on Link Spamming, I think I might be able to do this correctly by:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You are here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see No. 1 above.)

I am knowledgeable and passionate about grassroots hockey, so do you think it would be acceptable to add a short paragraph about the rapid growth of outdoor tournaments? If I did that, where would be an appropriate place to link my tourney listing?

Again, this is all free. I could get 10,000 hits from wikipedia and I'd still make $0 on it. Just hoping that all the hard work I put into aggregating the tournament information could benefit people in their search travels.

Thanks for the reply, hopefully we can figure something out. The goal is to get people involved in this great sport, and they'll only participate if they know about it!

Rjproulx (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be acceptable on the Pond hockey page. It might be a bit too much detail for the ice hockey page itself. However the ice hockey page does link to the Pond hockey page. I certainly have no problem with you adding a paragraph (or more even) and then sourcing it with your site. As long as you understand why your edits were reverted when your first two edits were adding bare links. We could always use more editors that are passionate about hockey adding to our various articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of a complete rewrite of the 'Tournaments' section? It's jumbled, it rambles, and it only mentions four tournaments specifically (and seemingly arbitrarily). I'd go through the trouble of refining that section, but I don't want to do it for fear of it getting deleted. Rjproulx (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD and fix it up as you see fit. Its what wikipedia is all about. I am sure as long as you stick to a neutral position that none of it will be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Like the pond hockey guy I'm new to this. I edited the Academics ranking page with new academic rankings from an academic rankings company who were already on the Academics ranking page, and yet you deleted my edit saying it should be under Athletics. I'm quite confused... Hope we can sort it out, cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurGD (talk • contribs) 09:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You will have to be more specific about which page. If I deleted something about academic rankings it was probably an accident, the edit summary you are talking about was in regards to removing a category for sports teams. -DJSasso (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Must have been an accident or someone else. I'll simply add it again. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurGD (talk • contribs) 10:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

Copied from my profile:
I am just writing to let you know a user has complained that you are following their edits and making inappropriate comments to them, I have looked at your edits and this does appear to be the case. I also notice your notice at the top of your page which also may be considered less than civil. The same policies that exist on simple wikipedia do apply here as well. While we are not the same wiki and whatever you have done there stays there, if you continue the same actions here that you were involved with there the results will be the same. Please keep that in mind. Good luck and good editing. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Griffinofwales whined to you? You purport that I made "inappropriate comments". I fail to discern how my comments were inappropriate; in fact, they were entirely appropriate in response to his assumptions of bad faith and his incompetence on this wiki. You must explain because I won't let this false accusation and misrepresentation of my comments to stand unchallenged. I suggest you respect the notice at the top of my profile and understand that I am serious. Further bully threats from you will be deleted from my profile. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself, continued harassment of editors and stalking of their edits will likely end up in a block. Your notice on your page should be removed as its completely uncivil. Calling warnings bully threats isn't going to gain you any sympathy. We don't take incivility here any more lightly than simple wikipedia does. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why you deem my comments "inappropriate". It's also interesting to note that you, as a civility warrior, said this and this, revealing your blatant hypocrisy. If you are going to hound me about incivility, perhaps you should give the following users a visit: [1] (a fellow mod), [2] (another mod), [3] (mod), [4] [5] (respected editor), and [6] (respected editor). You won't? That's what I expected. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as an uninvolved editor peeking in on the situation, you certainly do have a huge history of incivility. Unfortunately for you, it is no part of policy, as you imply, that you are relieved from having to follow the standard rules of civility as long as you can allege that others have committed violations. As far as what is inappropriate about your comments, you make a few right here. Calling another editor incompetent is an inappropriate personal attack. Characterizing warnings made by an admin in his official capacity as bullying and hounding are inappropriate personal attacks. Characterizing an editor asking an admin to intervene as "whining" is an inappropriate personal attack. Calling an editor a hypocrite is an inappropriate personal attack. Five personal attacks in eleven sentences is an impressive total for someone who implies that he is innocent of wrongdoing. I will, however, respect your wishes, and not proffer a civility warning to you. No warning, however phrased or issued by any authority, would dissuade you from your conviction of the rightness of your ways, nor avert the indefinite block that will come of those ways. Perhaps, in your remaining time on Wikipedia, you could focus more on improving articles - you have fewer than 50 edits in mainspace that aren't reversions - than in disputes with other editors, and leave some manner of positive legacy behind when that block comes.  RGTraynor  02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote bot

Hi. You may remember the hatnote bot incident of a couple of weeks ago. I've revised the script to pipe the links, and made a few test edits listed here. Do you think this version of the script would be more acceptable than the old one? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Would fix most if not all of my concern. -DJSasso (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

List of NHL seasons

What are your sources for counting a non-playing season? Is there a wiki standard? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I know its been talked about before at the project. Its why we have an article such as 2004-05 NHL season and corrisponding ones for each of the teams. Because other league business happened during that time. Games are just part of a season, things like the draft etc are also part of the season. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Halifax Flag.svg

With the Halifax flag, I realized a deletion request might not have been most appropriate. I was somewhat confused, and thought it was the same as Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files. If you still disagree that the image is non-free, do you recommend I withdraw the request at WP:FFD and open a new one at WP:PUF? --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Might as well let it run its course. Can't hurt to have more eyes look at it. Copyright is such a mucky area. I generally try to avoid images for that reason. -DJSasso (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Allow me to warn about wiki stalking. Following an editors edits is frowned upon as you have recently done. Please do not follow an editors edits. Thank you. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read that link you just sent to me Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. These were all related edits. As well as the following The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. There was an overriding reason, you made the same basic bold change to a number of articles and I reversed them which is acceptable, especially since these were common components to pretty much every sports league infobox that has teams in more than one country. Wiki stalking would be me going around and reverting your edits just to piss you off or making comments to annoy you. I made valid editorial edits which is not wikistalking. Please read and get to know WP:AGF. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That's your POV. Mine is that you were wiki stalking. UrbanNerd (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't POV at all, its fact and its how wikis work. Not to mention things like you know having those pages watchlisted means seeing those changes has nothing to do with following around your edits, as my watchlist told me you made them which is what a watchlist is for. You might want to tone done your confrontational manor, and others might be more willing to work with you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck convincing anyone that this is stalking, UrbanNerd. You made the same bold and unsupported change to three articles. He reverted them. I would have too. Others would have too. This is normal editing. Per WP:BRD, the next step is to discuss your proposed changes, not go off attacking editors that disagree with you. Resolute 13:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hinkel vs. Henkel

Please use your admin given powers to overwrite a redirect, and move the article Roy Henkel to Roy Hinkel. Roy's lastname is Hinkel, not Henkel. The article was started under the proper name (see first edit), but was moved at a later date to the incorrect spelling (apparently due to reliance on the misspelled name found at the unreliable sportsreference.com). Dolovis (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I have been wondering about that today myself when I saw it in the move listings. Trying to decide which of the sources would be the more reliable. Would you happen to know of any other sites that have the Hinkel spelling? I have no problem moving it back. Just trying to make sure that is correct before I do so. Sports-reference I believe is reliable because I know their sister site baseball-reference is considered reliable. That is why I have been hesitant to make the move. I will do a google search I guess. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it. Could find almost nothing with the other spelling. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hinkel is incorrect. Research by Bill Mallon's Olympic group has shown that Hinkel was a frequent misspelling by contemporary newspapers, but all of his official paperwork (death index material, father's obituary, and so on) has his name as Henkel. It's all right there in the source. I have emails from the team detailing this if they need to be submitted to OTRS (although I don't know why on earth it wouldn't be considered a reliable source when it was named one of TIME Magazine's 50 Best Websites. I find it rather disrespectful, however, that while Dolovis could take the time out to insult an IP address, neither of you bothered to leave me a note on the issues so that we could have a discussion, but instead resorted to immediate reversion. I don't really blame Djsasso, but I wonder why Dolovis couldn't have gone to me (I have "admin given powers") to explain my edits instead of going to someone else? Was there any reason for that? Canadian Paul 01:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to move it back. I should have read in the paragraph on the source closer. That being said it could be a case of common name if all the papers were misspelling it. I do apologize for not giving you a note, I assumed you would be watching the page and the note that Dolovis left there. As for immediate reversion that is part of the BRD cycle so it wasn't completely out of process but as I said go ahead and move it back. I have no preference either way. -DJSasso (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Restoring junior ice hockey player articles

Hi, would it be appropriate now to restore Johan Larsson and Niklas Lundström? They have played a few Elitserien games now.

Also, have you had any experience with using tools in a(n) dispute or edit war? Does it necessarily gain an advantage for the user or not? Is it's something you would prefer or not? I believe that was the reason as to why I wasn't granted the rollback permission earlier this year. HeyMid (contributions) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I can restore them, just make sure to add references that show they have played. As for using tools in edit disputes. I am not sure what you are getting at. You shouldn't ever use them in disputes. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will add the references (and information) later today. Regarding the use of tools in disputes, in my experience, use of tools in such situations usually result in negative consequences. Do you personally understand why? HeyMid (contributions) 08:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know that you have had disputes with Djsasso, and I have too, but patronising him so (asking if he understands why the use of tools in disputes is bad) is inappropriate. Instead of beating around the bush, why not be blunt, and tell him what you really want to say? Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What did I do wrong now? HeyMid (contributions) 08:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you did anything wrong. I just suggest you be blunt instead of beating around the bush. Protector of Wiki (talk) 08:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain that in real English language. HeyMid (contributions) 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you are not a native English speaker. Is it too hard to look up the idiom?
Since you clearly won't understand without my elucidation, here it goes. Your statement to Djsasso (Do you personally understand why?) implies that you are testing Djsasso on his knowledge of WP:INVOLVED. I believe you have an ulterior motive for posing this question. Please reveal it, but if you do not have one, I apologize, and you may carry on. Protector of Wiki (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no point arguing on my page guys. I am well aware of what being involved means if that is what you are asking Heymid. But if you are trying to figure something specific out just ask me and I will try and help. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

DJSasso, I would like to say sorry for being wrong with Niklas Lundström. He apparently still hasn't managed to play an Elitserien game, I was almost completely sure he had, but I apparently never checked it (mainly Eliteprospects). Again, sorry for that, but the Johan Larsson case was definitely correct. HeyMid (contributions) 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Andy14and16

Thank you very much for your comment on my talk page about the unblocking of Andy14and16. Prompted by your comments, I have looked back at the relevant history, and found highly dubious relationships between Andy14and16's editing and Pooet's, which I had not previously noticed, so I have reblocked the account. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. As I said, Dolovis is clearly editing constructively so I was willing to assume good faith. But the other two were clearly not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sindhi Wikipedia

The user "Danishabbasi99" is deleting the page contents at Sindhi Wikipedia. Recently, he deleted the contents of the article "سنڌي ٻولي". I am unable to take any action despite being admin there (I do not know why). Kindly block this user immediately. He is replacing the content with his contact details (Phone number and URLs)Aursani (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want me to do? I am not an admin there and he hasn't done anything on en wiki that I can see. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi again. For me, it's nice to have the impression that you seem to have "gained back" your normal temper and seem to be fine now. I don't know, maybe something happened last week that made you angry and performing a 4-day wiki-break?

Cheers, HeyMid (contributions) 11:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No my time away had nothing to do with the wiki. :) I was on my honeymoon. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you probably misunderstood me. I was not wondering what you did during your wiki-break, but whether you have gained back your 'normal' temper or not. HeyMid (contributions) 14:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I never lost my normal temper. :P -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I hope you regretted this message (especially the word "ridiculous"). Also, what means :P? Is it a smiley face? :) HeyMid (contributions) 16:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you might just want to let it go and move on. And yes :P is a smiley with a tongue sticking out. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

lt wiki bot

Bot status are granted. --Vpovilaitis (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wade Redden

I have undone your good faith edit to the Wade Redden article. Please do not remove the article's subheadings without first obtaining consensus for such deletions on the article's talk page. Dolovis (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

More was changed than just the headers. I rewrote sections... -DJSasso (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize I did not notice you commented on the photo in your revert summary so I switched it back again, did not mean to revert your revert on that. However, its standard to show the most recent photo of a player in the infobox that shows their face still. That way we have the most current photo in the infobox. I have also edited the picture, so you may have to clear you cache to get the cleaned up version if you don't already see it. -DJSasso (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

SassoBot@dewiki removes valid hi-languagelinks

You bot is removing many links to hiwiki. About hundred in the last month. The problem is, that many links are valid. E.g. here your bot wrote at the summary that it removes hi:पोलिमोऱ्फिज्म (कंप्यूटर विज्ञान) which page really not exist. But actually it removes the existing language link hi:पोलिमोर्फ़िज्म (कंप्यूटर विज्ञान) from the page content. There where also some bot wars between your and Masts's Bot with some other bots [7] [8] [9] because of this. Could you please have a look if you have an enconding problem on you local system or something similar? Thanks. Merlissimo 02:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are aware, its currently a bug in pywikipedia as far as we can tell as its happening to alot of bot operators. The wars won`t happen again because that was my fault for running two processes at once one from en and one from simple, but that was a few weeks ago so long since stopped. I normally only run one at a time. Since other bots have quickly fixed any of the incorrect hi removals I hadn`t decided it was super high priority and was waiting on a fix from pywikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also I updated to the most recent build as xqt mentioned it went away for him, so perhaps something causing it was fixed in the last few days which I hadn't updated yet. I haven't seen any instances of it yet today since I switched so hopefully we are good. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes looks like xqt made a change in the most recent version to not remove hi links when in autonomous mode. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I removed this change with pyrev:8634 when editing on de-wiki. These edits will be blocked by abuse filter. I caused this to investigate this bug by the filters's log file. Xqt (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Koavf. This request was initiated by Koavf, but as far as his contributions show, he didn't notify any user...so I'm notifying you because you participated in the discussion that led to the community sanction. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Mac Bennett

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Mac Bennett, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VERTott 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

short form?

since when?? did I miss the memo? did marc87 win?--Львівське (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We have always done it for Canada and the US. The ones we don't short for are the countries outside the US and Canada because the general public would have no clue what TCH means for example. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

....really? I thought we agreed on long-form for all last time it was brought up....ok...--Львівське (talk) 05:25, 21 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) 02:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey articles questions

I've struck out the stuff about the 'NHL team roster templates', even though it's true (IMHO, of course). GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An editor

Djsasso, I noticed you once blocked User:UrbanNerd for personal attacks and then issued him a warning today at Talk:Canada. I've run into that user myself in a couple of locations and, after interacting with him, became very suspicious of whether or not the account is being used as another (the third?) evasion of an indefinite block placed on User:PhilthyBear for sockpuppetry and incivility. UrbanNerd's behaviour differs in some regards, but I have my suspicions and these were reignited after reading his contributions at Talk:Canada. With you having had your own experiences with the user, I wonder what your thoughts are. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Well reading quickly and skimming edit histories (though not in depth). I do think there are similarities. I find the fact that the Po'Buster was blocked right before UrbanNerd started editing to be pretty damming. The articles that all these users on that case and Urban Nerd have been editing all seem to line up pretty convieniently as well. I believe there is a tool on toolserver somewhere that you can compare users edits to see how similar they are. I personally wouldn't make this block myself, but I would definitely file an SPI if I were you. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

edit conflict

I didn't get a warning when I accidently deleted your edit (which said exactly what I said!)... but then when I realised and tried to add it back, you'd beaten me to it and I did get a warning! Don't know what's going on sometimes! Sorry. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I knew that was what happened. Has happened to me in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gnome task

yeah... and I keep thinking I'll finish rewriting about a hundred articles. So much work, so little time, eh? Despite what the zealots believe though, there is no deadline. We'll get the backlogs cleared as we can. Incidentally, I love how I can point to our 97% success rate at fixing uBLP articles in our scope, yet those same zealots glaze right over it because it kills their argument if they admit that trusting the community to do the work is possible. Resolute 14:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its rediculous. I am all for getting rid of libel information, I am an oversighter on another project afterall. But to blanket delete every article because of some propaganda about the boogie man, is not going to be something I am going to fall prey too. Its rediculous. -DJSasso (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi. I would appreciate your input on http://admintools.wikia.com/wiki/Admin_Tools_Wiki:Requests_for_rights/Heymid - thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 14:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

WPUS

I added a subsection to the tagging conversation to try and track who supports or opposes the idea. I think you fall into the oppose group but I dont want to assume that so if you get a moment could you throw you vote out there so I cna get an idea of whether to go ahead with it. --Kumioko (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sherril Huff

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Sherril Huff, as an editor has explicitly objected to deletion. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Marc87

Ya'll sure got alot of patience with him. Particularly concerning his failure to respond to others. Sorta reminds me of Darthflyer. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because its content disputes sort of, his ignoring others is pretty much at the point of being disruptive however. If he was outright vandalising I wouldn't hesitate to block immediately. I keep hoping that he will take on board what people tell him. However if he ignores this last round of people telling him to stop what he was doing, then he will likely get his second block. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lack of communication makes collaboration a tad more difficult, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What I don't get is why he wastes his time...because people just undo his changes. I mean if I kept doing stuff that people were constantly undoing then I would stop wasting my time doing it. Unless maybe that is the point, he is trying to waste peoples time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Ya hit the nail on the head. IMHO, the lad's being a dick. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if he would just engage. No responses on his talk page, just keeps going and going. The energizer bunny of outdated Olympic country codes.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL--Львівське (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

He is still doing his thing today. What ever to do.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Make a comment about the country codes. Other than Lvivske I don't think anyone has talked to him about the country codes. I have only been taking things one issue at a time. First one I got him to stop was adding city and country to the lead sentence and then the most recent was category order. If another person talks to him about the country codes and he keeps that up then maybe I or another admin can do something. But as far as I am aware only one person has mentioned them to him. However, I could be wrong. Its hard keeping track of what has been said to him since he deletes threads and doesn't archive. -DJSasso (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Consider it done. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

He just did it twice again today, ignoring Drodbeck's warning. I left another note for him but he clearly doesn't care.--Львівське (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity categories discussion

Given your past participation in this discussion, I thought you should see this recent one. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Luke Walker

maybe a little pedantic there but fair enough with the newly updated criteria..just not sure why this referenced article gets the watchlist attention when there's numerous other unreferenced players out there now failing in notability too!..anyway Triggerbit (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted because it was subject of an AFD. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Feel free to repost your comments if they're relevant to the other sections. My efforts in archiving the earlier posts were to hopefully stem some of the unhelpful negativity and channel it to the more productive subsections below :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I think what happened was I started reading the section before you closed it. So I never got an edit conflict. But if its closed I might as well not comment. :) I agree with the idea to stem some of the unhelpful negativity. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert and rerevert ...

(shakes his head) There are just some times ...  RGTraynor  03:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been like this for awhile. He freaks out if someone doesn't agree with him. -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Just like a guy I've had a run in with at AfD who's got more blocks than I have working digits that's now gone to ANI. It's not even so much the sheer incredulity they exhibit when someone disagrees with them; it's that you've challenged their very sense of being by doing so. (I'd have said "manhood," except that my ex-wife was a prime example of the kind.)  RGTraynor  03:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, y'know, by the bye ... heaven knows there are things on which we disagree completely, but I don't think I've ever said that you're a hell of an asset to the project and this encyclopedia. Every now and then it's good to say such things.  RGTraynor  03:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its good to disagree sometimes. You keep me on my toes. And I always know that even though your opinion might be opposite mine that you are doing what you think is best for the project. -DJSasso (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB for User:Brackenheim

Hello Djsasso. Although Brackenheim has < 500 edits here, he is over 9000 edits on the German wikipedia. He also has 1600 edits at Commons, which mostly uses English. Would you reconsider your declining of AWB for him at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah no problem, should have checked to see if he was so active elsewhere. -DJSasso (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Peter Regin

I was wondering if you could watch this article, as an anonymous user is consistently attempting to remove accurately sourced material without explanation. Freshfighter9^talk 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User warned. If he does it again he will end up blocked. The name is clearly sourced from the players mouth, so removing it is just being disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Robin Lehner

is on my watchlist. I see now that it had been deleted before. Was it deleted today? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No it hadn't been deleted again, I just restored the version history from the old deleted version. I do that to players that were deleted as junior players so non-admins who might be interested can take any userful information from the old deleted version that might not be in the new one. In this case there wasn't much difference. -DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Manitoba

Please make the text in the infobox consistent with the "official languages" section of the article itself. I'd do it myself, again, but you've threatened me with a block. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When consensus agrees to do so I or someone else will. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

November 24,2010

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

question about blocking an anon ip

Hi, I've been editing the Lansdowne Park article. This article gets repeatedly hit by one IP address: 99.246.125.104. Take a look at the history. The user, who I believe is John E Martin of the Lansdowne Park Conservancy, is in the computer business, so I think he has a fixed IP address link to the internet. If you look at when the article was put under protection, the user was Marje2010 and another one was Jemmartin2010, all very similar to his name. I believe I've been reasonable in working with the person. I was wondering at what amount of this do you then block an IP address. It would likely be more effective because I think its a fixed IP address. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Its always messy when something like this happens, because they usually aren't intersted in working together but rather pushing through what they want. I might bring it up at WP:SPI because if he is using multiple accounts (and an IP) to try and battle to get what he wants then he is definitly going down a road he shouldn't be. The data from the CheckUser might be stale at this point since its been a couple months. However they might be willing to block all three as part of WP:DUCK since the naming alone leads me to believe they are one and the same. I will protect the page again (if its no longer protected) and keep an eye on him and if he completely crosses the line I will act. But as I said I would suggest bringing to to WP:SPI and get them to weigh in on the situation as well. Never hurts to have a few admin eyes look at it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability Deletion

heya, since i think you have a better handle on notability of ice hockey players, i was wondering if you could have a quick look at some prospect's that a user has been creating..I'm not really in the know on how to nominate for deletion.

Paul Carey (ice hockey), Calvin Pickard, Tyson Barrie, Stefan Elliott..any help would be appreciated Triggerbit (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may talk page stalk, the latter two won major awards in major-junior (in Barrie's case, numerous major awards), and are both notable. Pickard has a post-season All-Star selection, but I personally consider that flimsy. Same with the USHL all-star awards for Carey. In both cases, I would fall back to WP:GNG. If you can find multiple sources that cover the players in a non-trivial fashion, I would probably keep and improve them myself. Resolute 04:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup Resolute pretty much nailed this one. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Waivers (NHL)

Sorry to come crying to you again. Please look at Waivers (NHL) and advise. Maybe lock it up completely? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind! It's resolved. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey game

Since you are far better at these templates than I am, can you take a look at {{Infobox ice hockey game}} and see if the changes an IP user made to this template can be made optional? I don't really want to discourage their enthusiasm, but it kinda ruins the look of Ace Bailey Benefit Game and others that don't have that information. Thanks! Resolute 00:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually am not sure how to make a field optional. I have been trying to figure it out for a awhile. Might be a good idea to ask at the infobox wikiproject. -DJSasso (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Violation of the BLP policy

Hello Djsasso, are you aware that you have restored contentious unsourced material to Wikipedia in violations of the Biographis of Living Persons policy? The edit I am referring to is this. Please be more careful in the future when adding unsourced material to biographies of living people. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wordsmith, you realize how easily you could have fixed that article and added some sources? Djsasso was simply trying to triage the mess you created.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The difference is, I'm not the one who put potential libel back into an encyclopedia article after it had been removed. The burden is on those who wish to retain content to demonstrate that it complies with policies. 69.112.163.74 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

There WAS NO GODDAMN LIBEL - IT TOOK ME 2 MINUTES TO FIGURE THAT OUT.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, I had made sure it was not libel before unblanking. I probably should have added the sources, but I was busy fixing the mess he created and intended to get back to adding the sources a little later. Unfortunately I got side tracked before I could. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

OMG i am so sorry ---wrong person ----so sorryMoxy (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Coming to you for guidance - Hello there is been about 2 years since we have talked (was called Buzz at the time). Hope things are well! Could i get you to look at Celine Dion albums discography. We seem to have someone thats bulling hes edits in. He,s reverted more then 3 times on 2 articles that is see about this topic. His edit summary of "There is NO discussion. The Diamond award is for 100 million in sales. END OF STORY" would level me to believe hes not even going to try and talk. What can we do to get all involved to talk?Moxy (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Be more careful in the future

At the age of 7, she went on to study in Singapore where she experienced child abuse. She would come back to Indonesia 2 years later. During her childhood, she had obesity. At high school, that changed and when she went on to college at Ohio State University, she assumed that she had anorexia nervosa after listening to a lecture.

— Material you reintroduced to the article here

Come on now. As an administrator, you should be well aware of our biographies of living persons policy, and why it is unacceptable to reintroduce material like that. NW (Talk) 02:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All of which had sources, and could have been sourced in minutes by him, it was unacceptable to blank the page in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you even read the BLP policy? It states quite unambiguously that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Tell me where where in that it says "users are obligated to do some searching to see if articles are salvageable?" NW (Talk) 15:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The blanking (both the first and later one by Wordsmith) removed this content plus totally uncontentious content. If only the contentious content was removed that would be one thing, even though I was easily able to source it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's how the article looked before the blanking:

Imelda Fransisca was the first Miss Indonesia in 2005.

At the age of 7, she went on to study in Singapore where she experienced child abuse. She would come back to Indonesia 2 years later. During her childhood, she had obesity. At high school, that changed and when she went on to college at Ohio State University, she assumed that she had anorexia nervosa after listening to a lecture.

She represented West Java. After her success in the national pageant, she represented Indonesia in the Miss ASEAN pageant the same year, in which she took home the 1st Runner Up title.

As Miss Indonesia 2005, Imelda accompanied Miss World 2004, Maria Julia Mantilla Garcia and Hong Kong superstar Jackie Chan during a visit to areas in Sumatra hit by the tsunami. The Miss World team was so impressed with Imelda’s multilingual skills and pleasant personality that it encouraged the Miss Indonesia team to participate in the Miss World pageant.

In addition to her duties as Miss Indonesia, Imelda also published a motivational self-help book titled “You Can Be Anything And Make Changes” and founded the Imelda Francisca Foundation for the welfare of orphans and unfortunate children.

Only the "at the age of 7" paragraph was contentious and subject to redaction or deletion. Blanking the whole thing save the first sentence was not appropriate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Show me what was contentious. Nothing in the article was truely contentious. Was it unsourced, yes, was it contentious, no. Being contentious is a purely subjective thing unless its completely blatant. As I was easily able to find sources which I admit I didn't put in the article right away because I was busy cleaning up his mess, I decided that the information was not contentious. Especially considering she wrote a book about it herself. BLP is to protect against potential liable, if there was no potential liable since she published the info herself, then BLP has no problems. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Submitted without comment

Bart Starr#External links. /facepalm. Resolute 19:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course you know the real reason ...

... it's that geography is more important than mere hockey, of course!  RGTraynor  19:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I wouldn't doubt it. But like I said, a dab page is fine for me. I just don't think the river should be primary. But today is all kinds of nuts so it doesn't surprise me that people are arguing about that one...between that and somehow ending up in mediation for the first time in 6 years all because I had the audacity to redirect an article that had a spelling mistake, I think its closing in on wikibreak time again. Who in their right might would object to that I don't know...but there was. This is why so many good editors burn out and leave. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking as someone who took several months off around this time last year, I can't deny the premise: if it's not rewarding, if it's just a chore, then it's time for a break.  RGTraynor  22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why were these removed?

why??

• {{1974 Philadelphia Flyers}}
• {{1975 Philadelphia Flyers}}

TiMike (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Because they have been deleted multiple times at Tfd for being clutter and not complying with WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED. The hockey project doesn't do team roster/championship team navboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

oops

I see from my watch list that I have been forgetting to update the player talk pages after adding pics to remove the needs photo icon. I'll try to remember that going forward, but I wanted to say, thanks for cleaning up my mess. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, there is a link in that category that tells you if a page that is in the cat might have a pic. So I just go click the link every now and then to clean up, hadn't realized some of them were from you, thought most of them were from me moving them from the general category to the bio category. (There are false positives sometimes so you have to check carefully). -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Major awards

There is no consensus that a "major award" as given out by ice hockey leagues is limited to "MVP", "Top Defence", "Top Goalie", and "First All-Star team" as you have stated in your deletion nominations here and here. By making such a bold statement without claiming it to be your personal opinion, you have implied that your statement is a fact (i.e. support by a consensus) - but it is not as it is only your opinion. Please state your personal opinions as your opinions, and do not attempt to mislead others into thinking that this is an issue that has already been decided by consensus. I suggest that you strike your bold statements and rephrase them as your opinion. Dolovis (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal opinion, instead it is based on discussions that have happened in the past where this was actually the outcome. If I state something like I did in those nominations it is because in fact a discussion has occurred where something I said was the outcome. If you doubt that then look at the deletes that are accumulating on those afds where others are noting that the award itself is not a major award. As someone else mentioned its meant as major to the sport of hockey not to the league itself. Which is why the only award that has been considered in the past to be good enough to get a US college hockey player in is the Hobey Baker for example. -DJSasso (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it goes without saying that a person's nomination reason in an XfD is their opinion. You have every right to dispute that, as you have, and the strength of arguments will determine current consensus. Resolute 00:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, nomination statements are always taken to be the nominators opinion. He is definitely welcome to disagree. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian provincial & territorial infobox headings

The majority of you (editors) seem to prefer English/French in all 13 infobox headings. I'm too pooped & disillusioned to continue on. Do as you (plural) wish with them. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey

Not true, if there is a image present, such as the Winter Classic, it is not centered in the infobox. Just take a look at the 2008 NHL Winter Classic infobox. User:Mr.Konerko 17:29, 23 December 2010 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Konerko (talk • contribs)

I know, but when you try and centre it, it looks worse because of the way the box was designed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hope someone can fix that problem. Mr.Konerko 11:44, 24 December 2010 (CST)

Requested move

Hey Dj. Just wondering if you could do a quick move of 2010–11 NCAA Division I women's ice hockey to 2010–11 NCAA Division I women's ice hockey season over the redirect so to follow proper naming convention for ice hockey seasons. Thanks! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright its moved. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_McFarland_(ice_hockey)

Please can you offer your opinion on the additional sources offered at my talkpage - [10] Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rob Proudfoot

I am again disappointed that you do not follow policy well-established policy. You replaced a removed PROD tag to the Rob Proudfoot. Per WP:CONTESTED, do not restore a removed PROD. As an admin you know better than to do that. Dolovis (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the link I posted in my explanation that explicitly says normal prod tags can be added after BLP prods are removed? I think you need to read policies better. And the quote is "This does not affect the regular prod process, which may still be used on BLPs, including BLPs from which the sticky prod has been legitimately removed". Its about time you start assuming some good faith and stop treating everything as a battleground. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, was just about to tell you the same thing on your talk page, Dolovis. BLPProd and Prod are not the same thing. Ahh well. This is all my own damn fault for not simply speedy deleting it yesterday. Resolute 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Life is so much simpler as an admin if policy is just ignored. Resolute placed a regular PROD over top of the sticky prod, but he failed to give any indication that he checked for sources as is required by WP:Before. I added a source and removed both prods, and a regular prod cannot be restored. But as admins, shouldn't you both know, and properly follow, policy? Dolovis (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually he used a prod2 which is that he supported the blp prod. That is not a regular prod. By the way something usefull to read is WP:IAR. Wasting editors time on a useless afd that is pretty much a guaranteed delete is a pretty good case of when it comes into play. Also WP:BEFORE is for Afd and not BLPprod. The whole point of BLPprod is that its up to the creating user to supply sources and to avoid wasting other editors time having to find them for a possibly non-notable drive-by article. So it is added to any article that is created without sources immediately. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, mea culpa. If I had simply A7 deleted it per policy, I wouldn't have to listen to your complaints, nor would I have had to waste my time setting up the AfD. Lesson learned. Resolute 17:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And tossing in my own two cents, what the merry hell were you thinking, Dolovis? As someone who didn't join Wikipedia yesterday you should know damn well that the subject fails every notability criteria imaginable, and that anyone with half a brain recognizes that the BLP requirement isn't for sources to verify that a subject exists, but to verify that the subject is notable or to back up contentious information. THAT is "well-established policy," and if you're ignorant of that, you have no business doing serial dePRODding. This behavior is right up into RfC country.  RGTraynor  20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained myself; it was a procedural removal. I am still new to the politics of Wikipedia, and the unwritten procedures that some admins follow still baffle me. That being said, I apologize if I have offended the principles of WP:SENSE. Dolovis (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You'd do far better focusing on the written policies that you love to throw in other people's faces without really understanding them. Resolute 22:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Dolovis (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop removing external links

Please stop removing the external link to hockeydb.com as you have done here and to many other articles. It would be helpful if you fixed the broken link, but when you delete the link it just makes more work for others as these stub articles are improved and updated. Dolovis (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately you created a mess at a couple hundred articles. The quickest way to clean up this mess is to remove them. In the future if you actually added the templates correctly you wouldn't be wasting the time of both the users who have to go along removing them and then the editors who are going to have to readd them. And the readers who in the meantime have clicked on links that do not exist. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2011

I disagree with your thoughts and actions. You would make better use of your time to add content to improve stub-articles. Dolovis (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And you might make better use of your time actually adding content to articles instead of trying to mass create one line stubs that contain little to no information and contain links to non-existent pages and references that don't always support what they are claiming to support. Quality over quantity. I wouldn't have to waste my time on such cleanup tasks and could actually do as you suggest if there weren't editors making edits such as these. -DJSasso (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning of misuse of AWB

Your use of AWB to remove links from stub articles as you have done here, here, here and at hundreds of other articles in not uncontroversial and is a violation of the “Rules of Use” of AWB. Please stop your misuse of this editing tool. Dolovis (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing templates that link to non-existent pages is most definitely not a controversial use of AWB. Perhaps if you actually used the template correctly and linked to the players page then they wouldn't have to be removed. Creating false links as you have been doing is often considered disruptive editing as it tricks the user into thinking they are actually going to one place when infact they are not. Continued editing in such a manner will likely be escalated. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your thoughts and actions. You would make better use of your time to add content to improve stub-articles. Dolovis (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree all you want, he is in the right here. You are simply wasting everyone's time with half-assed sub-stub article creations, broken templates and improper warnings. Perhaps you should make better use of your time by improving these sub-stub articles you have created? It would save everyone else the trouble of cleaning up after you. Resolute 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have created articles about currently active European hockey players who meet the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. The articles I have created conform to WP:STUB and are capable of expansion. There was no need for anyone to clean-up after me. I had been going back to improve the articles I had created, but before I could continue this task Djsasso had already done his damage. Dolovis (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually there was, references that don't actually mention the subject, and links that go to pages that don't exist are both very bad things and do more harm to wikipedia than good. Cleanup was definitely needed. Slowing down and making sure you actually have correct information in an article is far more important than trying to pump out 100 articles in two days. As for going back to improve them, some of them were sitting for days. I actually waited to let you improve them and you did not do so. For example the three links you link to above sat for 9 days, 10 days and 10 days. Anytime anyone tells you to slow down you say you are going back to fix whatever it is you have created, except you never seem to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was doing the clean-up, but perhaps I missed a couple. WP:NOTIMELIMIT. I seem to remember that you have been sometimes slow to perform your promised clean-ups [11].Dolovis (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, but if they are left sitting, you can't really complain if someone else comes and cleans them up. We are all here trying to make the wiki better. Everyone has different ways of doing that. But letting them sit there when I know they are incorrect is not something I am willing to do. So I remove them so that other people don't get tricked into going to a page that doesn't exist, and so that other editors know that the hockeydb link is missing. Because as long as the template was on there it looked like the link was there when it actually wasn't. In the end I haven't cost anyone any time because they would have had to be replaced anyways and the difference in time of typing the template name/number and the time for just the number is negligable. So please start assuming some good faith. I was actually trying to help. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Keith Jolie

PROD contested by IP, FYI. Courcelles 00:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

First time I have had a prod contested by the subject of the article. Normally I would suggest you put the BLPProd on since it still has no sources...but if it is the person them self maybe it doesn't need it... -DJSasso (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

BLPPROD wouldn't fly since the article was created in 2005; five years too old for that process. Only AFD will be able to delete it, if you want to peruse it. Courcelles 02:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, thats why I didn't blp it in the first place...its late. :) -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Question about records.

I have a quick question regarding team/individual records. As far as a player breaking a record and will continue to do so, is that updated at the end of the season/record (i.e.:most career games played for a franchise)? Also, what constitutes a season record (i.e: Does scoring 4 goals in a games as a franchise record count and should it be listed)? ThanksWeatherman05071 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean on the the player page itself? If it is a record like 4 goals in a game I would list it immediately with a date or something. In the case of most career games or something like that. What I would do is say something like "Joe Smith surpassed Joe Blow's record of 500 games played on January 4th." In doing that I avoid giving their current total which would be out of date the minute they played another game or scored another point etc. On team pages we don't update at all until the season is done. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The 4 goals in a game as a franchise record should be listed on the team page under season records, correct? Thank you again. Weatherman05071 (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank

Thank you so much for your Help. Merci beaucoup --Geneviève (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Players becoming coaches

What's the protocol for updating a player's page when he retires and becomes a coach/assistant? I had updated Spencer Carbery's infobox to reflect that he's an assistant coach, but you later changed it back to his player position of left winger. Do we maintain the position they played? Thanks.  Cjmclark  18:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah those infoboxes are player infoboxes. I believe there is a coach one out there somewhere but no one really uses them, as most coaches were notable hockey players before they were coaches. And it looks odd to have both infoboxes on small articles which is what is done on some articles when they are large enough to not look out of place. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 7 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)

Hockey leagues

I thought maybe it would be worth it to include the leagues referred to under each section of NHOCKEY. Perhaps you could help filling it in. I think it will be a useful tool that we came move into the WP:HOCKEY space. Grsz 11 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I will maybe do some tomorrow when I get a chance. There are alot of leagues out there. Especially defunct ones. -DJSasso (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ice hockey personnel from New Brunswick

Category:Ice hockey personnel from New Brunswick and others which you created have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Your notification of this discussion to non-ice hockey project members, such as posted here may be considered to be inappropriate canvassing. Dolovis (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually it would not, I notified all interested editors. I sent both you and him a link. As such both sides were notified. Secondly, the invitation is neutrally worded which is allowed by WP:CANVASS. I did not push a particular side in my notice. Please start reading some of these guidelines/policies before you throw them around. Secondly, he could very well be a member of the hockey project as I have seen him edit hockey articles. We don't require people to sign a list to be a member, signing the participation list is voluntary. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your misinterpretation of WP:CANVAS astounds me. This policy clearly states that “Inappropriate Notification” includes “posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions”. The policy explains that “appropriate notification” includes inviting informed, but uninvolved editors to the discussion, however Wizard is clearly involved, and his opinion on the use of image placeholders is known to you. Your notification to him of the discussion is referred to as “Vote-stacking” and is highly inappropriate. Dolovis (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually your misreading astounds me. Under appropropriate it actually says "Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic". And since I invited both you and him I did not invite either based on their opinion. It says "if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." And since I notified you, I had to notify him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, you are joking, right? Nothing about that violates CANVASS, and it's beyond me if you really think it does, or are just trying to make bad faith accusations. Grsz 11 18:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Djsasso truncated the sentence quoted from WP:CANVAS. Immediately following where it says "if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it..." (the sentence goes on read) "who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions" 19:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't truncate it, there is a comma. Which means its one of a number of examples, all I did was cut the example that pertained to this particular instance. I assume you know how commas work. The first quote you mention actually comes after the second quote you mention as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for replying to my comments on User:Resolute's UserTalk page regarding my recent edit to the Michael Nutter article. I kind of suspected that it was someone impersonating him. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:66.224.33.163 (User:Resolute impersonator) has re-added the warning concerning the Michael Nutter article to my UserTalk page also reverted unrelated grammatical corrections I made to my own comments on my UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Resolute has blocked User:66.224.33.163 as a result of our discussion. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm having the exact same problem with User:75.145.77.185, but been have unsuccessful in filing a complaint on the AIV noticeboard. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and your page semi-protected. -DJSasso (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for semi-protecting my UserTalk page, I was trying to figure out if that kind of request is permissable under Wikipedia policies when I noticed you had done that because this situation has gotten ridiculously out of control. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Scott Winkler

Hi, DJ.. Happy New Year! =) I've seen you've had your hands full with an editor's mass AfDs, etc. the last couple of days... Hopefully (s)he will adapt to Wiki-manners sooner than later! =) I have moved the article in question to my userspace, pending notability. So if you could close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Winkler (2nd nomination), hopefully on the correct grounds, then maybe look at my final question, and finally delete the redirect, I'd be happy! =) Take care, lil2mas (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi again! I see the article was moved back, and deleted without being moved to my userspace first. Could you do me the favour of restoring the article, move it to my userspace, and delete the redirect. Thanks, in advance... =) lil2mas (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have placed a copy of the source in your userspace. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on image placeholders

Just a personal view on what you said about bad faith comments: I didn't interpret the comment to say that you were purposefully acting in a way to stifle discussion, just that was the resulting consequence, and as such I did not feel the comment by itself reflected an assumption of bad faith. I hope this third-party view can help provide some outside perspective. I understand there is an overall context in which the comment was made that adds to the meaning;(*) I offer this view only because I think others may see your comment in isolation and fail to appreciate the context.

(*) For example, the comments above on vote-stacking seem inappropriate, since in essence all that occurred was that you moved a content discussion to another page, rather than being on a user talk page, and you informed the conversation's participants of this. isaacl (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I know that it looks like he was trying to make an innocent comment. But unfortunately he has a long history of bad faith accusations. His comment was all about me not talking in the discussion so that I can't challenge his side of the discussion. If I don't reply I can't challenge his arguements short commings. My commenting doesn't stifle discussion, its meant to encourage it. Move it from being just a hand count. He just has an issue with me because more often than not, he ends up on the opposite side of consensus and he thinks its my fault that happens. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand your intent. At times, though, editors' comments can give the appearance of entrenchment in their views, which can obscure the intent and discourage participation. Also it's easy to miss how your printed words can have a different interpretation than what you meant, when the usual contextual clues with face-to-face conversation are missing. Thankfully, for this particular editor, at the moment things seemed to have cooled down a bit. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro football discussions need feedback

Hello! You have participated in WP:AFD disucssions involving semi-pro football teams in the past. The following two AFD discussions could use additional weigh-in as they appear to be stuck in "relisting" mode:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seaboard Football League
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northeastern Football Alliance

I am placing this notice on talk pages of users who have shown interest in the past, regardless of how they !voted in the discussion. If you do participate, please mention that you were asked to participate in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

user 75.159.14.90

I was wondering if you could keep an eye on this user. It seems to be a vandal only account. Thanks. Freshfighter9^talk 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Yea thanks, that helps clarify were RG was coming from. I do feel he satisfies GNG, but I guess that'll be discussed when/if there's another Afd.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 08:16, 17 February 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) 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky

Main page: Talk:Wayne Gretzky § What? Gretzky a "Canadian-American"?

There has been an endless edit war for months and months. I have simply removed the nationality from the lead altogether. I realy think per the MOS there is no need to mention his nationally in the lead at all - plus sounds odd hes a retired Canadian? We cant keep edit Waring over this silly point.Moxy (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Asking advice

You would not believe it, but the largest pain in the neck article for me is a Godzilla movie article. This is the Godzilla (2012 film project) article. It has had two AfDs fail. Now another editor unilaterally moved the content to another article, without opening an AfD, and does not want to open an AfD. I did an undo. Never mind the merits of the article, what is the procedure to follow? Where does someone bring that up? The proponents point out that the article fails WP:NFF, which it does. But the article has general notability, and it's not been deleted twice. It's not really misbehaviour, but I am concerned that it could become a lame edit war. Is it appropriate to make an article a redirect after two AfDs? And it's not a very important article or anything. That's why it seems so lame to argue about it. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The merge discussion would be the appropriate way to handle it. An article can be merged even if its passed Afd because merge and deletion are considered to be separate and distinct processes. An article can pass an Afd but then be merged into another article. -DJSasso (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I added that template. Althogh it's with regrets, I've decided to withdraw my objection and run. :-) !!! As I was mentioning to someone else, it's the article that has caused me the most headaches and yet it is so small! Have you found your involvement or enthusiasm dwindling over time? There should be a big warning sign when you sign up to edit: "This will be very frustrating, are you sure you want to continue?" :-) ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's funny you mention that, because I have been taking somewhat of a break from here for the past month or so. If you notice my edit numbers are way down. Only really edit lately when there is something I feel I need to do or comment on. I am always of the opinion that if your enthusiasm is down that you should walk away for awhile and see if it comes back because editing the wiki should be fun. If it isn't then you should find something that is. With the summer coming soon its a good time to do it as well since there will be no hockey. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG

Per WP:BRD, please provide a linked discussion of this being discussed in the past.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Second request to link the discussion that was you used as justification for keeping flags in the info box against the guideline MOS:FLAG. I am asking in good faith and would like to actually see the very long discussion that you referred to in your edit summary. I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you use a previous consensus as a reason to revert an edit, you should at least be able to link that discussion if requested in good faith. This per WP:BRD.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I love how your entire method of operation is to do something then demand people who revert you justify themselves. If you want to get rid of the flag icons so badly, start a discussion on either the article talk page, or since you seem intent on removing them everywhere, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports while notifying relevant projects. Resolute 16:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not demanding, I'm requesting a link and attempting to open up a discussion per WP:BRD (you should read it. Discussion is not a sin). I am not the one who brought up the previous consensu. This editor said in his edit summary to look at the long discussion on the talk page. I looked and could not find one. So I am requesting a link to the discussion since it is being used as the only justification for keeping the flags in the info box against MOS:FLAG.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that two different editors have reverted you is more than enough justification to retain the status quo for the moment. Perhaps you should try being a little less condescending and a little more willing to actually discuss. If you think DJ was mistaken in believing that we had such a discussion on this article - and we've had many discussions on many articles, so it is easy to get confused - then just open up a new one. Though I do think it should go to WP:SPORT since you are trying to affect multiple articles. Oh, and as long as we are telling each other to read things, I suggest you take a solid look at WP:EW. Resolute 17:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If asking for a link to a previous consensus, that is being used as the only justification for keeping the flags in the info boxes, is condescending, then I guess you just don't prefer discussion. And if asking for a link, then waiting 24 hours to be ignored before I remove the flags again is edit warring, then how long should I have waited, when my request was ignored? Also you should read WP:HOUND as you seem to be showing up in discussions that I am in lately and are currently reverting my edits.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all editors edit 24 hours a day, you have now been reverted by multiple editors. Whether or not there has been a past discussion this now means that you can no longer readd them because its clearly a controversial removal. I would also point out to you that in MOSFLAG it says its is a rule of thumb, it does not say don't do it, it says avoid it, meaning there are cases where it doesn't apply. If you see that all the major leagues have something and have for many years then the first thing you should ask yourself is, is this like this or a reason. I pointed you to the discussion on the talk page, the talk page isn't that long, if you are too lazy to go look then that isn't my problem. I know specifically for hockey infoboxes we have decided to not go by that rule of thumb, as you will see we use flags in all our infoboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You edited in that 24 hour period, including posting at other talk pages in which you knew I was also involved. So it is assumed that you saw the message here, and ignored my request. That was ample time to respond to a request to link a discussion, especially when that discussion was being used as the only reason for a revert. Now it seems that the consensus that was referred to in your edit summary didn't even exist to begin with. So then, what is the reason for having the flags in the info boxes then? I'll let you respond at WT:BASEBALL,as I have already responded to you there. --JOJ ^Hutton 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the only reason to revert....edit summaries only contain so many characters. So I mentioned the easiest one. -DJSasso (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were to read the list, every other thing says "Do Not Use Flags For (insert whatever here.)" It says the following, "Avoid Flag Icons in Infoboxes." Therefore, it would be logical to conclude that it is discouraged, but not against the law. Farther down, for sportspeople it says that it is discouraged in their inforboxes, but not against the rules of MOSFLAG.Weatherman05071 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Standings

Hi DJsasso. I have most standings for the top-level European ice hockey leagues. Are they considered notable? If they are, I'll add some soon.Hockeyben (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You can add the standings to the pages of top level Euro leagues. But if it were me I would probably only restrict it to those leagues which are at the top of the crop. Such as the Elitserien, Kontinental Hockey League, etc. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I have standings from all the leagues (Armenia Hockey League Bulgarian National League, Polska Liga Hokejowa) if they are wanted . Hockeyben (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

USHL

I've updated the map. Sorry it took so long, I've been busy lately. vıdıoman 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks! -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

AWB

I appreciate the offer, but maybe I should hold off while Ravenswing does his edits (I'd be doing the same thing on a lot of the same pages :). TerminalPreppie (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way you are a good editor, so you are approved. Whether you use it or not now is up to you. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Those dios 'again'

Howdy Dj. If Darwinek were to stop calling his page-movements "correct names", it would help cool things down. Both sides had agreed to stop claiming their versions were correct. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, do you think these one sentence backhanded comments to various peoples talk pages help the situation or inflame the situation? I truly am curious why you think they are a good idea. -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just keeping ya'll on your toes. Page movements in this area are quite delicate & Darwinek isn't helping matters my claiming his unilateral page moves are 'corrections'. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No different that you constantly claiming you are pro-English like those who don't agree with you are anti-English.... :P -DJSasso (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I made that statement at Dolovis' talkpage. I haven't been unilaterally changing page titles, with that statement --big differences--. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Nail Yakupov

It's currently in my user space, and you were the only one who seemed to favour of deletion (aside from the nominator) instead of waiting for the ROY announcement. While I avoided crystal-balling beforehand, now that the announcement is made and it was unanimous, your opinion would be welcome in the deletion review regarding whether this is notability enough. I think it's without question now. CycloneGU (talk) 04:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2004–05 Anaheim Ducks season

You should move 2004–05 Anaheim Ducks season over the redirect to 2004–05 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim season to reflect the proper name of the team as it was then. Dolovis (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Right thanks. I completely forgot about that. -DJSasso (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Software release versions

I just remembered some discussions on a Microsoft employee's blog regarding software release versions. There are situations where a release gets cancelled / rolled into the next release, and rather than rewrite all the code and documentation, the internal release number is kept the same and not renumbered. So for example, if version 4 was cancelled, the next release is still numbered 5 (internally at least), to avoid confusion ("when you refer to the release 4 milestone, do you mean the old release 4, or the renumbered release 4?"). I forget where I read it, but I recall another anecdote from a designer who said that he gives management one opportunity to rename the project, after which, no matter what it is called externally, the old name will remain in the code itself. (I doubt any of these reasons relate to the NHL's apparent decision on season numbering, though.) isaacl (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah build numbers and release numbers can differ. I was just making a comment on why Windows 7 was Windows 7. Didn't actually relate to the actual discussion. Just had alot of people ask me why it was called 7 in the last year or so since it came out. People didn't realize that windows kept being numbered even though it had a promotional name that was used as opposed to the version. -DJSasso (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Build numbers are yet another issue... I was referring to parallel development: because the next release is already being referred to internally by the next release number, and potentially affecting the API for the release, upon which external customers may depend, it may be more trouble than it's worth to renumber the release if the current one gets cancelled. isaacl (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)