User talk:Djsasso/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Convert errors

Whatever you did here, just created a big red error message in Kurmangazy oil field. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Was an accidental edit. Had too many windows open and pasted into the wrong one. Thanks for the catch. -DJSasso (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Racepacket

By consensus of the Arbitration Committee, the request for arbitration enforcement in which you participated has been moved here. The hearing will take place at the new location,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Djsasso,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, when you go one one of these ginormous gnoming runs...

...I realize just how many articles I follow. Thanks for making a mess out of my watchlist! :p Resolute 20:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I usually don't do more than a couple hundred so it doesn't mess up peoples watchlists. But today I got on kind of a roll. Going to stop in a couple of minutes though. -DJSasso (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your comments

Due to my block, and the requirement for me to force fragment the discussions I have responded to your comments on my talk page. I doubt anyone wants to continue this discussion or solve the actual underlying problem of inappropriate article ownership but if you do please do so there. --Kumioko (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Wayne Simmonds

There were some not so pleasant edits by IP's on Simmonds article today, could you do a sweep with the broom and erase some article history? Cheers. —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 01:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done and watch listed. -DJSasso (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaromír Jágr

I don't understand your recent edits. If you want to keep the records updated, you should update all of them (including points etc.), not just one. When some of the records are out of date and some not, it is confusing for everyone who reads the text. And in the case I have mentioned (keeping everything updated), it is practically necessary to edit the section after every match. Furthermore, I don't know why you have removed these two records: "Most assists by a rookie in Stanley Cup Finals (1991) - 5" and "Most NHL arenas with a goal scored in - 53" (now it is 55 arenas). Thanks for your response in advance. --David Kozler (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing the two records was because they aren't notable records. You can create all kinds of statistical records by running different filters on players statistics and they are unsourced. While the assists one is easy to verify, the other is not. -DJSasso (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. However, I have one more question: Would you agree with restoring the two record entries with reliable sources added? --David Kozler (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you could re-add them, but I don't know that it solves the issue with them being notable records and not just trivia. It isn't that big a deal to me, but I would think about how trivial they might be. The assists one isn't so bad, but the arena one is definitely treading the line of being trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess I'm a big fan of Jaromír Jágr (and I'm Czech as well) – that's why I'm so interested in it. As for the arena one, I think you're right. I have found out that the information is written in the text of the article, and I agree with you that there is no need to re-add it to the list of Jágr' NHL records. The other one will be re-add with this reference. Finally, I'd like to thank you for your answers and I'm sorry that I pestered you so many times. Have a nice day! --David Kozler (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:New York Rangers 1993-94 Stanley Cup Champions ‎

the same editor who created the Oilers cup champion template earlier today also created Template:New York Rangers 1993-94 Stanley Cup Champions. I saw that you mentioned something about speedy deleting the Oil one so I wanted to ask you if you wanted to do the same thing with this one before I put it up for deletion. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Naxboxes

I'm going to stop adding to that TfD. I think you hit the main question that lacks consensus: Is a naxbox a replacement for links that would normally appear in a "see also", or should a navbox be leveraged to allow more links and easier navigation than a "see also".—Bagumba (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive link on Eddie Shack

Hi,

I see you reverted the addition of the archive link. I checked the archive link and it seems to work for me. What do you get when you click on it? Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is working now, maybe their site was down earlier, all the archive links on that page didn't load when I tried. You can put it back if you like. Just didn't see much point since it wasn't working for me and the other link was still the correct one and had been working. -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, their site sometimes does go down, but the archive is useful to combat link rot, so I will add it back. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Sorry for the mixup regarding project notification. Enjoy the weekend. —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries dude. I see your point as well. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For all your fine hockey work over the years ... you’re part of the original Hockey Barnstar class! Ravenswing 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I have proudly placed it with my other topicons. :) -DJSasso (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Hello. Regarding the discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada, in which you have been involved, a MedCab case has been opened and User:Lord Roem has kindly volunteered to mediate. Please indicate at the MedCab page (here, specifically) if you accept Lord Roem as an intercessor. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow...I had to think about when I got involved in that....was in 2010. I will take a look and see what is what. Don't think I care to much either way. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

File Size Changes

Hello, your recent file size revert changes on articles Wikipedia:Reviewing, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, Wikipedia:Autopatrolled and Wikipedia:Rollback feature and on Simple English Wikipedia puzzles me as to why the file size's on Wikipedia:CheckUser, Wikipedia:File mover, Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Oversight weren't changed as usual when on other pages it got changed because i had corrected them to match them accordingly to other articles and to make it look better. Looks like you did not have the time to change file size on those pages where the file size was already 200px on the last 4 pages that i mentioned because i hadn't changed the file size on them. Nice work on undoing my good faith edits and hard work. TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

quick rfc query

You had just posted about diacritics "The most recent wiki-wide RfC on the matter ended about almost exactly a 50-50 outcome with people thinking they should always be used or never be used." It seems like there have been so many of these debates over the years. Which specific one are you referring to here? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Hey. Remember the concerns we raised over Vegaswikian closing diacritic-related discussions? If you thought the Aleš Hemský closure and the move-and-protect at Aleš Kranjc were bad, take a look at what he just did here. Prolog (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Female players

Hoping all is well. Thank you for putting me in the loop. I was not aware that there were changes to templates. Going forward, I will use the appropriate template. Thanks for the encouragement Maple Leaf (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dolovis

The issue of Dolovis and sockpuppetry has resurfaced at AN/I. Prolog (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh I wondered if he would get back to his old tricks. I knew the last two times he got caught that there was no way it was his "nephew". I couldn't believe admins actually fell for the oldest excuse in the book the last two times. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He invented a new trick when adding the article on Maxime Sauvé. First he created a redirect (in one edit) by exactly that name, including the diacritic, which pointed to [[Jean-François Sauvé#Family]], Max' father.

He then – although I'm not certain about the order of events, as that redirect is now deleted – went on to mention the existence of Max in his father's article. Finally he created the article on Max without diacritics. This way the redirect was not visibile when you checked "What links here" from the Max article, but it was still in the way if you tried to move the article. And yet it was created in one edit.

I had to db-g6 the redirect to move the article. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he is always trying to find new ways to fight his "war". It is pretty sad really, he could easily be so much more useful to the wiki and everyone if he would just drop the bone. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I can think of dozens of things he can do if he wants to gnome around and improve the project. Wasting people's time with this diacritics war he's fighting is not one of them. Now it has become clear that we will have to watch around for sock puppets. Ugh. Resolute 23:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Expos

The Expos do not belong in "Category:Defunct Major League Baseball teams". Looking through that list, every team there is actually defunct... except the Expos. There's no St. Louis Browns, no Brooklyn Dodgers, no N.Y. Giants, no Washington Senators. Only the Expos. What's so special about them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Djsasso. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Seasons

Hi Dj. I have started adding more content to my seasonal articles, so they will not be out of line with WP:NOTSTATS. I'll be going through most of them in the next while. --Hockeyben (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Duncan Macpherson Undo of March 19

Why did you undo the edit I posted on March 19? The version I posted included more details (**properly sourced**) about the disappearance, particularly his movemements after arriving in Europe. I also added useful details about the Austrian government's classification of the death, and finally, and importantly, that there is dispute about this classification.

The previous version was very lacking, especially in that it makes it sound like he just disappeared and does not point out the very real fact that there is dispute.

I am reverting to my more useful version. And I would ask that you do me the professional courtesy of contacting me before you undo contributions that I expended time and effort to make. Thank you. Seawaggg (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seawaggg (talk • contribs) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Except they aren't properly sourced. They are sourced from a blog. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Beyond that, Seawaggg, this isn't the first time around the circle for you on this article; you were blocked for edit warring and NPOV violations a year and a half ago on this very article. A look at your contributions show that every year or two, you show up, inject some of these detective thriller entries into the MacPherson article and toodle on off again; it comprises most of your Wikipedia activity. It cannot be news to you that we don't generally accept blogs as reliable sources - you were told as much in 2010 - and Wikipedia hasn't changed its guidelines on the subject since. Ravenswing 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Alex J. Walling

One quick question - how did you form the opinion that the subject is a national broadcaster? Thparkth (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

He is often on TSN reporting. TSN of course being a national channel makes him a national broadcaster. It mentions this in the article "Atlantic Canada's first TSN sports reporter for nine years". -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I didn't realize he was actually broadcast on TSN. All the same I'm not sure he meets WP:CREATIVE. Thparkth (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am not saying it is not possibly delete worthy. Just that I would rather it go to afd than prod. Personally I would probably keep it if it was sourced. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your hard work and fine contributions on English and Simple English Wikipedia, I award you the Original Barnstar :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Season renames

I did not know that. I am in the process of recording the overall games and scores of each of the Western Pennsylvania Hockey League teams. If I see any league games that don't go past January 1, I will make the correction. Thanks for your help. --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Note

A quick note, not sure that this did exactly what you wanted it to do. Its still there. If the thing I think you were doing is what you were doing. You know? Kindest regards, Kennedy ^(talk) 12:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah forgot to also take care of the revision text. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've recorded it so that I can sell the info to vandals or users who have a disagreement with you so that they can take up their grievances with you personally. :) Kennedy ^(talk) 12:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Invitation to diacritics guideline discussion at WT:BLP

Hi, you were one of 100+ Users who has commented on a living person Requested Move featuring diacritics (e.g. the é in Beyoncé) in the last 30 days. Following closure of Talk:Stephane Huet RM, a tightening of BLP guidelines is proposed. Your contribution is invited to WT:BLP to discuss drafting a proposal for tightening BLP accuracy guidelines for names. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to duplicate this invite on the pages of others who have commented, for or against. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude, I don't know if you have been around the block before or not. But this gets discussed on a wide scale rather regularly and the most recent wiki-wide Rfc on the matter came to a a 50-50 split on if they are supported or not. As much as I would like the wiki to come to a consensus, nothing has changed in the last year to make that likely to happen. You are very much wasting your time. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't been round the block. I was not aware, if I hadn't seen what I considered bad behaviour I wouldn't have stepped in. However the 100 to whom Beyoncé was sent were 90 for, 10 against (same 10 on many RMs). Two things may have changed. (i) User Dolovis - who is not known to me but appears to have been the main problem last time - is blocked. (ii) current discussion focuses on BLPs only, where the BLP onus is heavily on accuracy. I believe there is enough consensus to mildly tighten accuracy standards for BLP names. Whether the current RM on the last 15 living persons with tennis anglicizations will be the last is another matter. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have been watching, I am pretty impressed that the community is somewhat coming together on this for BLPs. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whitecourt Wolverines

Thank you for undertaking the proper naming conventions. Can you move Talk:Whitecourt Wolverines (AJHL)‎ over the new Talk:Whitecourt Wolverines? There is a discussion at the former. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops I didn't notice it didn't move when I moved the main page. Will do. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Hwy43 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics

Could you explain how [1], and a series of votes I'm not going to provide diffs for but will if insisted, and certainly your edit to his talk page, is not a violation of [2]? Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As discussed on his talk page, the mutual agreement to was to not add diacritics to words that did not have them and he would not remove them from words that had them. The move you point to above does not add them to words that did not already have them. I never said I would stop using diacritics, but that I would just not add them to words that weren't already using them. As for the votes, we agreed that we could take part in discussions still. In fact it was encouraged to do so. As for my edit to his talk page, if he is going to start saying I broke a mutual agreement I certainly should be able to respond. Either way it was just an unofficial agreement and either party was welcome to follow it or not. It isn't his breaking it that got him in trouble, its his saying he was going to do it just because I did something that got him into trouble. Most of us including me could have cared less if he removed dios from some names. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Under what circumstances would you be willing to step down from your adminship? Hipocrite (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing an abuse of tools, so why is his adminship at issue for you, other than a need to punish someone? Resolute 23:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Djsasso and I are frequently at odds on certain topics, not this particular one though, but I have never seen him us the "Admin Card" on any discussion or disagreement. Nor have I ever seen him misuse the tools, so it's not really fair to ask him to step down as an admin. he's allowed to edit articles the same as everyone else. --JOJ ^Hutton 03:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Under what circumstances can you possibly articulate such an action would be justified? Ravenswing 04:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks..

Thanks for reverting the disruptive edits made to my userspace. PwilliamQ99 (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI:

For Your Information (no action required, but you may choose to participate):

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I recall ever interacting with this editor. So I probably won't be much help. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

would you mind taking a look at this discussion?

Would you mind taking a look at this discussion and maybe adding your two cents? I'm not asking for your help in an attempt to get you to agree with me, I just would like this to be resolved before it escalates. Thanks. Freshfighter9^talk 13:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I somehow missed this message. Looks like its cooled down there. But if it flares up again I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion closed

Please note that I have closed the discussion on the evidence talk page as unhelpful and distracting. Please do not use the arbitration case to continue your personal disputes. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement of gender

Hello Djsasso, please see my reply to your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's sport#Statement of gender. Kaldari (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Tracey E. Bregman

Please stop reverting to German-American. She was only born in Munich and left before she was a year old. Her father is an American, mother a Canadian. Don't forget that she lived in the Uk for several years, so why don't you add British to her profile (PS. sarcasm). As far as I am concerned, you are violating Wikipedia's MOS:BIO. Norum (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Does she carry German Citizenship? If so then in my opinion there is nothing wrong with stating that she is German-American, it would not violate MOS:BIO as is clearly states:"In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.". (Just my nose butting in here)--UnQuébécois (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

She has an American citizenship. Unless you can find a proof that she also hold a German citizenship, then it changes things. Norum 04:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Coming in late to the party, but Germany is a jus sanguinis country. Her parents weren't German, so being born on German soil means nothing. Ravenswing 17:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability?

Hi Djsasso, can you please check Stéphane Roy (ice hockey b. 1976) for notability? created as a disam stub due to confusion with Stephane Roy = Stéphane Roy (ice hockey b. 1967). Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah he meets WP:NHOCKEY because of playing in a couple top level national leagues. He also meets it through a few hundred games in the AHL. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I only created that because fr.wp and en.wp were crosslinking. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Parise

Can you lock down the Zach Parise page the vandalism is out of control. Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got it. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Undeleted ice hockey players

A couple hockey players that were deleted based upon a prod by you have been undeleted. Dalton Thrower and Nicolas Kerdiles. There were 2nd round picks. Not sure if they are notable or not. Bgwhite (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't noticed they had been recreated. I will put them up for Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

I'm not looking to get you blocked or banned. All I'm asking is for you to LEAVE ME ALONE. What must one do? to get you to bleep off? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I do leave you alone, I posted a friendly comment to be nice to you and save you some frustration from finding out we support diacritics on Simple Wikipedia and you threw it in my face and decided to be an ass and say I was harassing you. If you want people to avoid you stop trying to make drama everywhere you go and then people will stop commenting. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: Take me off your watchlist. PLEASE, get a life. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Enough personal attacks already. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then, leave me alone. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of avoiding disruption...

Djsasso - I understand what you wanted to do, but if someone asks you to stop commenting on their talk page, please respect their wishes. That does not mean that you should refrain from notices about ANI or enforcement filings etc, but other engagement should only be on those pages.

GoodDay - It would be constructive if you avoided editing here as well, even if Djsasso hasn't explicitly asked you to stop yet. All it's going to do is bring you more grief, please focus on the arbitration enforcement page discussion.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44

Carthage44 has made another personal attack, this time against Muboshgu at Talk:List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases, in which he states, "Muboshgu has bullied many Wikipedia users for years just to get his way. He thinks he owns Wikipedia and will do anything to make sure pages and Wikipedia are the way he thinks it should be. I really wish someone could take a stand against him because Wikipedia is NOT owned by Muboshgu." You earlier stated at the WikiProject Baseball talk page that you had issued a final warning about an attack. You said to let you know if it continued and you would block, so I'm letting you know. AutomaticStrikeout 23:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I already issued a final warning on his talk page; I didnt see an earlier one. He has also been edit warring at List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases, though technically only two reverts. I was gonna report on 3RR but didnt want to go through the hassle when it hadnt reached > 3. Still, he's got a history of warring and was warned about another incident a couple of weeks ago. He should know better by now.—Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw about the final warning. However, I remembered what Djsasso had said earlier about having issued a final warning himself, which I'm sure was deleted just like your's was. In this case, wouldn't a block be justified? AutomaticStrikeout 23:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I leave the "justification" judgement to an admin. I didnt see one in the talk history, but he may have been referring to this on Talk:Paul Konerko.—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44 isn't the only editor though to choose to revert instead of discussing, though; it would have been better to discuss after his revert, instead of re-introducing the bold change. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so, but all I noticed is that Carthage44 made another personal attack after being given a final warning. How many final warnings does he need? Also, I suppose a lot of these editors know by now how most conversations with Carthage44 turn out. AutomaticStrikeout 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

For sure not everyone follows WP:BRD, but the difference is that Carthage44 is frequently disruptive and has been warned and blocked multiple times on warring yet continues.—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I probably would have blocked but since another admin gave a warning I won't act. I do suggest strongly that he be blocked on the next occurrence should any other admin catch it before I do. -DJSasso (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The last admin warning was two weeks ago for warring. Was there a more recent admin action for personal attacks?—Bagumba (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It was the one you linked to above at a specific discussion, probably should have put it on his talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The latest degrading of others baseball intelligence and turning discussion into a battleground here.—Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Carthage44.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry wasn't around last night or I would have taken care of it. Looks like someone else took care of it though. -DJSasso (talk) 11:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No prob, was worth a shot to avoid the dreaded writeup and diff collection.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I put it out there sometimes that people can let me know. Cause I know how much of a pain ANI can be. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Big Six

Hello, I am glad that we have common interest in ice hockey and together try to improve articles on ice hockey. But I still dont understand why almost everything what I wrote you changed and deleted. My link precisely explains the term "Big Six", I dont understand why this dislikes to you. I arranged the list of countries in alphabetical order and you deleted this as well. Why? I would understand if SOMEthing what I have done you change, but you change EVERYthing what I did. I think we should behave friendly to each other and together improve articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucullus19 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The section did not fit in on the page it was on, someone moved it there a couple months ago and it was not noticed. I removed it because of that. Your changes were all just making links to that section and since the section was removed I had to remove the links to it that you created. And on disambiguation pages we don't link to things other than the subject of the link so I had to remove the links to the national team pages because they don't belong on a disambiguation page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wars over diacritics

It seems that Wikipedia has a few people with extreme views who make life miserable for others by trying to force everybody to follow their rules: On the one hand there are people who strip out all diacritics from titles and articles, and on the other hand there are people who are so crazy about adding diacritics wherever possible (even when they are not used in most English sources) that they try to use them everywhere in both article titles and in the body of articles. If somebody doesn't watch such people all the time they will continue edit-warring (and moving article to titles with or without diacritics) forever. "ALL" or "NOTHING" viewpoints are both way out of line.

Surely there has to be a middle road—like (1) never use foreign words in article titles (unless the words are widely recognized), as people will think they have come to the wrong language Wikipedia by mistake, and (2) foreign words are OK in moderation if adequately explained.

IIO in particular makes it quite clear that he couldn't care less about generally-accepted English usage (quote: "for any Swedish or Czech article too, full-spelling (with diacritics) will always be in the minority"); he is not ever going to research the COMMONNAME in English, he is going to force everybody to read diacritics, even though there is obviously no consensus. Other people think the same about IIO's "NO COMMONNAME, just ALL DIACRITICS" campaign, see here, here, and here.

Although Kauffner's RFC was ONLY about using diacritics in titles, IIO modified his "Census" after the fact to make it look as if it was about ALL diacritics or NO diacritics.

"ALL OR NOTHING" people totally destroy the cooperative and friendly atmosphere of Wikipedia, and cause lots of dedicated contributors to leave. Reference: ISBN 978-0446698207. LittleBen (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally when it comes to peoples names, it really is an all or nothing thing. We need to spell their name correctly. We are an encyclopaedia so we are here to educate. That being said there are a lot of other areas where I have no problem with them being removed. ie names of cities that have a translation from a diacritic version to an English version like Munich not München. But there are cases like peoples names where I think we should always use their proper name. And for me really I just think they should be in the title, don't so much care about the body. That being said as I mentioned there I don't feel like getting to much into it because its an issue that has beaten to death so many times I am tired of talking about it. I might point out that Commonname does make it clear that even if a name is the common name but it is inaccurate or incorrect that you should use the proper name instead. So a lot of the people that rally on about commonname says we should use the version with no diacritics are actually most of the time wrong, because simply stripping diacritics out of a word without translating (see the Munich example above) is actually incorrect so commonname says not to use the version found in the English sources. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"We are an encyclopaedia", so let's do it differently than any other encyclopedia. What could go wrong? I see you've reverted a page I moved over a year ago.[3][4] That must have been one "controversial" move. Kauffner (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was moved by someone else...although now that I reread the summary I see it was from an RfM at another talk page. And apparently I misread it as Aug 2012 since the first one I moved was almost exactly a year earlier. Either way it is still controversial though since there was an RfM I moved it back...just because someone didn't notice you move an article doesn't make it less controversial. And I should point out the use of diacritics isn't different than every other encyclopedia in the many debates you have been in on in the past there have been examples of encyclopedias using them. Not only that but Wikipedia is different than paper encyclopedias in that we can have redirects, so we can actually have the accurate name as the title and redirect the non-diacritic one so people who can't type them still can get to the page. Really what you suggest is stripping of information from the encyclopedia and introducing errors. What could possibly be wrong with that eh? -DJSasso (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• You said "Personally when it comes to peoples names, it really is an all or nothing thing. We need to spell their name correctly". Does that mean that you are advocating that it be a requirement to use Chinese, Japanese and Korean language names (as well as Vietnamese names) in article titles in English Wikipedia? Any romanized version of such names is not the "proper" name. I would rephrase that as "We need to use the accepted (usually abbreviated) romanized version of the name in the article title, and both the romanized version and the formal full foreign-language name together in the first sentence of the body (using a template such as the CJKV one)". The tennis names saga shows how wrong it is to simply add diacritics without bothering to research the correct name, even if you just look at the Manuel Sanchez (tennis) example. Manuel Sanchez is a unique and acceptable name on the international tennis circuit. But simply adding diacritics (as IIO did) does not make this name correct—it turns a widely-used and acceptable romanized name into an abbreviated, ambiguous and possibly even insulting foreign-language name: It seems quite clear from Spanish Wikipedia that Manuel Sanchez with diacritics is not acceptable as an article title—it seems that only the formal full name is acceptable as an article title. The shortened name is not only ambiguous, but probably also insulting. However the romanized version, as widely used in international sport, plus "(tennis)", is surely optimal for English Wikipedia. The problem is people who think that simply adding diacritics (or removing diacritics) is sufficient—they are simply too lazy or arrogant to research the formal full name. IIO only added the formal full name in the first paragraph after I researched it. He seems to be really only interested in slavishly adding diacritics, not in making sure that foreign language names are correct. LittleBen (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi DJS I see "after I researched it" others are "too lazy or arrogant to research" - and then he still couldn't tell the difference between a Spanish surname and Spanish maternal name, we're obviously going to have problems here as this editor with no apparent knowledge or familiarity with the subject considers himself an expert. That coupled with the personal attacks doesn't bode well. Not sure how we deal with this. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem you have Ben is that simply removing diacritics isn't romanization. That is the problem many of those in this debate get wrong. The names with diacritics are romanized names already. Their languages already use latin-based alphabets so are already romanized. If you were taking a Chinese name and switching it to a latin alphabet-based name then yes you would be romanizing and I would agree with you as I said in a different discussion on another page. However, these names already are romanized. Simply removing diacritics is actually an error, whether it is used frequently or not does not make it their correct name. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dj, what do you think of this point: 'Tis true, that simply removing diacritics removes pronunciation info, and diverges from the legal name. However, persons are quite happy or at least indifferent to spelling their names without diacritics. So that undercuts the 'correct spelling'/'it is an error' argument, I think. If they become known in English without diacritics, then we should not adopt diacritic names here in Wikipedia. It all goes back to the NPOV stance, I think. If the person moves here to North America (NA) and becomes notable without diacritics, or is born in NA to parents with diacritical spellings, and the subject person does not use them, then I don't think their compatriots back in the homeland should be pushing the diacritical spelling on Wikipedia. I'm all for presenting the original name, and using the original name as the article name if there is notability outside NA, but when people move to NA, I think they accept it, and we should completely disregard the 'correctness' argument. Just want your thoughts on that point. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I am starting to get to the point where I don't think we should have a common name policy anymore at all. Not just because of diacritics. Since we, unlike a paper encyclopaedia, can have redirects I am almost at the point where I think every title should be the proper name and the common name can redirect. To me the only NPOV version would be to have their proper name because that is the only undeniable fact, everything else can be spun. A person's name is a person's name is a person's name. Regardless of what other people decide to call them. That being said we don't know that they accept it. For example Sven Bärtschi spoke out very strongly against people spelling his name wrong without the diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Accepting the premise that diacritics usage is on the rise, I'm not sure that an encyclopedia is the place to be activist about it, that's all. I believe that NPOV means 'to follow' common practice, not lead it. As for article titles, I have no problem with mandating that they be the proper names (except with e.g. ice hockey suffixes), based on the idea, that simply going to that as a rule eliminates the debates. But I think we should not mandate the usage in other article texts. As far as I can tell, all these arguments such as 'technical issues', 'correctness' are just used to support a person's opinions on the subject. I agree that common name can be a problem, a rule-based system might be better rather than these over-and-over debates. As for Sven's case (don't make me look for the last name characters on my keyboard! :-) ), I think that's appropriate. It's not new that diacritics are discarded, so changing from that must be done explicitly. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I am just tired of the debates and wish we could go back to the time before anyone in the hockey project even concerned themselves with diacritics. I shudder when I think of the time that has been wasted since that fateful day when GoodDay came to the talk page because he had been battling IP editors over their use which of course snowballed to what we see today. Wouldn't doubt that it is largely why I don't edit nearly as much any more. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirects are a good solution for article titles. However in prose, one name or another has to be chosen, and so the argument will just move to there (for some reason, most of the focus in the past few years has been on titles, but I imagine eventually spelling in the main body text will become a discussion point). isaacl (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Most people I have run across who want diacritics in the titles don't care about the body. Me being one of them. I think the title should have them because it is in essence telling a person this is how you spell this subjects name. That really is what a title is. The body on the other hand can conform to the more traditional dropping of the characters....its when we want to strip the diacritics out of the title and the body that most people have issues. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I've seen enough hardliners who proclaim how any other spelling than the one in the original language is insulting, or all other versions are just a corruption of the original (never mind that some subjects really do have different spellings or names in different languages) that I'm not optimistic. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sure there are probably the odd person who might suggest it. But I doubt it would be that much of an issue. That being said the pendulum has drastically shifted lately so I think maybe we are almost at the point of the issue finally being settled. -DJSasso (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe you haven't read this, this, this and this?   LittleBen (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• You mean the discussions all talking about article titles? -DJSasso (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the problem seems to be that some people insist on adding diacritics to the shortened common English name and using that (with diacritics) as the article title, rather than using the common English name in article titles and putting the full name (with diacritics) in the lede. The motivation seems to be solely to show off their language skills, rather than to make Wikipedia user friendly. If the versions of the name with and without diacritics are together in the lede (like with Chinese, Japanese, or Korean) then users can choose to ignore the diacritics (or Chinese, etc.) if they have no intention of learning diacritics (or Chinese, etc).
• As the majority of Wikipedia users can't read, write, pronounce or remember a title with complex diacritics, then (to them) this is little different from the title being in Chinese, Japanese, or Korean—they couldn't read, write, pronounce or remember such a title either, it's quite useless as a title. Titles are supposed to be recognizable, right? If complex diacritics—or Chinese, Japanese, or Korean—is/are in the article title of an English Wikipedia article, then it's surely just a big annoyance to the majority of Wikipedia users. Most people are going to search for article titles without diacritics, anyway, so Wikipedia is not forced to do a redirect in the majority of cases.
• Simply adding diacritics to a shortened English name doesn't make it "more correct" as an article title—especially if the shortened version of the name with diacritics would never be used in the person's home country—i.e. if the full version of the name with diacritics would be used. But of course the full version of the name with diacritics would probably not be recognizable on English Wikipedia, because it's virtually never used (as per the Manuel Sanchez example). International sports people invariably have shortened common English names, but shortened versions with diacritics are much less frequently used. LittleBen (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, don't agree. It does make them correct. Not having them makes them incorrect. I also disagree that it is a big annoyance to people reading the wiki, most people will just ignore the diacritics if they are there. Are there those who are extremists and get annoyed by them, yes. But I think that is a small number of readers. The motivation for having them is to provide more information, first and foremost before being user friendly our job is to provide information, correct information. Chinese, Japanese etc don't enter into it as they are a different character set. Diacritics on the latin alphabet are not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Peter Jensen (psychologist):

Hi Djsasso,

I see you deleted a prod. Note well under the Psychology of Ontario act 1991, only members of the College of Psychology can use the term Psychologist, or any term with Psychologist, in this case Sport Psychologist. This is a serious issue as it carries heavy fines and is a matter of public safety. Furthermore, as this is a living person, you have put him at risk of an action being taken against him from both the College of Psychology and the public. This page should really be up for speedily deletion.

See the case against Terry Orlick for reference. http://www.cpo.on.ca/members-of-the-public/index.aspx?id=2650 -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillabear10 (talk • contribs)

Either way, you have proof that he isn't a member of the college? Secondly since he didn't write the page then the page wouldn't put him at risk. Even if what you were saying were true. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I will refer this to another admin who is well versed in risks involved. I ask that you refrain from any action on this page, and not to delete the prod as you simply have acted recklessly.Hillabear10 (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you readd the prod again you will be blocked for disruptive editing. If not for being a sock puppet of the account that originally added the prod. Secondly. If you disagree with his being listed as a sports psycologist then remove those words from the article. Prod is not appropriate for a notable individual. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh look at this...funny how with a little research I can find the following "Dr. Peter Jensen is a dynamic speaker with a Ph.D. in Sport Psychology." So looks to me he is legally allowed to use that term. -DJSasso (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have asked AGK to look into it. BTW, just because someone has a PhD in Psychology does not mean that they can use the title. The must belong and registar with a college. This holds true for Medical Doctors (you can have a MD) but if you do not belong to the COllege of Medicine you cannot call yourself a doctor, dentist, social works, ect, ect, ect, Hillabear10 (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Lastly he is not a person of great importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hillabear10 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

And you have some proof that he has not done so? And remember you can be registered in one jurisdiction and not in another and it would still be completely legal to say you are one as long as you don't offer yourself to patients as one in the jurisdiction that you are not registered in. As for your last comment about great importance it sounds to me more like you have some sort of grudge against him and thus your desire to have him deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am the registar for the College in Ontario, where Mr. Jensen lives. One could say that you have vested interest, as the person who created the page (first 3 letters Djs are one in the same).Hillabear10 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahh so you do have a conflict of interest then. Figured as much. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

.

In any event, I have asked a more experienced admin to look into it. I will cease conversation with you now.Hillabear10 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that you have not voiced your concern on the ongoing discussion of the deletion of ‎Peter Jensen. If you have been following the conversation you would note that all editors (except 1), are in agreement that the article does not meet wiki standards. As you are an admin, please explain why you removed the prod as others have suggested that the deletion of this page is a no brainer. Hillabear10

My removal never had anything to do with a belief that it should stay or go but that the reason for proding was not a good one. And then that you kept re-adding a prod when it can't be re-added once it was removed. If the community feels it should go then that is good. I don't really think its a no-brainer since he was part of a national team training staff, but if others do that's fine. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess we will have to disagree on this one Hillabear10 (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Schjelderup Dalen

Hi there. I'm not familiar with ice hockey on Wikipedia, so excuse my incompetence on the subject, but I find it weird that an amateur ice-hockey player that clearly fails WP:GNG should have an own article on Wikipedia. You claim that Andrea Schjelderup Dalen passes WP:NHOCKEY, I guess you are talking about point 6: Played on a senior national team (such as at the Olympic Games or World Championship). Yes, she has played on a senior national team, which is not even close on participating in the Olympic Games or the World Championship (unless this is a part of the World Championship). Are you really telling me that every female hockey player in the world, that have played for a senior national team at any level is notable? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I am referring to that point because what she played in was the World Championships for women's hockey. And yes any player (man or woman) who plays on a national team at the World Championships is notable. No matter the level of the World Championships. -DJSasso (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, they are "presumed" notable. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That is what I meant. Everyone is always presumed notable even if they meet the GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

But thanks for the quick and simple answer, I'll see if I'll go ahead and take it to AfD, giving the total absence of coverage in Norwegian media. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries, don't have any issues with you taking it to Afd. Just didn't think it should go prod. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Schjelderup Dalen. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Nice work

Thanks for catching and reverting the recent vandalism at the Wayne Gretzky article. Wiki owes a lot to people like you who keep an eye out for such juvenile behaviour.EMP (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I try my best. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, Djsasso. We are in the early stages of initiating a project to plan, gain consensus on, and coordinate adding a feature to the main page wherein an article will be listed daily for collaborative improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members.

 Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout 21:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Template

Hi there. I am hoping to create a template to be used for baseball list articles, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#How (and when) to update article lists, similar to what you have referenced for hockey articles here. In your opinion, shall I go about creating a template on a designated template page, or shall I put the example template on the project page? (I understand comments, yea's and nay's shall go on the project page.) Thanks for any advice! Zepppep (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You could make an example in your sandbox. Or on the project page. I wouldn't make an actual template just yet. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look. Zepppep (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is at the project page. Zepppep (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Leaving aside the issue of what to do (other than bless and set in stone) the 1600 undiscussed moves to the bulk of the VN article corpus and the unacted upon but accepted by admins as proven Sockpuppet investigation, LittleBenW's behaviour is beginning to become more a vendetta. The last comment at Talk:My Linh being a case in point. Inclined to just pull that RM, which was already an absolute pool of poison. But what do you think if anything should be done about LittleBenW. He made personal attacks on Dicklyon over his searchengine theories, but evidently I'm the target now, with a bit of winding up from tennisnames, but hardly seems to need any encouraging. Any advice? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I would try and avoid each other first off as that usually works the best with least drama. But if that isn't working you could always try to start at the bottom of the dispute resolution ladder and work your way up. But until then, don't try to get in the last word, if he says something horrible or whatever just ignore it and it will stick out like a sore thumb a lot more if you don't reply. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, I have been trying to do that. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Show me EXACTLY where is Says "Trivia Records"

2 people reverting is NOT a consensus, and you haven't shown any actual Wikipedia Guidelines proving that Records are Trivia - The Burden of proof is on you proving it, not me. I expect better decorum from someone like you, but you proving your bias around here. Let's take to the highest authority dispute centers if you want. You HAVE NOT made any case except for reverting childishly, please stop spending days on here obsessing.

You bias is shown in edits where now you're are erasing "all-time stats" and "records" on Fedorov page only? BIASED EDITING and The proof in your edits. You should also know if you're an Admin, you have already broken the 3RR rule, so it looks worse on you. I will bring it up at the dispute board and bring up your Biased editing and refusal to show any hard-coded PROOF. If you can't show Show me EXACTLY where is Says "Trivia Records" or "Certain ALL time Stats" or "League Leaders" are not allowed, I will be adding it back in eventually, because 2 or 3 users is no way a consensus, especially after 1-2 days lol Wikipedia doesn't work that way, and you know.

Explain how Records and Stats like these are allowed on the Greztky page then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_career_achievements_by_Wayne_Gretzky and Sidney Crosby's page too. PROOF You're WRONG

You won't show any real Wikipedia Guidelines that proof anything, or even Give any explanations Not going to play your games, go to the dispute center and let's get it going. Got a bigger problem here, you. Conduct yourself accordingly. HonestopL 12:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the burden is on you, HonestopL. You made an edit, it was reverted. The onus falls to you to convince people it is a good edit. You have failed to do so, as the discussion at WT:HOCKEY clearly shows. Also, I will add that you have already been warned for violating 3RR. By promising to continue edit warring on this, you are leaving me very little reason not to block you. I trust, however, that this will not prove necessary. Resolute 17:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Well he reverted yet again so its time for a block I guess. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at his block log, looks like this wasn't the first time being blocked for edit warring either. So he isn't someone who didn't know better. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As Resolute mentions, burden of proof is on the person wanting to make an edit that the edit is an ok edit. The couple of us who reverted you weren't the only people who objected to your edit as the discussion at the Wikiproject page shows. There were atleast 5 people who disagreed with your edits. The league leaders were removed because they were already mentioned on the page. Per the style guidelines we just bold the number in their career statistics to indicate they were the league leaders. As for the other stats/records that were objected to. Claiming someone was the 3rd best in a given decade is the definition of a trivial ranking. And saying someone was the only player to win a random award and some other random award is also trivial. I would point out 3RR requires 4 reverts. I only made 3. You made 4 which is why you were warned for breaking 3RR. If you are going to try and flaunt policies you should actually know them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just fyi...

... "creep" referring to a person is also spelled with two e's. isaacl (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Must be engvar then because the dictionary I looked in had it spelled with an a. Probably because its slang. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was always "ee" and maybe you were citing some Canadian English nuance I wasn't aware of. :) Thanks for the defence though. TerminalPreppie (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

is this vandalism?

Just need an opinion on this edit: [5]. Is it vandalism. I have this problem on the Rob Ford article. I'm in the middle between people who basically oppose any mention of Ford's controversies, and others at the other end of the spectrum, who want every controversy mentioned, but don't want to go through the effort to be non-biased or provide reliable sources. The edit I highlight I undid, but maybe I should have marked it as vandalism and reported it. I'm not even sure what to do about the user. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not so much vandalism as soap boxing. But it would still be considered disruptive editing. I would warn the user and take it to an admin or ANI if it keeps up. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Ontario

Hey Djsasso, a new user made a bold page move without concesnsus or any discussion whatsoever at the Battle of Ontario page. I'd like to revert it back from the title he/she chose "Maple Leafs–Senators rivalry" until at least a discussion can be had if this is in fact a wanted move. I was wondering if you had the know-how on how to revert page moves. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted both moves, as they have also been challenged at WP:HOCKEY as well. I will be advising the editor to file a requested move if he wishes to press a debate on the issue. Resolute 15:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration & Ireland RM

Can you have a look at the RM located at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Requested_Move:_.E2.86.92_Ireland_.28state.29. Personal opinion is that it should be located at one of the pages that is actually moving, not at the collaboration page which is not moving.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidance from topic-specific notability guidelines

In the discussion on the the sports-related notability guidelines, in one comment you said "The idea is to make the bright red line past the point where people are going to have enough coverage. That way we are closer to the 99.99999% accuracy we aspire to." However, your most recent comment said that "...we need the SNG to be as close as possible from both sides of the equation." I believe your first comment to be a better reflection of what is needed from a topic-specific notability guideline, to make it clear that the general notability guideline is not being overridden based on a local consensus. I understand the reasoning you described for deletion discussions, but I think the best argument for topic-specific notability guidelines is that they lay out cases which, through experience and analysis, are almost 100% certain to pass subjects that can meet the general notability guidelines. Trying to make the criteria less than that will only prolong the arguing even further. isaacl (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh I realize that. That is what I meant in my second comment. We have to get the red line to a decent point. However if we make it too high we have the opposite problem. In other words we should have it at the lowest point that its a 99.9999 and not too high like say only Stanley Cup winners. Which is a 100% but is clearly too high so notable people end up getting deleted for the reason I mention. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I see; you may want to clarify your second comment then, as it sounds like you want the line to be drawn as accurately as possible between likely and non-likely to be notable, as opposed to closer to 99.99% rather than 99.999999%. (Though to be honest, at that level of decimal places, we're just guessing and there is no good way to quantify the probability.) isaacl (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Note

You may be interested to learn that user:98.110.44.88 has undid a multitude of the edits and revisions you performed on all those minor league baseball teams. It's another sockpuppet of Hersheybearsfan, who later became Silvercoindinerman. Alex (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Thanksgiving weekend here in Canada so I wasn't around to catch it. Looks like another admin took care of it. He has been one persistent fellow. He has been doing this for a long time now. -DJSasso (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Sean Collins disambiguation

Hi Djsasso. I'm pretty sure that you have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey on your watchlist but just in case, I started a discussion about the best way to handle the triple disambiguation for the various Sean Collins who decided that epic lulz would result from the confusion of having two of them born in 1983 and playing professional hockey. Since you were the one who implemented the current disambiguation solution, I'm guessing you'll want to chime in. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 05:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout 20:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Lima

So, you're telling me that I'm owning the article, because I'm supporting someone else's idea of what belongs in the initial image? And when we've seen in the comments lots of red usernames and then IPs all saying the same thing, and at least one user (or more) being a sock, all saying the same thing, and then posting problematic images like the one that you support? The reason for the page protection in the first place was to prevent edit warring by anon IPs who kept changing the image. As far as I'm concerned, I'm protecting the integrity of the article. I have no objection to the image being changed, but I guess my arguments about "Peacock Images" were unpersuasive. We have a number of images in that article already, and some of them in the collage are repeats of images in the article elsewhere. I have to think that you haven't kept up w/ the history of the article, or read all of the talk page. It seems to me that there is someone is Peru trying to make Lima as sanitized as possible (showing only the "best!" things), and not showing the messy parts. IF you think the collage makes sense, then at least create one that doesn't repeat some of the images found in the rest of the article. Hires an editor (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice

Saw your note on Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board regarding the edit notice on your work being edited at will; it has been moved above the edit box, to make it more visible; there was a discussion thread on the Village Pump (I read the initial bits but didn't follow it afterwards). Not sure if it was reworded at the same time, so I don't know if it used to say something about your work being deleted at will (I can't recall either). isaacl (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it used to almost literally say what I paraphrased. Used to mention about being edited or deleted mercilessly. I remember that word specifically. But yeah I don't recall exactly what it said. But the point was basically the same. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds familiar to me too, but I don't think I've read the edit notice since the first time I made an edit ;-). isaacl (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have only read it a couple times when people were complaining about their edits being changed or removed or something. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Date format

What the f*ck is wrong with you ? Stop engaging in edit wars. If you look at the history like on the London, Ontario and Whitehorse, Yukon articles, one of your buddies changed the date format to DMY yesterday ! The longstanding format has always been MDY. No one uses DMY in Canada. For articles like North America the US uses MDY and Canada uses MDY with a very small exception that use DMY such dimwits like yourself. So if they both use MDY and only a small percentage of one use DMY than MDY is what is used. Quit being a moron and use the talk page. Inbred/backwater/Albertan/hillbillies like you are what's wrong with Wikipedia. Stick to hockey meathead. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Dude you are the one who is edit warring. You were reverted. If you don't like that you were reverted use the talk page. Instead of entering an edit war like you always do. And then resorting to calling people names. -DJSasso (talk)

Oh and look you just passed 3RR by reverting 4 times in 24 hours on a number of pages... I'd suggest self reverting before you end up blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Look at the PAGE HISTORIES !! They were changed from MDY to DMY yesterday by User:1exec1 ! I reverted back to the longstanding format. Come on man, use your brain. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Right and if you had headed to the talk page instead of warring. We could have come to an agreement and this would be over with by now. Instead you choose to get hostile and call people names. It really isn't that hard to have a civilized conversation. -DJSasso (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Your edit comment is interesting. If that is in fact true, then Canada and the US both use MDY since these dates almost always are written with the month as a word by policy. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well as with lots of things Canadian. We tend to flip flop around a lot between English and American versions of things. This is why there is a unique Canadian English. Either date format is acceptable here in Canada. But it is less common to see it 31 October 2012 than it is to see October 31, 2012. But it does occur both ways and is considered acceptable to be either. Whereas in the US from experience with some web design stuff I had to do in the past 31 October 2012 is very unacceptable there. I assume that is why we have the guidance on that page that either is acceptable for Canada. I also suspect its a time frame thing. Go farther back in Canadian history we were probably more likely to use British style and more recently with the use of electronic software like Windows making the other style more normal to us (although you can change it in Windows). The one thing I can say for sure is that numerically it is always smallest to largest, that was drilled into us pretty good. -DJSasso (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:New York Islanders#Future arena and city

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:New York Islanders#Future arena and city. I'd appreciate your input -- Fyrefly (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Any chance......

We could get page protection for the United Federation of Planets article? I think we have a case of IP hopping here..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the new IP for 72 hours and extended the block on the original. If he comes back with another IP I will protect the page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks man. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

As (s)he is going a bit over the top, I have started an ANI thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Blocked talk page access for now. Since you already took it to ANI I won't do anything else pending any possible decision there. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer1234 sock

I saw that you marked it as a confirmed sockpuppet. However, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Administrators_instructions#Sock_puppets_.28registered_accounts.29 says to mark as confirmed only for cases where CU was used. As this was the first SPI I closed, I blindly followed the instructions, but perhaps they are not representative of usual practice?—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah its tricky. I see it used on very obvious cases here and there so its probably not hard and fast. I use it for very obvious cases all the time but it doesn't matter to me either way so I can remove if you prefer. -DJSasso (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it.. My question was purely for my understanding.as a newbie, Thx.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Roy Hinkel

I'm stirring up some old dust at Talk:Roy Hinkel and, even though you probably don't care anymore (and implied as much during the debate), I thought I'd give you a heads up in case you wanted to comment. Canadian Paul 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Arb

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Resysoping of FCYTravis / Polarscribe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. 117Avenue (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Legitimate alternate user account(s)

DJS, what it the proper way to set up and disclose an alternate user account? I don't want the alt account for editing purposes, but merely to create an expanded and more specialized watch list. That having been said, I don't fancy being accused of being a sock-puppeteer, and I'm sure there's a right way and a wrong way to do this. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

It is really just a matter of mentioning it on your user page. The last sentence in this section mentions some templates and userboxes you can use to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Dumb question

DJS, I have not had occasion to perform surgery on any of the baseball team infoboxes, other than Infobox college baseball team, so my practical experience and understanding of several of these templates is not the same as with other infoboxes with which I work regularly. As a result, I have a question for you. I've started reviewing the individual baseball team templates, and some have obvious differences, and others like MiLB and MiLB defunct are nearly identical and should be merged. While I am still trying to understand the merits of each, I am somewhat mystified by the need for a distinct class of MLB-affiliated MiLB infoboxes and another for independent MiLB infoboxes. Do you have any insights on point? While I can think of a variety of reasons for distinct infoboxes for MLB, Japan and Taiwan big-league teams, different infoboxes for affiliated and independent minor league teams strikes me as unnecessary. To the extent affiliated minor league teams must reflect those affiliations in their infoboxes, logically, that issue could be resolved with one or two added optional parameters. What are your thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I haven't looked to closely at the code. The only major difference I can see is that one box wouldn't have affiliate teams lists and the other would. It could very well be that the two need to be merged as well. But that discussion should be had away from the TfD in my view. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Trust me: I believe the decisions regarding the content and appearance of these templates should be made by the applicable WikiProjects and the editors who have the best understanding of the subject matter and the most experience working with the templates in actual articles. That having been said, the best way we can avoid another POTW/TfD flame war is to take care of the problem ourselves and expeditiously eliminate the four truly redundant examples (i.e., collegiate, the two defuncts, and indepedent). IMHO, the MLB, MiLB and College templates should all survive, and I have a big question mark for "review" next to the Japan and Taiwan team infoboxes. It may be that the latter two are tailored for their own leagues. We'll see. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Minor League Baseball

It turns out this could be VERY controversial...I hope you're ready to switch all the boxes which already were under the old name to your new name. Now GET TO WORK! Tom Danson (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

They don't actually have to...that is why there is a redirect. In fact a lot of them were already redirected from a different name. (the one you changed for example). -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good one

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		for this, the kind of "obvious and bold solution" that used the be the norm around here. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Changes to Philadelphia Flyers Article

I would suggest that you revisit the extensive changes that you just made to the Philadelphia Flyers article as a significant number of them have introduced information that is incorrect, POV or both, while also removing some accurate material as well. Centpacrr (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I accidentally edited an old revision and didn't notice. Thanks for pointing it out. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

LittleBenW and diacritics

Hi there,

Thanks for your sensible input on this discussion. I'm trying to avoid getting into a tit-for-tat cycle with Ben. I'm well aware that, having offered an 'expert opinion', I lay myself open to further criticism every time I lay finger to keyboard. But he does seem to have a considerable problem in using WP in a fair and open way. I don't understand (despite having tried) how User RfCs work. Do you have any thoughts about how best to proceed? (Disclosure: I already asked Dominus Vobisdu a similar question yesterday.) Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand. I haven't created one myself but have participated in them. Having a read through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance may help. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might also help, but this is more about conduct than a specific dispute I think so I am not sure. I don't know why by diacritics bring out the worst in some people. It is a shame. -DJSasso (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I had what seems to be an automatically resolved edit conflict with you at ANI, which left the indenting out of sync. Can you have a look and maybe adjust the indenting and/or order to your preference? Agathoclea (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed. I don't think it really matters to just leave it. :) -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For reporting VIAF errors. Read the VIAFbot debriefing blog post. Maximilianklein (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

NBA

We both know that no one at the NBA article objects to the removal of your little pansy team count addition. Now quit being an ass clown. There was no discussion of any type to include this at the NBA article as you claim. You're simply pushing your own disturbed views and creating fake consensus'. You're a terrible editor. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't my addition. It was added almost 3 years ago. I'm the terrible editor when it is you that refuses to discuss anything and attack anyone that disagrees with you? Right. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Next to last step, towards an IBAN.

This is my last request to you. 1) Don't contact my talkpage & 2) Don't comment on me directly or indirectly. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WPCANADA

Could you please undo your action here? Stepping into the middle of a discussion to implement the actual action under debate is inappropriate. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple template deletion

Someone has been creating templates that we typically delete (Template:Pittsburgh Penguins 2009 Stanley Cup Champions, Template:Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks, Template:Boston Bruins 2011 Stanley Cup Champions, Template:NHL Number One Draft Picks) maybe more, not sure, and more might be on the way. User:Krm500 put the Number one picks template up for deletion. Do all of these need to be listed individually or can they all be but together? I didn't see anything about it on the deletion page. Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The champions ones can be deleted as recreations of an XfD deleted template. So I have done that for those two. The other two I can't recall if there have been deletion discussions already so they would probably have to go to Tfd but they can go in a single nom. -DJSasso (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Divisions I, II, III

I'm a bit surprised you reverted me on National Collegiate women's ice hockey championship, since you expressed some uncertainty. I'll try to explain as clearly as possible; please let me know if I can clarify further.

"National Collegiate Championship" has a very specific meaning to the NCAA; they use that terminology to refer to a postseason tournament that involves teams playing at different divisions. (If it's just one division, then they use the name of the division; e.g., NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Championship.) In this case, the divisions are I and II. (It's a bit confusing, because some ice hockey teams at schools with Division II athletic departments actually play at the Division I level (e.g., Bentley University Falcons men's ice hockey and Lindenwood Lady Lions ice hockey, while others continue to be Division II teams. I'm having trouble identifying any of the latter on the women's side, because, as noted, they play in a combined division with Division I teams.) Division III women's ice hockey is a completely separate championship; I should know, as I watched my alma mater win it last year. =)

This is different from the men's side, where the Division I tournament has always been just Division I, and any teams at schools with lower-division athletic programs have to have their hockey teams play up to Division I in order to participate in the tournament. The men's teams that remain Division II without playing up (e.g., Saint Anselm Hawks) end up playing against mainly D-III competition and cannot participate in any NCAA tournament (since there is no D-II tournament on the men's side anymore).

I believe the text at College ice hockey#NCAA has the situation correct.

-- Powers <sup>T</sup> 01:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, if you haven't already go ahead and revert me. I probably was getting it confused with men's. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Neil's Harbour

I placed the image of Victoria Co-op Fisheries back in the Neil's Harbour article. This facility is in Neil's Harbour. I was born in the town and I worked at the facility, so I know. ChakaKong<sup>talk</sup> 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually my wife is from the town. The fishery is in New Haven which borders Neil's Harbour. They are twin towns. Neil's Harbour changes into New Haven right around where the Legion used to be. Take a look at 46.814981,-60.319254 on google maps street view. This is the New Haven sign and then follow the road to the fish plant. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to point out road signs to me, as I said, I was born there and spent many years in the area. I realize that technically New Haven is a separate town, but in reality it's more of a "neighborhood" of Neil's Harbour. Aside from perhaps a handful of families living in New Haven, everyone in the larger geographical area refers to New Haven as Neil's Harbour. Saying Victoria Co-op isn't in Neil's Harbour is a bit like saying Olympic Stadium isn't in Montreal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChakaKong (talk • contribs)

Except that you would never dare say something in New Haven was in Neil's Harbour to anyone in the area. The two are very big rivals and historically have had issues with each other. That would be like saying Dartmouth and Halifax were the same city prior to the merge. Or Minneapolis and St. Paul are the same city. Those would also be big nonos. But I think I have a good way around the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, Olympic Stadium actually is in the city of Montreal... I tried to find a suitable alternate example for Montreal, but I think all the really well-known landmarks are in the city proper. Dawson College (which gained national attention for a sad reason) is mostly in Westmount, with a little bit in Montreal. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, either way I just modified the caption to mention it is in the neighbouring community which I think should ease any issues with accuracy. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus on Place of Birth discussion?

You alluded to some previous discussion that achieved consensus in the edit comment here, can you provide a link to where this consensus has been recorded. Thanks --Nug (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it has been discussed many times that we use city, country for countries outside the US and Canada. Give me a second to look it up we have 50 some odd archives at the project. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month

Good day Djsasso,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata is here; please disable any interwiki bots on the English Wikipedia

Hi!

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Going forward, Wikidata will manage interwiki links. Further information: m:Wikidata/Deployment Questions and <https://blog.wikimedia.de/?p=13892>.

Important note: Bots that continue to add, remove, or update interwiki links on the English Wikipedia may be blocked from editing after Saturday, February 16, 2013.

If you are running pywikipedia's interwiki.py, please update to pyrev:11073 which will automatically prevent your bot from updating links on this wiki.

If you have any questions, please ask at the bot owners' noticeboard. Thank you for your past work maintaining interwiki links. It has been very appreciated and we're looking forward to an even brighter future with Wikidata. Legoktm (talk) 10:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Perform a move request?

Hello Dj.

I wonder if I can I ask you to perform a requested move? I am the original proposer, and therefore I can't do it myself, according to the instructions for closing RMs. There is currently a huge backlog, so I don't expect it to be done in a long time if I don't ask anyone.

There has not been much discussion, but the two that have bothered to comment have supported the move. You can see for yourself at Talk:2008–09 Speed Skating World Cup/100 m Men.

If you perform the move, I will do the cleanup required, when you notify me.

Thanks

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I saw this the other night and said to myself that I would do it in the morning when I was at my computer instead of on my phone and then completely forgot. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Nug-Jaan

Their edits are becoming more disruptive – before this turns into a full out war, what's the best venue on here to report my grievance with the edits? (I haven't done this in a while) Before things get worse and I finally get rattled & blocked lol --Львівське (говорити) 21:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I would try any of the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Receive outside help for content disputes first and then go to AN if none of those work. AN has a tendency to boomerang so if you attempt go through the other processes you may avoid that. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, but what happens if RfCs keep getting opened and their argument keeps getting shot down? Are we still stuck in an eternal stalemate or what is the means of finding a conclusion to this circus?--Львівське (говорити) 21:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please refrain for these kinds of discussions of particular individuals as they may be construed as a type of personal attack or even form of harassment. Thanks. --Nug (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You would have a very hard time convincing anyone that Lvivske's question is either a personal attack or harassment. Indeed, I've been wondering myself how long we are going to have to put up with this. The question does need to be asked: What will happen if the latest RFC doesn't go your way? Resolute 01:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well based on what I saw happen with diacritics, those extremists and POV pushers tend to end up topic banned or outright banned eventually if they keep pushing even after consensus has shown them time and again that they are in the wrong. Based on the block log of some of those involved I could see that happening sooner rather than later. So basically don't stoop to their level and let them hang themselves, it is eventually inevitable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

lol...to the point. I was moreso asking what the proper process is to just move on. We establish consensus over and over again, when does it end? Could we take the POV tags off the Komarov article, or will it just get reverted & we argue for another week? I'm just wondering what the mandated course of action is to resolve this beyond what we've already done over and over again.--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if consensus is reached then yes they could be removed. But they could just readd it and cause more disruption. However, at that point it would start to be a WP:POINT issue on their part. After suitable warnings you would then move up the dispute resolution ladder. -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, has consensus been reached? (not unanimous vs. not a democracy argument) --Львівське (говорити) 16:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think there is pretty clear consensus to leave the Soviet Union/USSR on. Especially based on all the recent comments that have come in from other users supporting using them. But I know those two will disagree. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Equally at fault"

How am I equally at fault with GabeMc? I've made one fewer revert (and a lot fewer edits), and I'm reverting to protect prior consensus! pbp 16:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Because edit warring is edit warring regardless of the number of edits. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And I would note he only made 2 reverts...the same as you....the first one was his initial edit which doesn't appear to be reverting anyone who edited in the same 24 hour period. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope! His first edit went against long-established consensus to keep the page as is pbp 17:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a revert. That makes it a bold edit. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then saying that he and I are equally at fault is saying that his revision is equally valid to the long-standing consensus. If there's a conflict between a bold edit and long-standing consensus, long-standing consensus is supposed be to keep the long-standing consensus (i.e., my edits) live until it's discussed. As such, you or somebody else that's not me should restore the old revision until discussion is over. pbp 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As Writ Keeper mentions on the 3RR board, we don't act to decide which version is the correct version. We just move to stop the warring. If I were to protect the page for example it would be protected as the version it was at when I arrived. So it is now up to the both of you and others interested to discuss it on the talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey friend, not trying to start anything just think it's valid and accepted. The article as you know was edited heavily and the quote was accepted as important enough to stay in the article for half a year since. HonestopL 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually in those discussions it had been removed. You only readded it a couple weeks ago. -DJSasso (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

But it has been ever since and you were the only one to remove it. Quotes are on every page and it does violate any wikipedia rules. We can work it in the article but if you just want to delete it without a reasonable valid reasoning, doesn't make it right. Like working together :) HonestopL 13:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Still true?

Asking about the backlogged RM because I'm uninformed (cur | prev) 04:36, 24 November 2009‎ Djsasso (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (1,858 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Talk:Mike Peluso (ice hockey, born 1965) to Talk:Mike David Peluso over redirect: You mean James Stephen Smith. The hockey project uses middle names when possible. Then resorts to (ice hockey). And at last resort uses (ice hockey b. 1965) (undo) Can you give guidance on RM please. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This message is a bit hard to understand but if I understand correctly you are asking if we use middle names before (ice hockey)? If that is the case then no not any more. It was changed a week or two ago. See WT:HOCKEY for the discussion. You can also see our naming convention page at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(ice_hockey)#Players. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I should have linked Talk:Mike David Peluso, but anyway, you deciphered it correctly. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

SassoBot @ is.wikipedia

Since today is.wikipedia is getting language links from Wikidata. You should either update your bot, once an update that makes pywikipedia compatible with Wikidata becomes available, or stop its present job of maintaining interlanguage links. Thanks.--Snaevar (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep will do. -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply

Though I appreciate your note, as the editor is understandably upset, I'd as soon let matters lie to rest. isaacl (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I know, just wanted to point it out to them so that they didn't do it to someone else in the future. Oh and nice to see that you have started archiving your page lol. It was starting to get loooong. :) -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

unblock on hold at User talk:Chicken Parm

After taking a look I'm not so sure I see the case for a DUCK block. While they are both interested in amateur sports teams, the overlap between the accounts amounts to only two articles according to [6]. Chicken Parm seemed to be more interested in baseball than hockey, which appears to be the sole focus of HBF. Also, Chicken Parms first edit was some five years before HBF's first edit. So, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am having trouble seeing what is apparently obvious to you. If there are WP:BEANS involved feel free to email me about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Well it comes down to mostly the other accounts in sock directory and suspected sock directory of Hershybearsfan if you look in the list of sock accounts. They are all focused on baseball. Their biggest MO was in changing when baseball teams were founded in the infobox. The reason it seemed pretty obvious to me is that he hit something like 4 or 5 pages that were 100% edited by the sock farm and did the same basic edits as the socks. That being said I do agree with how long ago the account was created. I was a bit uneasy about that part myself. Only reason I still blocked was that we were never really sure that hersheybearsfan was the sock master as opposed to just a sock. I would suggest a CU but I am pretty sure all the data is too old on the other accounts to do one so if you feel he should be unblocked I am ok with that. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've looked into it and see what you are talking about, but I don't feel like it is enough to be certain. Since you are not really certain either I have gone ahead and unblocked in the spirit of AGF. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Math

Howdee. You said to our new friend "the wiki is split about 50/50 on the issue after many RfCs on the matter" the last RfC was about 40/10, and actual articles are 300,000/20, so that's understatement I think. But more of interest to me at the moment is whether we have a WP:DON'TGUESSATOTHEREDITORSNATIONALITY guideline or not. Seems to be a lot of that around. I suppose there always was, it being human nature. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a wiki wide advertised RfC if I recall correctly. The last full scale RfC that was advertised on watchlists and everything was literally something like 56 votes for using them and 50 for not using them. I would have to go look it up for exact numbers but that is so close as to basically be 50/50. There have been smaller RfCs since then that have swung a little bit in both directions depending on what side watched a particular page they happened on more. That being said I had forgotten about the one you link to because I didn't take part cause it was a mess and too hard to follow. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No it wasn't wiki wide, it was only to all 100 who had commented on RMs in a month. I didn't know how to advertise wiki wide then. The most recent wiki wide was just for Vietnamese and was 23/10 per the RfC notification route. In any case I think time has passed on. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure personally and I probably wouldn't create another wiki-wide one at this point. I know there are places you can request to have them advertised on the watchlist and what not but I have never done it myself. Like I said I had completely forgot about your RfC or I probably wouldn't have made that comment. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't either, and FWIW I didn't create the Vietnam one. In any case RfCs seem to have no purpose. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Leo Komarov

Hello Djsasso. In your last edit at Leo Komarov you stated "The RfC has clearly headed towards consensus..". There are so many discussions I'm not sure what you are referring to:

• Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: country of birth
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive55#Baltic states dispute
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive56#Baltic no-shows.
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918?

Which of these do you mean when you refer to the RfC? It would be disturbing if the edit war at Leo Komarov were to restart due to lack of clarity on the result of the discussions. If that's what's about to happen, it might be worth finding an uninvolved admin to close one or more of these discussions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well really 1, 2 & 4 above have come to the same conclusion. But the one I was specifically talking about in that edit summary was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918? since that is the only one that had an official RfC tag on it so it was publicized across the wiki. I agree that it would be great if an uninvolved admin would close it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)