User talk:Djsasso/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Regarding conference colors

At least, from your edit summaries, I know now that hockey temps should be blue, but cleansing the division/conference colors in many of the season templates seems a bit too much, at least by Template:NHL's standards. What's up with doing the latter? Please reply on my talk page. -- ISLANDERS27 07:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Actual headquarters of the NHL and the order of countries in multinational leagues in info boxes

On page 2 of his June 9, 2009, Declaration filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman states the NHL Structure to be as follows:

"The NHL is an unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs, including the Phoenix Coyotes. The NHL's headquarter offices are in New York, New York. The NHL has other offices in Toronto. Ontario and Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Each Member Club operates a professional hockey team in North America. The NHL teams are located in a diverse group of cities throughout the United States and Canada."

The same language also appears in Articles I and II of the NHL Constitution and are the sources upon which I based my original edits. The NHL has also had a majority of it Member clubs located in the United States continuously since 1926.

Based on your logic of listing the location of clubs alphabetically by country as opposed to in descending order based on the numbers of clubs in each country, then presumably you would also define the structure of both Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association as professional sports leagues or organizations with member clubs "in Canada and the United States". Despite your claim to to the contrary, this not the way they are described in the infoboxes in either MLB's or the NBA's Wikipedia pages. (You now also appear to have violated the 3RR rule). The edits I made there some months ago had to do with language that claimed the NHL operated "throughout North America" which is clearly not true as it only has member clubs in two of the 39 nations and territories in the North American continent and this was discussed at considerable length in the NHL Talk page at the time. I ordered the two country listing using the descending order format as that is how it is done in both the MLB and NBA Wikipedia articles, and because that is how the NHL also states the order in both the above mentioned league legal filing and in its Constitution which I cited as the source therefore in footnote #1 in the NHL article. Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually to violate 3RR I have to do it 4 times. Secondly what the NBA and MLB does is irrelevant, as we are a seperate wikiproject and do alot of things completely different to them. Secondly I am not arguing that thier defacto headquarters is in New York. However their business entity itself is registered out of Montreal. Corporations, can't easily hop borders when they have been incorporated in one country. The NHL has left their corporation registered in Canada. But for all intents and purpose yes they are a multi national company whose main business is done out of New York. Yes, you did make edits about the league being throughout, which is not a problem at all as consensus was achieved on that topic, but hidden in among them and probably why no one noticed was this one which reverted the order which is a completely seperate topic. The very reason we do it alphabetically is to avoid point of view edits, you for example believe that we should go by where the headquaters are and percentage of teams, whereas others believe we should go in the order that teams joined the league...and others believe we should go other ways. So in order to avoid these POV decisions, we just go alphabetically. -DJSasso (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am puzzled why you keep referring to the NHL as a "corporation" whereas its Constitution clearly states that it is a "unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs." If you have a reliable source that supports your contention that it is actually a currently active "Corporation registered in Montréal" then please provide it. In addition you call the NHL's New York offices a "defacto" headquarters which, by definition, would mean that it is "exercising power without being legally or officially established" to do so. On what basis do you make that claim, and what is your source?

My stating that its member clubs operate in the "United States and Canada" (as opposed to "Canada and the United States") is not POV, it is taken directly from Article II, sections "a" and "b" of the NHL's own Constitution which state that the Association's first two "Purposes and Objects" are: a) "To perpetuate hockey as one of the national games of the United States and Canada" and, b) "The promotion of the common interests of the members of the League, each member being the owner of a professional hockey club located in the United States or Canada." Please direct me to where I can see the Wikipedia policy that you refer to that states that the NHL's own manner of listing the countries in which it operates should be ignored in favor doing so alphabetically?

You state that 3RR actually really means "four" revisions and not three. If that is the case, why then did you accuse me of "edit warring" ("Do you have to edit war everything?") after I only changed this twice, and included detailed edit summaries both times? Centpacrr (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'll never understand how Wikipedia draws such huge battles over such insignificant things. This is a WP:LAME edit war guys. I could not care less how the countries are ordered on other infoboxes, and yet somehow, I care even less than that about where the league head office is. Alphabetical or by most teams, does it matter? Take a straw poll and be done with it. Resolute 04:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is not really which order the two countries are listed, but the principle of whether or not a reliably sourced statement can appropriately be "trumped" as POV by claims that "we don't do it that way" made without offering any documented support for the validity of any such actions. Doing so only leads to chaos when applied (or really misapplied) to more salient points. Centpacrr (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you can source the location of the NHL's head office, it has no bearing on the discussion of how we order the nationality of the teams. To be perfectly blunt, you are introducing a red herring in an effort to support your POV. Resolute 05:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The primary reason that I listed the two countries in the order I did was, as I previously stated, because 80% of the teams are located in the US and 20% in Canada, and that the NHL Constitution uses the language "in the United States States and Canada." (The majority of NHL member clubs were also continuously located in the US from 1928 when the headquarters were indeed located in Montreal until it was moved to New York in, I believe, 1978 or 1979.) I would not have mentioned the New York headquarters again had not the as yet to be sourced contention then been made to me that the NHL was legally a "corporation registered in Montréal" as opposed to an "unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs." headquartered in New York City which the Constitution and Mr. Bettman's June 9, 2009, Declaration state. All that I have asked for with regard to that is that this contrary claim be supported with a reliable source. If I am wrong about this I want to know for my personal knowledge and that's why I have asked the question, however nobody has so far provided me a source to support to the Canadian corporation claim. The question is not there as a "red herring" but because I want to know the answer to that specific question. Centpacrr (talk) 08:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolute beat me to the punch, this is beyond common sense to have such a long discussion over such a insignificant thing. But you make some good points Centpacrr, how about we take this to the talk page of either the NHL article or WP:HOCKEY and simply do a poll? —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 13:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, but I would still like a factual answer to my question regarding the claim that the NHL is legally structured as a "corporation registered in Montréal" as opposed to an "unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs" legally headquarted in New York which is not something that can be answered by "a poll." It either is in which case that can be supported by at least one reliable source, or it isn't. Centpacrr (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I used the word Corporation out of habit. It is actually a Limited Partnership registered out of Montreal. I shall find you a source. Secondly my comment about edit warring is about you reverting and using edit summaries to discuss instead of the talk page and then pointing the other person to go to the talk page when that is what you should have done in the first place if you didn't agree. You have done this in the past as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What I reverted it back to was the format that it had been for many months without complaint and which conformed it to both the infobox format used in the Wikipedia articles for the other two North American major sports leagues with franchises in the US and Canada (MLB and NBA) which appeared to be the established consensus format for Wikipedia, and also to match the language as to the order as stated in the NHL Constitution. If as you claim there is some earlier discussion of this specific point elsewhere establishing a consensus that the NHL infobox should to treated differently then those for other similar professional sports leagues, then please provide me a link to it as I have been unable to find any such discussion. Centpacrr (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya should bring this discussion to National Hockey League talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• As no references, sources, or links have been provided as promised with regard to either the contention that the NHL is a "limited partnership registered in Montréal", or that there is some documentation as to "consensus" having been previously achieved that the infobox for the NHL should be treated differently on Wikipedia than those of the professional leagues for other sports, I will assume at this point that there are none and will proceed accordingly. Centpacrr (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  I am not going to argue with you, however, the fact it was that way for years is consensus in an of itself. If you want to change it start a discussion. You have failed to do so. If you change it without discussion it will be reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Again the point that I am making is that you made a claim that I violated a consensus that had been affirmatively discussed and agreed upon that the NHL's infobox should be treated differently than similar boxes in the Wikipedia articles for professional leagues in other sports. Based on your comment above, however, this is apparently not the case and no such discussion ever took place.

  With respect to the other issue, does your silence on this indicate that you now accept that the legal structure of the NHL is that the league is an "unincorporated association, organized as a joint venture to operate a League consisting of thirty Member Clubs" that is headquartered in New York City (as stated in the NHL Constitution and Mr. Bettman's June 9, 2009, Declaration filed with the US Bankruptcy Court in Arizona) as opposed to its being a "limited partnership registered in Montréal" as you previously advanced, or do you have some reliable source that supports your contention and therefore trumps the NHL Constitution? Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  No my comment above means I don't want to interact with you any further and that I want you to take the discussion to the article talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

See here. Centpacrr (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Howdy DJ. Perhaps my participation at the discussion, might be counter-productive. We're both Canadians & he's American. It could easily be seen as though there's national pride behind the discussion. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A quick note: Please understand that this has nothing to do with my personal nationality. The OHL, QMJHL, and WHL, for instance, all have teams in both the US and Canada as well, but I absolutely support listing Canada first in the infoboxes for each as the vast majority of these circuits' member clubs are located in Canada. The purpose of my position is to have the order of listing reflect the actual structure of each individual league, not the arbitrariness of the English spellings of the countries the member clubs are located in which has no relation to the league's structure. I have worked in professional hockey at all levels for more than forty years and know thousands of people in the game from many countries. Their national origins are of no concern to me one way or the other, nor, for that matter, is mine to any of them. My aim is to make the infobox listing informational, not arbitrary. Centpacrr (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2009

Hello!

Please do not place an image on the main page without first protecting it (to prevent vandalism). In the case of a Commons image (such as File:Jacques plante.jpg), it must first be uploaded to the English Wikipedia (or protected at Commons by an administrator there, as I've just done).

Also, when performing a reversion, please be careful to avoid undoing unrelated changes. (In this instance, you reverted a subsequent correction from "October" to "November.")

Lastly, please use edit summaries to explain your changes (and minimize confusion).

Thanks! —David Levy 18:40/18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought someone else had already protected it as it was already the main page image earlier. -DJSasso (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I protected it at Commons at that point. But when it was removed from the main page, I unprotected it. This is a standard practice, so one should not assume that an image protected during an earlier main page appearance remains protected. Please check to make sure. —David Levy 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hockey team

Could you please explain how Thumperward's complete overhaul on the Template:Hockey team page was "a significant upgrade to the code"?

Any significant changes were advised to be brought to the attention of others via the insertion of {{High-use|400+|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey}}.

I'm extremely disappointed by your defence to Thumperward's undiscussed major edit; followed by your offence to advise I read up on ownership policy.

I found that statement regarding article ownership hurtful, upsetting, and discouraging to my future contributions towards WikiProject Ice Hockey.

Hucz ^{(talk · contribs)} 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You reverted a change with no explanation, and you've done it to others on the page as well. That pretty much sums up ownership. As for the overhaul thumperward did, he cleaned up the code and brought it inline with how alot of infoboxes are being done now via the new infobox template. None of the changes he made affected the look of the infobox at all. It just cleaned up the code and made it more efficient by not having to include redudant code on every template. In short he updated and made the box more efficient while not affecting the functionality of the infobox. You reverted an experienced user without an explaination, which is pretty rude in itself. Nevermind the fact you did it months after the change was made and clearly working properly. -DJSasso (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you've actually just reverted this yourself - care to shine a light on the rationale? As you said, that it was live for seven months without the world exploding suggests that it wasn't causing any problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was me editing an old reversion and not noticing. I have since fixed it. I was only intending to remove the collapsable box. Would have been silly of me to admonish him for reverting it then for me to do it myself. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Viktor Tikhonov (disambiguation)

Hello. Just to let you know, this dab has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any questions about this, please let me know. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wow

lol. I just kinda hit on some good writing mojo. Fixing up the Phaneuf and Regehr articles was always on my todo list, as they were both in just terrible shape. The sad thing is, my specific project right now is supposed to be Calgary Tower, but this stupid blizzard and cold snap is keeping me from the library. Resolute 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

Hello, Djsasso! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice. KV5 (Talk • Phils)

List of medallists

The reason Czechoslovakia is not listed under Slovakia the way it is under the Czech Republic is that the IIHF considers the Czech Republic the successor of Czechoslovakia and considers all medals won by Czechoslovakia to belong to the Czech Republic and not Slovakia. This is a long agreed consensus on the situation. Please do not change again. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Then why not simply make your correction, rather than reverting my edit? My edit incorporated changes to more than just that. Thanks. 24.57.65.135 (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you correction also affected how the table appears. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew Stahl

you need to look at the above page. in describing the problem, i hardly know where to statr. bottom line is, i think the entire article may be pure fiction. i first came across it following a link, which has since disappeared, from the washington capitals page, claiming he was on the roster. the article has him graduating from college before he was born, etc, etc. two of the names in the sentence linking him to the caps have also appeared in recent vandalism of the caps page.neither he, nor the two alledged teammates appear on the rosters of either the hershey bears, or the south carolina stingrays. the imdb link is to someone of the same name, but clearly not the same guy (born 1952). the only thing suggesting any legitimacy is that the page has a fairly lengthy history. for this reason i am hesitant to just blank the page. frankly, i can't figure out what the hell is going on. you are the first admin i came across in the caps article history. i leave the problem in your capable hands.Toyokuni3 (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of stub from Battle of Temesvár

I see you removed the stubs from Battle of Temesvár with the edit summary "Not even close to being a stub". I would just like to let you know, this article is the subject of some debate at Wikipedia Talk:Stub and WP:BON, which I started when a bot (SmackBot) removed the stub templates while I still thought they were stubs, because at that time there was the scaffolding and top and tail but no actual mention of the battle itself. For this reason I left it as a stub even after User:Monkap and I had translated the meat of the article, and I would agree with you it is no longer a stub, but left it be while that discussion is under weigh.

I hope your opinion has emphasised my point, which is that this is a decision best left to humans and not to bots. You will find a couple of others probably in the same series that are marked as stubs, for the same reason. I list the campaignbox at right so you can navigate and check those articles if you wish.

I have no problem your removing the stub as a consciencious editor; I have a problem with a bot doing it without judgment (and when the article still WAS, in my opinion, a stub). I have a slightly lesser concern that removing the stub tags preventing other interested editors from seeing so, but since I have not seen your name before and you came across it, I think it adds weight to my argument of letting other disinterested editors see and judge it, instead of a bot.

So I would much appreciate your participation in those discussions, even if I have misinterpreted your intent.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

Djsasso, it's obvious that you don't care very much for me. We have differences of opinions of a lot of things. I am not going to clutter up the AfD with comments about this, but I don't appreciate the way that you treat me when speaking to me on Wikipedia. I find your attitude condescending, and not just toward me, but toward other editors. I certainly am not going to tell you how to do your business, but I would appreciate it if you would not tell me how to do mine either. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It's funny because I was thinking the exact same as you. You treat anyone who isn't a diehard baseball editor like they are clueless and don't know anything. You really need to stop acting like you and the baseball project know everything and no one else does. Because quite frankly you are wrong. In this particular article the player meets WP:ATH to suggest otherwise like you have is wrong. While I agree that these players should be deleted per the baseball projects notability essay, just like I would like to be able to do with our hockey essay. The truth of the matter is they don't. So feel free to argue that the reason for deletion is the essay, but don't say its because they don't meet athlete because they do. -DJSasso (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not just talking about this article. I'm talking about every other interaction I've ever had with you as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, I was just pointing to the example of this article. You have done it every time I have seen you in a conversation with someone you don't agree with. Its why I react to you the way I do. You constantly treat people you don't agree with like idiots like you did with kingjeff in this particular afd. -DJSasso (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we have some kind of serious personality conflict, but I totally do not see how you consider me raising policy-/guideline-/essay-based arguments to be "treating people like idiots". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We probably just started off on the wrong foot. Because alot of the time I do agree with you. I know you just are arguing what you think is best for the wiki so I do respect that. I just have issues with a few things as I mentioned above, mostly with the perception I have that you just wave off the opinions of people who aren't full time baseball editors. If you'll agree to try to at least be open to outside opinions I have no problem toning down language I might use towards you. But without that I tend to treat others like they treat people. -DJSasso (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that I consider anyone a "full-time baseball editor". That's not my problem, and I have no problem with editors from outside the project. My major concern is project-based, however, in that I feel people disrespect the project itself and its views. That's where my issues in the past with you have originated. I don't mean to disrespect you or your views. That's certainly never been my intent. However, there have been a lot of times that I've felt you're trying to impose your views on others without considering opposing viewpoints. I didn't say anything when you commented on my RfA about the "perceived power" issue, but that's part of the issue that I've had with you, in that I feel that you act like you speak from a position of power even though we all have the same voice. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then we seem to both think the same thing about each other. I am always more than willing to consider others opinions, hence why we managed to come to a consensus that worked for both sides at the Giants article. (I don't remember if you stayed at that discussion to the end where consensus was finally achieved). I definitely don't think I have any power, especially at the baseball project where I know my opinion counts for little to most people because I am not editing baseball all the time. Perhaps that is why I seem like I am trying to push my opinions on others, because I feel like I have to argue harder there for people to even listen because all I ever here there are things like "thats just how its always been done" and I feel that if the way things are done are not always discussed with new opinions being heard then things don't grow and change for the better. Nothing should ever be done a certain way just because it was in the past. There should be a good reason for doing things one way or another. But I do understand you not liking your project to be disrespected because I wouldn't like the one I spend the majority of my time at to be either. Could be that I am used to a project that is well organized and for the most part plays well together, whereas (and this is only my opinion though I have heard it from a couple others) the baseball project seems to thrive on chaos. -DJSasso (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I am just wondering if your statement above ("Perhaps that is why I seem like I am trying to push my opinions on others, because I feel like I have to argue harder there for people to even listen because all I ever here there are things like "thats just how its always been done" and I feel that if the way things are done are not always discussed with new opinions being heard then things don't grow and change for the better.") means that you have now changed your view on the "that's just how it's always done" argument which you recently used as the support of your views in a discussion I raised about the formatting of the infobox on the NHL article?

I am sorry if you confuse my request for you to support your contentions as "hostility." (It was not I who made an accusation of edit warring.) I made a good faith effort to understand the consensus for the formatting of the infoboxes for professional sports leagues and made my edits accordingly. All I have asked for are the sources and/or links that support your positions. I can't really accept, however, an otherwise unsupported claim of "that's the way we do it" as such a reliable source, however, nor would I expect that you or any other editor (especially one as experienced as yourself) would either if that's the only reason I gave for my actions. Centpacrr (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Except that, that's the way we do it is a legitimate way of having consensus on wikipedia. (emphasis added) In order to change something you must show that opinions have changed. If something has been the same way for a very long time consensus can be assumed. All I have wanted from the begining was for you to discuss your requested change rather than revert me and explain in edit summaries. MLB and NBA are very different from the NHL in that those sports expanded into Canada whereas the NHL originated in Canada and expanded into the US. Which makes the listing on this page alot more touchy than it would be on those pages. This is why such edits on highly visible pages should always be discussed. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Centpacrr (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you notice I am saying the same thing in both. Things should be discussed is what I have said in both. But how something has always been done is a valid form of consensus. What I am referring to in my current discussion (which of course you aren't involved in) is the refusing to discuss anything by saying that just how it is and leaving it at that. In the discussion you are quoting we asked you for a reason to change an overwhelming consensus. In the discussion that followed no one supported your change request for many reasons. There is worlds of difference in the two situations. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that does not actually appear to be correct. If you will take a look at the entire discussion you will find after I researched the history of infoboxes used in hockey and organized leagues in many other sports with Wikipedia articles and demonstrated that the actual historic consensus (including for the NHL article) was not how you had represented it. Two other editors (who had previously supported your view) then changed their positions and agreed with my argument about the logic of listing nations by descending order of the number of teams in leagues with member clubs located in more than one country (see below) while the other three rejected it for the NHL article which now remains "out of step" with that consensus formatting as the only such article that I have found that lists nations alphabetically.

"You've convinced me, change the order in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)"
"I don't mean to bother you, but I support a minor change in the consensus, that the historic one is better. -- ISLANDERS27 06:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Centpacrr (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One of which was a blocked as a sockpuppet who had a perchant for trying to disrupt consensus discussions and the other is someone who chronically flip flops on issues usually landing on the side opposite everyone because they like the conflict all the while claiming they don't really care which way the discussion goes cause its all the same either way. But in the end the new consensus reached in the discussion that was eventually started came down on the side of leaving the things the way they were. So now there is a true discussed consensus whatever the historic consensus may have been. Please stop your WP:POINT discussions on the matter. I have already told you I wish to not partake in this discussion further with you. -DJSasso (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have only been trying to follow your stated precept (with which I fully agree) that "...if the way things are done are not always discussed with new opinions being heard then things don't grow and change for the better." If, however, you no longer wish to do so then I'll leave it at that. (By the way did you see Ovechkin's second goal in Edmonton tonight? What an effort! :-) ) Centpacrr (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to engage in discussions would probably work better if you didn't presuppose that you were right, and then challenge others to prove you wrong. Resolute 05:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am attempting to do when I raise something in a Wikipedia Talk page is to pose/ask (your choice) questions about why something has been done a certain way if i think I have an alternative which might be better, give my reasons why I am raising the issue, and seek to understand the rationale other editors have applied for why something in an article is the way it is. It has been my experience in both Wikipedia and elsewhere, however, that if such an exercise is to produce meaningful results and understanding for the views of all of those who choose to participate in it (i.e, something other than the dreaded "that's the way we do it" response) then each editor should be willing to respectfully challenge and ask each other editor to support his/her positions with there reasons therefore as well as the one raising the issue being challenged to do so him/herself.

I think you have confused my willingness to strongly defend my views (and challenging others to do the same) as "presupposing" that I am right and everyone else is wrong which is absolutely not my position. I am perfectly willing to be proved wrong, but so should every other editor be too if someone has a better argument which can be supported by logic and/or objective and convincing evidence. Centpacrr (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec Dj, I ain't a flip-flopper. My opposition to dios is still unchanged. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The exception that proves the rule. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure that nobody was assuming I had softened my stance on the dios usage, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page move request

Could you do me a huge favour and move Right to Play to its official organization name of Right To Play over the redirect. I'm starting a re-write of the article with the hopes of FA'ing it and capitalizing this one little 'T' would make all the difference! Thanks a ton! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You are mentioned in this more than in passing, but are not the main subject of it: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wknight94's deletion of guideline material to sabotage an RFC about compliance with it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 13:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ntl_team

I would agree. Best to keep it at U20, and stay away from U18. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Djsasso! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 524 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Rogatien Vachon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Vic Howe - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Richard Finch (musician) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Ron Campbell - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Barry Smith (ice hockey b. 1952) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My god, how DARE you create unreferenced BLPs five years ago! Resolute 02:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah! Get out the flogging frame and the whips!  RGTraynor  03:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that a couple of those guys I didn't even technically create, I just deleted and restored minus copywrite violations. And one of them had a reference. So this bot isn't all that accurate. Oh and I just discovered that Roggie Vachon wasn't even created by me, turns out I moved it from Rogatien to Roggie in 2005 an then someone in 2006 turned the redirect into an article and the article into a redirect. I would fix the copy and paste move but this many years later the incorrect one has more edit history than the correct one. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I remembered how to merge the histories. :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrice Cormier

Hi. I noticed you Prod'd the Patrice Cormier article. Is being on the 2009 Memorial Cup all-star team make someone worthy of inclusion? I know the hockey project has gone back and forth on this. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, perhaps. I hadn't realized he was on the all star team at the memorial cup. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I de-Prod'd the article for now and brought the subject up for discussion at the project. Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Erik Johnson

Hi Dj.

I'm a little troubled by the move of the first-drafted player back to "Erik Johnson". No doubt he is the most notable of the two Erik Johnsons, but the other one is also a hockey player. This will mean all pages with undisambiguated links will lead to the Erik Johnson born 1988, instead of a dab page. As they both are hockey players, it will lead to misunderstandings, errors, etc, thus lowering the quality of wikipedia. There will be no way of knowing if a link is dabbed or not.

LarRan (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and thats where editors come in. We are supposed to watch for stuff like that. Its also why we have the hat note at the top of the page, so that people who came through an incorrect link can go to the correct page. And its very unlikely there will be many inoorrect links as the other player is by far less notable so won't likely be linked in many places. -DJSasso (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's easy to say, but in most (or possibly all) cases where we have a "primary", e.g. Steve McQueen, the "secondaries" do not have the same profession. If they do, we dab all by year of birth, nationality, etc. This - the way it is now - will only make editors' work more difficult. If a link that leads to the player born 1988, in reality is supposed to refer to the player born 1981, how will anybody be able to question that, hatnote or no hatnote, as only seven years separate them? That ability would presume that people searching in wikipedia have the information already. Then why would they search? LarRan (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the Steve McQueen are dab'd by birth. And two of them share the same profession so I am not sure what you are trying to get at with that example. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The other Steve McQueens (an artist, a pet rat, an album, and two songs) are not actors. However, there is one "Steven R. McQueen", who is an actor. He should be under the "See also" section, since he's not named the same. Why don't we have a poll at wikiproject hockey? LarRan (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, however I believe that is how he ended up at the Erik Johnson page in the first place because he was originally dab'd by year a long time ago. That being said I still don't see the issue you see, since the other Erik only managed to play 1 game in the AHL and no longer plays hockey. There are bound to be almost no links to him in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive11#The_Two_Eriks_Johnson here is the discussion I am thinking of. -DJSasso (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then maybe he's not notable enough to be in wikipedia. And the article contains almost no info. We could resolve this issue by AfD-ing the older Erik Johnson. LarRan (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Image help

Hey, was wondering if you could help me. Months ago I updated the logo for the Fort Frances Lakers from its old Jr. Sabres logo... but the Jr. Sabres logo is still popping up on the page... I was wondering if you knew how to fix this. Thanks. DMighton (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That is strange, I will have to go look for some help on that when I have a chance. -DJSasso (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgot I had to fix something like this before. If it happens again what you want to do is in your address bar on the image page type ?action=purge at the end of the URL. I did the same on the article just incase. After you do this you will want to clear your cache on your computer and it should show up properly. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I figured it would have came up on its own after all this waiting. But it is there now. DMighton (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Is there a legitimate reason of why you reverted my edits to the talk pages. In case you didn't know, I have purposely set the archivers to leave a certain amount of "threads" on the page, so people like yourself won't get upset and angry when the page is archived. South Bay (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because on most of those pages archiving isn't even remotely appropriate. In order for a page to be archived it should be atleast 100k in size. So to use one example your time frame you used was 90 days. That page should be generating 100k worth of talk in that 90 day time frame. Some of these talk pages were less than 5k in size. This is why the bot specifically tells you to ask on the page before adding auto-archiving, because its preferable for old threads to stay on the main page until the page is too large (ie around 100k in size). -DJSasso (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, on 'no captains'

Howdy Dj. I got to figuring we could delete no captain from all the team articles. It would shorten the lists & the fact that a nobody was captain of a certain time period, would obviously mean 'no captain'. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, deleting the no captain, 2009-10 from the Capitals captains list was the correct move. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Djsasso! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note

Heya DJ, look I'm not going to make a big thing out of it, but you're hardly an "uninvolved admin" when it comes to something like the Patrick Elias page (or anything under the ice hockey project, really). In terms of content disputes/dispute resolution, I really think that it'd be best if you'd recuse yourself in favor of someone who isn't involved in the subject matter.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Protecting a page so that edit warring doesn't happen is definitely not an issue. Just take it to the talk page. No one is making this a big deal except yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Participation on the talk page would certainly be appreciated, incidentally. Eventually some teenager will come along and just turn something like this into a big old dramafest on ANI, if that hasn't happened already. It's really best for everyone involved to just avoid that sort of thing, don't you think? As an admin you should be striving to de-escalate issues, after all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 21:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you might do well to (re?)familiarize yourself with WP:Edit war and WP:The Wrong Version...
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, DJ evidently locked the page exactly as he found it due to the mini edit war, then became involved in the conversation regarding the move. I came across the debate at the same time, and considered locking the page down for the same reason. I tend to be a little more lenient with the tools, however, so chose to simply engage the debate rather than freeze the article. And, to also be fair, one person does not engage in an edit war by themselves. Given you were engaged with Krm over it, I think your attempting to educate others on the finer points of wikietiquette is a tad disingenuous in this instance. That said, I'm enjoying these debates today. Rocking the boat is always good, and it is never a bad thing to reassess where we stand on various standards that have grown into place. Resolute 01:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Glad to hear it as that does not always seem to be the approach that manifests itself in hockey discussions on Wikipedia when I raise an issue that seeks to question and " ....reassess where we stand on various standards that have grown into place.." Centpacrr (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• As I said in the past, it comes down to how you frame things. Ohm's law said "I believe x, but want discussion". Your debates begin with "x is correct, prove me wrong". Resolute 14:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really know what I can do about ameliorating the hypersensitivity that some editors may have to the language I use in discussing issues in talk. In the last discussion of a formatting issue that I raised on using Commonwealth spelling, for instance, I was accused by one editor of "attacking" him and others because I used the phrase "pose a question." (If I had said "ask a question" instead would that have been acceptable and not threatening?) I was not previously aware that choosing to use the word "pose" would somehow constitute an overt violation of the level of comity necessary to have my views considered on their merits in the discussion of an issue in talk, even if it was one that I had originally raised myself. I must reject your characterization of how I "pose" questions, but even it you were right about that it is a straw man argument. I don't see how that would be grounds to not address them simply because one does not approve of the form in which they are presented. Centpacrr (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't actually recall anyone having issue with the word pose. I don't really care enough to go back and read all the various discussions that you have started in the past, but I certainly don't recall anyone jumping on a single word. Most of the people just had issue with the fact that you basically treated everyone like they knew nothing and that you were right and we all were wrong, and that because you are a hockey broadcaster and writer you know more than us. That is the issue that people had. I don't recall anything to do with the word pose. Anyways there is no point arguing about this here folks, lets move along. -DJSasso (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• All I have ever intended to do in any talk discussion on Wikipedia is "pose" my question(s) and/or state my views on an issue along with my reasons and references that support them. It is not now, nor has it ever been, my position that "I know everything and everybody else knows nothing" and have stated my rejection of that absurdity many times before. Other editors are of course free to agree or disagree with any of my positions, state their own arguments to the contrary, and provide whatever reliable sources they have that they feel would support their views. If I find what appear to be holes in those arguments, however, I will question them as I always want others to do to my arguments. I will admit that I defend and support my positions vigorously and with a good bit of detail which some editors may misinterpret as being an "attack" when it is actually the essence of what is necessary for fruitful debate. Taking a position that any editor's arguments should be rejected out of hand simply because another editor doesn't approve of the "tone" in which they are presented, however, strikes me as being counterproductive and inimical to the process of building the Wikipedia project. Centpacrr (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To be absolutely clear here, I definitely have "good faith" in Djsasso, including in his actions here. It's not the action of getting involved in the 3rr violation in particular that I'm criticizing, but the appearance of conflict/impropriety created by an admin who is clearly involved in the dispute is problematic. Unfortunately, such things happen far too often in my opinion, and far too many others are willing to excuse it instead of trouting the person who runs to the tools in an area of their interest. Please note that this is A) on Dj's talk page, and B) I'm certainly not calling for his head, or anything like that. In my opinion Dj happened to mishandle the civility issue here as well, which isn't that surprising since he's not a regular AN/EW participant as far as I can tell. Full disclosure, I'm hardly an expert in the edit war policy and it's application either, but then I didn't try resolving a dispute either...
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You break it, you buy it!

In the vein of "let no good deed go unpunished" (), since you've chosen to get in on this dispute I wanted to point out this ...er, less then civil comment. The train wreck is coming, I'm just wondering how long it'll take before someone intervenes. I'm begging you to find someone uninvolved with the WikiProject to review this, before someone else needs to review it all.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No dealing with a civility issue I won't do since I am in the debate. Locking a page as I found it however I didn't think to be that big an issue. Personally I prefer admins to work in their area of expertise. One of the reasons most admins I know got their bit was so they could revert vandalism, block vandals, and protect pages etc in article areas that they edit in. Personally I think its because I do this and feel this way that I have mostly avoided the nonsense that happens at ANI except once in awhile. Its admins jumping into areas they don't know anything about that I think often causes so much of the problems that show up on ANI. I don't do much editing on ANI but I do read it alot. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As for you pointing me to the wrong version, I do know both those pages and I have dealt with my fair share of EWs and have learned overtime its best to just protect on the version of the page you find it on. Because the minute you revert it and then protect you always (in my experience) get attacked by the opposing side as having protected it on your preferred version. Thus I never revert and protect it as I find it. -DJSasso (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrik Elias

Err Dj, please don't say 'no diacritics' means spelt incorrectly. That's a sore spot with the anti-dios crowd. GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is what it means. We are going to have to agree to disagree. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No arguing intended. Just asking ya to be careful with that statement, as we all want to keep the cover on this powdered keg. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For detecting a potential programming flaw in my file link importer program and tracing it back to the correct source i present to you an admins barnstar, good detective work on your part! That Bug bug cloud have taken down an even more widely used file! Koman90 A+ (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Hurricanes

Wowsers, Rutherford sure is tough. Giving Brind'Amour a demotion during the season. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Tyler Seguin

I was planning to create the article, then noticed it was deleted yesterday. I must be somewhat out of it, since I somehow missed this AfD of yours, lol. Looking over the available sources, I would argue he passes WP:GNG easily: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Since the deleting admin stated no objection to recreation if notability is established, I wanted to ask you as the nominator if you'd be opposed to my restoring the article and expanding? Thanks! Resolute 00:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I may yet restore Cam Fowler as well on the same reasoning, though that was a Prod rather than AfD. And yes, I know I am proposing to make a real mockery of the PPF guidelines.  ;) Resolute 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean I can't argue with your reasoning, but it will probably open up a shit storm of people saying, but you let so and so stay when we try to delete other ones. So I will defer to whatever you think is right. Personally I would wait the 5 months to the draft, but GNG is GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I might, I might not at this point, actually. I was looking for good prospects to write about for the WikiCup, but went with a couple Russians who have KHL experience (not to mention that Kirill Kabanov's story is rather interesting) instead. I may leave it be for now. Resolute 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Martin

Hi Dj.

Your input on the name of the article on the ice hockey player is welcome here.

LarRan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again.

Your input to the discussion on middle names as disambiguators is welcome here.

Thanks

LarRan (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

See Also

OK, I'm really confused now. Wikipedia's policy on "See Also" sections, which is found here WP:SEEALSO, states "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section". I thought it was pretty straight forward, but your coming at me with policy on navigational lists, which is what has me confused. Why does wikipedia have a policy on "see also" sections if what it states does not apply to "see also" sections? If the idea is to provide links to give the reader more information on the subject, how does provideing links that are already included accomplish that? Like I said above, I'm confused over this and any help you can give me would be great. 142.177.71.240 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now. The policy you provided, and the one that I provided contradict each other. 142.177.71.240 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that myself. The only difference I can see is that maybe they mean the topic itself in the one I presented. Not the actual link itself. -DJSasso (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

NHL Entry Drafts

I see where you changed the spelling to begin with a capital, in the 1991 NHL Entry Draft article. I only used the lower case because that's the way the wing positions were listed in every other draft year, and in the individual player articles. I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't purposly trying to comit vandalism in that article, I thought I was doing the right thing. If wing should begin with a capital, then there is alot of work to be done in the hockey articles. I have to ask one question off topic, I want to create a username, I don't like the idea of looking anonymous. Is there away to have the edits I already made with this IP appear in a new user, or do I just create an account from scratch? Thanks, and sorry for all the questions. 142.177.71.240 (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects and WP:NOTBROKEN

Just to clarify, WP:NOTBROKEN isn't actually meant to be a reason to actively change a link back to the original form if somebody else changes it. The original change isn't particularly necessary or valuable in most cases, and we don't gain anything from it — but it's not wrong in the sense of having negative consequences, and it's not generally worth taking the time to revert it either. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I realize that, I only change one or two in a string back in the hopes that the person who just changed 50 or so of them will see it and stop doing it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, fair enough... Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

what the hell....

What the hell are you doing here... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992%E2%80%9393_Slohokej_Liga_season&action=historysubmit&diff=342040580&oldid=341807021 You ruined the page. Put it back to how it was! The slohokej liga was established this year. This is the first year of it. You, who clearly do not know much about this league, are vandalizing. (LAz17 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)).

Excuse me? Vandalizing is someone who is intending to damage a page on purpose. Accussing me of vandalisim is way out of line. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk: Incivility blocks

Howdy Dj. We need an administrator to help decide an archive/collapse post argument. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've actually noted this issue at WP:ANI#User:Giano. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice... Since its already been handled on ANI I won't get involved. -DJSasso (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Djsasso,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Colorado Rockies (NHL) seasons

I know you like to be bold. But shouldn't you put a move of several articles up for discussion before a move? Not that the move is controversial. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not when they aren't controversial. Less time wasted on discussion the better. That is how WP:BRD works. If someone doesn't like them they can revert and discuss. There weren't all that many articles, if it was a larger number like 50 or so I probably would have. -DJSasso (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

SassoBot problem

Hello. It seems there was a problem with your SassoBot as of February 2009, which may still be there. On the disambig page Paasilinna, it has deleted the interwikis to other disambig pages: diff. This was (apparently) because this page didn't have the core Template:Disambig tag but instead one of its many specialized variants, namely Template:Surname.

Now, I've just looked into it and there seem to be some awful mess about this template:

• On the one hand, the doc at Template:Disambig doesn't mention Surname as a variant template and recommend using "Disambig|surname"; similarly, the doc at Template:Surname recommends, "Do not use this template on disambiguation pages that contain a list people by family name. Instead categorize the disambiguation page by including the surname parameter with the disambig template."
• On the other hand, the text displayed by Template:Surname is very clearly worded as a disambig, and that's how it's still used on thousands of actual pages! (From Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Surname I've checked a random sample of them, such as Chomsky (surname), Dijkstra, Friedman, Monge, etc: all of them were bonafide disambig pages tagged exclusively with "Surname" and no "Disambig", so any interwiki bot not recognizing Template:Surname is going to repeatedly delete important interwikis there.)

Obviously I don't know the story there, maybe someone wanted to change the usage of those templates, but clearly he never finished the job. And on a practical level, as long as Template:Surname is worded as a disambig template and hasn't been massively converted to "disambig|surname", it still IS for all intent and purpose (including interwikis) a de facto disambig template. So I would like to suggest two things:

1. I think that for now your bot should keep considering Surname as a disambig variant and not strip pages from their interwikis. (Or maybe it's needed to consider it a grey area of "no automatic edits in that case, manual mode only" because there could also be some new pages using Template:Surname in the new way, i.e. not being disambig pages and being interlinked to other non-disambig pages... Oy. That would mean that instead of stripping a "Surname" page of its interwikis, the bot should ask you whether to replace "Surname with "Disambig|surname".)
2. Since you are into disambig and interwiki stuff, maybe you could report that Surname/Disambig mess to the relevant authorities so as to have that mess sorted? (And be able to actually strike "Surname" from the list of disambig-like templates.)

Hope that helps and makes some sense. 62.147.27.135 (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very old issue, that is well known among bot users. There have been many arguements for and against listing surname as a disambig template. I no longer allow my bot to edit such pages until the debate has been decided. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

as

What, do you just monitor me on wikipedia? Quit bothering me and writing on my wall. Have a discussion like that on your own page. Why would you post that on my wall? Goodbye, Djsasso. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.160.143 (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, but when I see you doing the same things that another user did and then I see on your talk page that you edited that other users talk page, its not all that hard to figure out. Since you are not logged into an account, that wall is not yours, it is an ip talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see wiki turned facebook now Dj, eh? :) —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha yeah I was thinking the same thing. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Evan Andriopoulos

Hello, A page that you worked on Evan Andriopoulos is being discussed as to whether it should be deleted. Care to weigh in on the issue? Friuli (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Elrith, the return

Wowsers, we hadn't heard from him in 'bout half-a-year. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is about a decade too short. Drat.  RGTraynor  20:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hockey in the Olympics

I had a chuckle seeing the names on the backs of the Men's Czech, Slovak & Finnish teams. Then I saw the Swedish team & my chuckling stopped. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah some of the countries it changes depending on the manufacturer of their jersies for that tournament. I know the Czech do for sure, as I have seen both. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Habs & Nords infoboxes

The double standards between the 2 languages is sickening. But, I'm keeping my frustrations in check (as best I can). GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Sabo Ice Tigers and logo galleries

Please read User_talk:Miden#Non-free_galleries_and_Thomas_Sabo_Ice_Tigers. It is very rare to find a case where galleries of non-free images are acceptable. Galleries of historical logos is not such a case. If you believe this usage is acceptable, I invite you to find another case on the project that has undergone review where it was found acceptable. If you'd like to see this status quo changed, you're welcome to contribute to WT:NFC and get a change in the guideline for this usage, which exists at WP:NFG. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed numerous times, please show me a case where sports logos were not deemed acceptable. WP:NFG is an attempt to avoid galleries for decoration. This is not the case when showing the historical evolution of a teams logos. The guideline specifically says to take each case on a case by case basis. So no change to the guideline is required. Just because you choose to interpret the guideline stronger than it actually is, does not make it so. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Hi there SASSO, VASCO from Portugal here,

regarding this issue (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:99.235.160.143#Infobox_images), that anon IP - standard from what it appears - is departed User:Bort08 but also User:Filipão, just so you know.

No summaries, took me ages to get a talkpage conversation with him. After a few hours where it seemed we had reached an agreement, found out that he, as both FILIPÃO and anon, did exactly the opposite of what we agreed on. Not saying he's a vandal, but very "noble" and cooperative he is not!

Take care, keep up the good work,

VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Some articles not part of WPBiography

[5], [6], [7]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoot I thought I fixed them all. I accidentally turned on the wrong template for a few pages. Thanks for catching those. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ice hockey

Hi DJ... I see you have the permission to edit this template. Could you take a look at this request? lil2mas (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Hi Djsasso! I don't want to lecture an administrator but please be more careful with edits like this one [8] or this one [9]. The fourth of AWB Rules of use discourages edits like these because it wastes resources and clogs up watchlists. With regards. --Iohannes Animosus (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, these changes are being done for a specific reason. They aren't normally done. The rule just discourages it and doesn't forbid it. mostly because there are specific wikipedia guidelines/policies that say to not worry about resources. -DJSasso (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh and just a note, the second example you point out was fixing a hypen to the proper endash which is a change that should be made. Wouldn't qualify under the rule you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't a good example. I don't want to fight over this, it's not that important. However, other editors' time is a resource, too. If you make edits like these, some editors will check them to see what changed, which is time consuming. Btw. what's the reason for inserting one blank line into an article? --Iohannes Animosus (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We have an editor who edits in articles our wikiproject who keeps removing that single line and a does a number of other things against the MOS. We are reverting most of them in an attempt to get him to finally talk to us so we don't have to resort to blocking him. I am trying to not only do addition of the single line on its own (or edit articles that aren't hockey for that matter), but I admit some are slipping through the cracks. Most of the time I try to do something else with it. But there are 5000 edits to go through so some are bound to slip through the cracks. Normally I config AWB to skip whitespace only edits but since we are specifically trying to find his edits where he made this change I can't enable that. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the explanation. --Iohannes Animosus (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB II

So why eliminate the space in between players in the team roster? On the surface, it makes no difference to the article overall, but it's a nightmare when I try update the rosters. If there is a rule against having the the space between players' info, I was not aware of it. Raul17 (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure, most of these changes are built into AWB. I think there is a general rule to avoid whitespace when possible, but I am not sure. I will avoid those edits when possible to make peoples lives easier. -DJSasso (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I have not seen the proper way of editing player rosters for hockey. Thank you just the same!! Raul17 (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:R2D

I just wanted to leave you a friendly note about WP:R2D. Changes like a portion of this one, wherein you piped the link to NHL, violate the redirect guideline. There's no reason to pipe links to redirects if they don't change the reader's experience, and they can actually be detrimental. Croctotheface (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of abbreviations, removing the redirect is very useful as it is very likely in the future that the abbreviation will become a disambiguation page. Doing it now while I am doing other actions, save someone from having to do it in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting. I figured I'd let you know that I posted about the matter at WT:Redirect to get some other opinions. Croctotheface (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Thunder_Bay,_Ontario

Hey, I noticed that you added a redirect template to the I requested speedy deletion on. The template was discussed to be renamed see [10].

Other pages within that discussion have been deleted once the rename was complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrimsonBlue (talk • contribs) 21:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I am the one who requested it. I put the redirect up because its how we generally redirect category, province categories because people often try to put people in categories including the province. -DJSasso (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Burnaby Express --> Coquitlam Express

Hey there, I've been told you could do the move of the Burnaby Express article to Coquitlam Express (the team has moved back to Coquitlam). It has a fair amount of What Links Here articles. Do you think you could give us a hand? Greg Salter (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD

I'm not familiar with this process, how is it done? thanks --Львівське (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a script that does most of it automatically for me so its been awhile. I had to look up the description on how to do it. Take a look at Wikipedia:AFD#How to list pages for deletion which explains it step by step. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gotta make things hard for me, huh --Львівське (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol. I actually thought that would be easier than me trying to explain it. But if you have twinkle installed just push the xfd tab at the top of your screen when you are on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, that was easier with the XFD button. Thanks.....did I do it right? lol --Львівське (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup looks good to me. Its a little more tricky when doing multiple articles. But looks good. You did everything that was necessary. I just added a few things that are helpful that I always add when I see hockey articles up for afd. But they aren't mandatory or anything. -DJSasso (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Only thing is you don't really have to !vote on your own nomination since your nomination is pretty much your vote. -DJSasso (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Hockey Navbox policy

Since you spoke up in my recent thread, I ask that you please check User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue and make sure that I am representing WP:HOCKEY correctly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You are honestly going to keep pushing this? Wow...you are heading straight into making a WP:POINT now. Especially since you keep calling our project a Mafia. If I wasn't involved I would probably have already blocked you by now or these type of attacks. I would suggest you cool it down before I am forced to report you to ANI. -DJSasso (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow you even went and canvassed all the projects that don't do it the way we do. You are breaking guidelines/policies left and right. I highly suggest you end it now. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for changing our project name to WikiProject Hockey mafia. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 18:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

lol. I wonder how people would take that lol. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Ice Hockey Mafia Gang.

- Resolute 20:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players

Please stop undoing the work that I have been doing. I feel that your efforts to undo my work are a waste of both of our time. You have removed Category:Calgary Cowboys (WHA) players from all 63 players who played for this team. It is not good enough to lump all Blazers/Cowboys players into one category. The players for the Calgary Cowboys should have their own category, as should the players for the Philadelphia and Vancouver Blazers. Dolovis (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes there have been decisions made to do such things a certain way. The hockey project is a very organized project. Because it is the same team and only exists in each city for 2 or less years we decided to put them into their own category. Generally when you intend to make decisions that affect many pages you should discuss them first. -DJSasso (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is now a warning. You appear to be wiki-hounding my edits. Stop undoing my work. Dolovis (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Call it wiki-hounding if you want, but I call it correcting categorization back to what was agreed upon in the past. You want to change the categorization structure take it through the proper channels. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I call it edit warring. There is a more productive way to spend our time. I have no choice left but to report you for violation of the The three-revert rule. Dolovis (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Takes 4 reverts to violate the 3 revert rule... You are edit warring since you have refused to discuss. -DJSasso (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Wheat Kings

lol! Sorry man, but you've already qualified... we have to earn our way in, so we need to win tonight. I'm very tempted to scalp a ticket to the final (the 07 game in Vancouver was a blast!) but I'm not sure I could handle those damned kazoos! Resolute 17:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but we need the better seeding. ;) We been in as the host in the late 90's when the Blazers beat us in the WHL final. Need to get in the real way this time. 4th seed sucks haha. Used to go to the Hitmen games in my Wheaties jersey all the time. Used to hear from the fans alot. One guy started getting right in my face before game #2 a couple years ago when calgary had won the first two games like 12-2 and 10-1 or whatever it was. Was pretty vindicating when Brandon won the next 4 games straight. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember that... It didn't help that Stone sent our best defenceman into concussion land with a blindside hit. That cheapshot changed the entire series. /shakes fist. Resolute 17:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember if it was that regular season or the one before that a hitmen player sucker punched him as a ref was hauling him to the penalty box causing him to fall on his face and broke his orbital bone and was out for quite a large number of games. So he probably had no love for the hitmen. -DJSasso (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm rubbing it in or anything.  ;) Resolute 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

NorMan Junior Hockey League

Could you please move the Northern Manitoba Junior Hockey League to the NorMan Junior Hockey League? It was a personal error... I thought when the NorMan was just a lazy shortform... but it turns out that it was the actual name of the league. DMighton (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

I just wanted to say that I was really impressed with how you handled the issue of the 2009-10 Windsor Spitfires season. Putting it on that ice hockey wiki was a good compromise.

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For your simply tireless contributions to hockey articles, I award you The Running Man Barnstar.   Maple Leaf (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

2010 Stanley Cup playoffs

Not going to start an edit war, but the official policy and how it's implemented seem to be in conflict. You may want to discuss it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's always in conflict which is why we have the official stance. Nobody fully agrees with either way of doing it but the way that causes least conflict is to not use them on North American articles and to use them on Non-North American articles. Player pagers are a completely different can of worms. I am actually for using them on every page. But I respect the compromise that has been forged. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Calgary Cowboys players

As the discussion is long long since closed, please follow through with your promise [11] to populate that category with the names of the 63 players that you previously removed from that category. Dolovis (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Does no reply mean that you intend to renege your promise? Dolovis (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No it means I haven't been on wikipedia at home where I can do it yet. -DJSasso (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your promise has not yet been kept. Dolovis (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTIMELIMIT. -DJSasso (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Association Football competitions

I will only discuss this if they ligitimately listen to me and debate the issue with me. Kingjeff (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Then do so on the talk page. State the reasons for why you think there should be a 2nd project that does the same basic thing as the one that already exists. If you can convince the community that there is value in having two overlapping projects then so be it. Personally I think your time might be better spent helping mold the appropriate task force that already exists to cover whatever it is you think is missing that you need to create a new wikiproject. That way effort is not overlapped, and there is less talk page clutter of assessment templates. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Twelves

This is a page that was deleted 3 times back in 2008. I have a couple of sources that I feel may make the page valid in terms of notability, including a couple of mentions in Spin Magazine and XLR8R. They also performed at SXSW and are currently on a world tour. Therefore, with your advice, I would like to know whether I should create (or re-create) a page for The Twelves. Thank you. Superhilac (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Superhilac

Nepean Raiders

Could you please have a look at the Nepean Raiders article. It seems that User:Icehockeynepean, possibly affiliated with the team, is edit-warring my reversions. He seems to be weasel wording Garry Galley (in my opinion anyways)... who was a coach of the team for a short while. I changed the content in an attempt to make it more neutral... but he has reverted twice on me. I don't want to get into 3RR territory... so I was hoping you could look at the situation. DMighton (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User seems to now have a sock puppet... User:Ottawajudge ... is also making threats of some sort... DMighton (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would probably file a sock puppet report on them if it keeps up. I rarely do them, but when they are being clearly disruptive then I do. -DJSasso (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he just violated Wikipedia:No legal threats, where do we proceed from here?DMighton (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Already ahead of you, blocked for doing so and reverted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I came across him on RC patrol and came over to see what's going on - I think I just reverted him as User:Brokencue. Hopefully a third person (me) will give him the message we're not going to put up with this stuff. It's a BLP violation as far as I'm concerned. - KrakatoaKatie 02:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverted again... this time with this name User:Happygo1234. DMighton (talk) 04:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well we will see if protection solves things. -DJSasso (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of filling out a Sock Puppet investigation. DMighton (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least its clearly meat puppetry. -DJSasso (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to state your observations: [12].DMighton (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I did it wrong... it's here now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Icehockeynepean . DMighton (talk) 04:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done it right... hopefully you can give it a look. DMighton (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There you should be set. I liked your report from the main page so it should all be good. -DJSasso (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

All accounts blocked indef. for sock puppetry and legal threats. Thanks for all the advice. DMighton (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Duffdachinaman

You have admin rights, right? Duffdachinaman is an obvious block evading sock of indef-blocked User:Anoopandshaq. ccwaters (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I am watching him and will block him the moment he continues edit warring. I don't really want to go into another sock puppet situation...had too many of them lately. -DJSasso (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It may already be a "situation". Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Anoopandshaq ccwaters (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Senators

Ok. I will make it fit the template on the wp:hockey page. Let me work. Stay away for a little while before further revisions, ok? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, take a look. It follows the template under Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format. I put the logo and etc. stuff into Team History section. Created a new Leaders section. I retained the all-time but that does not have to stay. I have to verify the coaching records stuff and source it. Plus the same for the scoring leaders. People are lazy when they update this stuff. I'll have to source it to keep the GA rating. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I get no whitespace or anything. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

@NHL Records

Do notice that it is idd 'NHL' records, not Gretzky fanboy records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.111.167 (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Right and we list the record and then list that someone else had more points in their first season, while not officially being counted as a rookie. This is done for a number of reasons, one being that someone is likely to want to know who had the most points in their first season in the NHL. Another to make it clear there is/was controversy surrounding who holds that record. The same thing has been done in the past for other records in other sports. As long as we make clear the official record is held by Selanne then we are in the clear. The information in the brackets is additional information that helps the reader get a better understanding of the background of the record. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Blackhawks Parade in Chicago

Is there an article or section somewhere regarding the parade in Chicago yesterday? My understanding is that the turnout was substantial (~2million). Would you be willing to get some free images of the parade on flickr, or somewhere else? Thanks in advance for the help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a job for a wikignome with a script...

DASHbot is running around changing legendsofhockey links to archive.org links because the HHOF has made a small update to some of its URL strings: (See changes at Stanley Cup). The old URL in these cases had legendsofhockey.net:8080/... . It looks like the HHOF has changed things such that port 8080 no longer gets you to the target page. These links are fixed by removing :8080 (as I did here), but I suspect there are a bunch of similar links left, as well as articles affected by DASHbot. Any suggestions on how to quickly and easily fix these links? Resolute 19:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see if I can figure something out. I am not sure if there is anything I can do once he has changed them, but I will check. As for ones not changed yet, there is a way to search links so I could probably search them and manually change them to the legends template. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

AIK Move

Hi there mate, could you help me with a move? I tried doing it my self but was referred to a request page which looked overloaded, so I thought this would get it done quicker. I want AIK Ishockey to be moved to AIK IF (currently a redirect to AIK Ishockey), the official name is AIK Ishockeyförening and since all other Swedish teams use abbreviations for their article name on Wikipedia (and by the Swedish Ice Hockey Association) this one should too. Also this avoids using Swedish words in the article title on English Wikipedia. Cheers! —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea:

1. First of all, the official website uses AIK Ishockey consistently.
2. Secondly, the trend is that Scandinavian sport clubs like AIK, VIF and AaB, all start dividing their club sports into own entities like AIK Ishockey (ice hockey), Vålerenga Fotball (football) and AaB Håndbold (handball).
3. Third and finally, this move will make the article name more ambiguous, as the abbreviation IF also means Idrettsförening (English: Sports club); like in Djurgårdens IF, where the ice hockey department currently is located at Djurgårdens IF Hockey. (This page should rather be changed to Djurgården Hockey, like their legal name and as shown in their logo.)

I will move the article in question back to its original name space, and suggest you start a WP:Requested move if you still mean it should be moved. Regards, lil2mas (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

List of college men's ice hockey coaches with 300 career wins

I believe you are one of the main guys in the hockey project and appreciate your help cleaning up a couple of the hockey articles I started this week (e.g. Tim Coghlin and Mike McShane (ice hockey)). My main interest is in college sports, and I've created a new List of college men's ice hockey coaches with 300 career wins. My plan is to create new or improve existing articles on some of the most notable college hockey coaches. I'm working now on Bill Beaney. As I am new to hockey articles (having worked mostly on baseball and football articles), any suggestions you may have would be welcome. Cbl62 (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly will take a look. So far looks pretty good. Just make sure to find what references you can. Coaches below the top pro league in hockey tend to get questioned alot as far as Afd's go. So just make sure you source what you create and you should be good to go. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

pending changes

I was trying to reject the latest edit on Gretzky, but the 'Unaccept' button did not become clickable. What was going on? Was there more than one edit pending? ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably caused by me just hitting rollback as opposed to unaccept. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I never seen the unaccept button clickable so I just rollback/revert if it's vandalism. Anyhow, DJSasso could you delete the articles I prod'ed since they now are redirects leading to Heymid's userspace instead. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

what's this then?

[13] Quantpole (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Notice the word people. I never said you specifically. I was stating the general purpose of what ATH and NSPORT does. It protects articles of people from pre-internet time from people who only do google searchs. If you infer that to mean yourself, that is your choice. I have no way in knowing if the reason you personally didn't search news paper archives (which sometimes can be found online) was due to laziness or lack of knowledge of them or any other reason. But the overwhelming reason people point to ATHLETE to save an article is because the nominator did not make a good faith attempt to find sources. Or indeed post a message on the talk page about the articles notability which it also mentions you should do prior to nominating. -DJSasso (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"from the pre-internet era from being deleted because you couldn't find sources on a google search". You were directly talking to me, and it is clear from your comment that it was me you were meaning. "Comment on the issue not the contributor". As it happens, I did what searches I could using online sources, which include the local library access to reference works. Nope this didn't include the local papers, because they are not available. That is more research than whoever started the article did, so saying it is lazy not to spend time and money going to visit an archive is ridiculous and insulting. Quantpole (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No I meant you as in the general sense. You are trying to make this about you, and its not. Maybe if you would talk rationally instead of constantly swearing at people and attacking them you might get farther. But what do I know, acting like an ass might work too. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your whole comment was about me, or if it wasn't you didn't exactly make it clear when you were talking about me or when you were talking about generic 'you'. Even so, you still think it is lazy not to travel halfway across the country to visit a local news archive? Quantpole (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please can you point out where I have sworn at you or attacked you. Quantpole (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No I never said it was lazy to not travel across the country, I said it was lazy not to try to find sources in ways other than just google. Nowhere in your nomination statement do you specifically mention what kind of search you did. I do think its lazy when people just type into google and don't get a result with any references and then claim there were no references found. Assuming you did indeed go to the library and look at online newspaper indexes or whatever and could not find anything then no thats not lazy. But quickly doing a google search prior to nominating is lazy yes, and goes counter to WP:N which says "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources." And for people from the pre-internet era that would be a search of something more than just google. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Local news paper archives are not available online for most of the local papers I am aware of. To do research like you were suggesting would mean going either into a library which holds archives of the papers or to the papers themselves. That would be unreasonable to expect. Quantpole (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I admit I don't know how such things are kept in the UK. In Canada atleast you can find most major Canadian towns and cities papers in electronic form in an index at your local library. But that being said, its not the actual finding of the information, but the attempt to find that I think is important. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps you can understand why I got pissed off with you saying it was lazy not to do it (and the edit summary I used).

We clearly have very different views on notability regarding sports persons. I don't think our recent exchanges on NSPORTS have really done anything to help discussion, so if you would be amenable to it, I will collapse our discussion from this diff onwards. Quantpole (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You can log onto our local library service, and they have a decent range of resources (19th century newspapers, The Times archives). The central library might have more, but I don't think that they are in electronic format, or some are and some aren't. They might still be on microfiche! Also, I am not local to where the person played the majority of their cricket, so it would be a lot of effort to go to the local archives there. Quantpole (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I am writing to remind the editors that that the policy of Wikipedia:Civility applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is my opinion that this edit may have been uncivil, and perhaps its author will think about striking it out to show, publicly, that the comment is withdrawn. Dolovis (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling my talk page. The matter was closed before you even showed up. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Echo that. No need for civility police here thank you. Quantpole (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

NSPORT RfC

I hope that you don't mind my posting this, and if you do, please feel free to disregard it, but I noticed that you haven't !voted in the NSPORT implementation RfC, and, given your longstanding interest in it, I might have thought you would. Just wondering, especially since it seems to be close. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Mostly because it is close. I generally like to abstain from !voting in discussions unless its needed, probably comes from being a crat on another wiki. At this point its pretty much too far gone to be anything better than no-consensus so my vote probably won't matter. -DJSasso (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Carolina Hurricanes

Sorry for the deletion of the chart. I didn't realize it was a WP convention. JTRH (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Template: Dallas Stars roster

Howdy Dj. Would you help me with a SPA at that article? GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

PRODding

Just a friendly reminder to use edit summaries when proposing an article for deletion, such as Calvin Pickard- it makes it quicker to check the hiwsotry and it lets anybody who might watch the page know what you're doing. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Empty Section

Can you provide me with some diffs? Better reply here. I 'll try to fix the bug asap. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is one. I will see if I see any others. -DJSasso (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And another. Its a fairly common occurrence on sports articles where people haven't taken the time to do proper wiki code. Ideally we wouldn't have sections like this. But the tags aren't really accurate for them is all. -DJSasso (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The question is of course why the toolsever reports them for having empty sections as well. Probably WP:CHECKWIKI has to be informed too. I hope that, as it concerns the AWB part, we will have the problem solved as soon as possible. Thanks for reporting. That was a good catch. Any estimate on the pages affected? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea. I just know I run into such pages fairly regularly but not too too often. Just caught these two because they were on my watchlist. -DJSasso (talk) 00:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

rev 6877 Another fix for TagEmptySection: don't tag sections with only <pre> text as empty. Thank Rjwilmsi for both fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott Oake

I was wondering if you'd mind keeping an eye on Scott Oake. An anonymous editor has been attempting to add some rather dubious info. Thanks. Freshfighter9^talk 14:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I can certainly keep an eye on it for awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I just threw a level 4 warning at the IP. It is very clearly a BLP violation and since the claimed Toronto Star story does not exist, is basically libel. If they come back, revert and block, imnsho. Resolute 14:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

Hi! My purpose of Template:AIK ice hockey roster (previously named players) was to include it as a navbox in the player's articles currently playing for AIK. The purpose was for easy navigation between the other players currently playing in the same team. Was it a good or bad idea? Should I restore it or not? /HeyMid (contributions) 18:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you had done it and was going to suggest it for deletion, consensus at WP:HOCKEY is not to use such navboxes per WP:EMBED, however this was a very good solution IMO by Dj. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As KRM mentions, the hockey project does not use navboxes for team rosters. They have been deleted too many times to count. Basically both WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED say you should not use navboxes for such things. Basically navboxes are only supposed to include links that would normally be included on a finished version of the page the navbox is on. Every player a player has played with would not be found in his biography. Generally the hockey project has found they actually make navigation harder rather than easier because on many players they start getting more and more navboxes with more and more links that are only slightly related to that page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to say thanks for uploading KHL map.png for me. I just created a new account on Commons and it wouldn't let me overwrite an existing file and I didn't want to upload it under a new name. Thanks a lot for your promptitude. --IJK_Principle (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Djsasso didn't upload the first version. However, he did upload the third and current version of the image. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He knows...that is what he is talking about, he had asked me to upload a new version. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave Bolland

I've been intervening a bit on the page. You see, there is a strong identification with Mimico, even within Etobicoke then and Toronto today. Mimico at the date of Bolland's birth was still a post office within Etobicoke Borough. Borough not being a city then. Many places list Bolland's birthplace as Mimico only and people come along to Bolland's page and I am often reverting. I've been enforcing Mimico, Etobicoke, Ontario, like when you list places within counties or boroughs, etc. This way the people who put forward Mimico are ok and the proper municipality is listed. I hope you can agree with this compromise. The same thing goes for Brendan Shanahan. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't actually know there was a back story. Yeah thats fine with me. I just clicked the link and was like whoa thats a neighbourhood thats not right. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at that article. Should say 'dissolved municipality'. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"and at the rate resolute has been going..."

lol! Resolute 19:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried keeping up last year for a bit....but this year you really exploded. -DJSasso (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. It's amazing what the Wikicup motivation + the terrible condition of our old HHOF articles combination can do. Resolute 03:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Always a pleasure reading your work Resolute. Anyhow, could any of you admins take a look and see if I actually wrote something or just created a stub without prose on Robin Rahm? If I remember correctly I created the article and then prod'ed/afd'ed it myself since he didn't meet notability criteria back then, he certainly does now though (probably received more press these past days then Foppa did all summer)... —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The only thing stated in deleted edits that is not in the current version is that he had signed with Frolunda in 2007-08 and was expected to be the third string goaltender. It would be nice to expand the current article into something beyond "This goalie was busted doping" though. Resolute 22:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it, not much to find though since he only came into the spotlight this spring when he started in the playoffs for Färjestad. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 00:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

NY Raiders

Hi, thanks for your offer here, I'm unable to make the move myself and would appreciate it if you could do it when you have the time. Thanks, LunarLander // talk // 01:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I 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. The thread is 92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake. Thank you. --elektrikSHOOS 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question re: block

I'm looking at User talk:208.38.59.163. I can't really see what warranted a three month suspension on this shared IP. Checkuser indicates there are likely different users of that IP, and that the editor requesting the unblock is telling the truth when he says the Gretzky edit wasn't him but the ones before it were. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what a CU says, so I can't really confirm. I don't believe its a shared IP. As Telus is a residential ISP provider in Alberta, and I believe thats a ADSL IP. But of course I have no proof of that. However, as for the length, shared or not I always follow the somewhat standard progression of blocks in doubling or so each time...his last block was a month so I jump to 3...and I expect the next one to be 6 months...and then a year if it continues. If he is a good faith editor he can have an account created for him so the block doesn't affect him, but I don't for a second buy that he is a good faith editor. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI complaint regarding Scott Oake needs closure

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake. How should this thread be closed? (It's already been archived). I believe there is enough support to justify adding the restriction directly to WP:RESTRICT. This needs to be worded. How about:

92.24.3.41 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from articles as well as talk pages related to Scott Oake and may not add any material regarding Scott Oake to other articles.

I will add this to WP:RESTRICT if there is no objection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. -DJSasso (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Storm

I'll take a crack at it... I'll have some time tomorrow to really give it a go... definitely notable... but, you're right... what a mess! DMighton (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

NM, I just went at it... it's a lot better now. I'm gonna try and get some past standings to tag on there too... DMighton (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey?

Hey. I was just wondering why WRCU-FM, a radio station, was tagged as part of Wikiproject Ice Hockey. I'm not seeing the connection, but it could very well be that I missed something. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I had hit skip on this one. Colgate university had accidentally fallen into my worklist but I have been skipping them all, however I must have missed this one. -DJSasso (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta ask too, there are three TV stations (to name a few) that were added to this Wikiproject...WDCA, WBFF and WWOR-TV. To the best of my knowledge, I don't remember WDCA or WBFF airing hockey, nor do I remember WWOR airing it in their SuperStation days. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going off the fact that they are in the Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates. Looks like they aired hockey at some point between 75 and 79. -DJSasso (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be why I didn't know about it. I didn't my grand enterance 'til '81. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. WWJ-TV has also had the Ice Hockey project banner added, although there is no mention of Hockey in the article. Perhaps just another oversight? --Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, its part of Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates which means it was broadcasting National Hockey League games in the 70s. All stations have been correctly added at this point, only the one was a mistake. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hm - you might want to update your plugin settings since {{ice hockey}} has been moved to {{WikiProject Ice Hockey}}. See [14] where the actual template name was replaced with a redirect. –xeno^talk 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)