User talk:Djsasso/Archive 10

I'm tired of You

Stop Your crusade. What is Your point on this edit warring. You claim that BRD is on your side, that You are only restoring, but actually before You and Your friend interrupted none of these articles states birth places as Soviet Union. It is mutually agreed that the birthplaces on Estonian born are stated as Estonia, not Estonian SSR, Republic of Estonia or Soviet union. estonia is as this country has been known all of these times. You have chosen some random articles changed it there and now barricade edit war on those. And so with the 1918-1940 article. The claims there are factually incorrect. Even these kind of technicalities must be done correctly. Again please read these State continuity of the Baltic states, Occupation of the Baltic states. What is Your problem? --Klõps (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

About this. I do not need sources that it was called the Republic of Estonia in 1918-1940, I said it clearly, that the article states that The Republic between 1918 and 1940 is different from the one from 1992 onwards. Before I made it to look something like an article the crap You were defending started with claim Estonia from 1918–1940 was an independent Republic after gaining independence from Russia. But in fact (and You have been given sources) the Republic of Estonia itself and the the overwhelming majority of historians in the democratic world have agreed that Republic of Estonia is the same since 1918. And that infobox itself was factually incorrect and violeted the rules for this infobox. --Klõps (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a crusade, it appears to be you whom has a crusade. I could care less about these pages other than to stop POV crusaders such as yourself who like to edit war to massive length to attempt to get their way. So yes, I will tend to act when I see you doing it. The article name and the infobox did not claim they were separate entities. In fact the infobox actually perfectly laid out exactly what you are claiming. If you would step back from your fanaticism on the topic maybe you would actually see that. As for birthplaces it has never been mutually agreed to list them that way, in fact that has been a massive bone of contention wiki-wide with Baltic state editors. They have tried to push that convention onto articles and have even had secret mailing lists to try to circumvent wiki policy on the situation. The wiki as a whole has had a consensus that they are listed as what they were at the time of their birth using the Soviet Union and the ESSR. A few Estonian editors over the last couple years have tried to sneak Estonia back in by converting articles slowly back over to Estonia and when we notice the changes we change them back. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The point of this article has been to deny the state continuation. So If You do not care then PLEASE give me Your noncearing view what in my version You find so unsuitable, that You need to editwar against it.

I say that History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) is perfectly neutral because it does not deny state State continuity of the Baltic states and Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) is unneutral because it denies this. And History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) is on a line with other articles as History of Poland (1945–89), History of the Soviet Union (1927–53), History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002)

But Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) goes in line with articles like Slovak Republic (1939–45) implying a Republic of Estonia other than the current one existed in 1918-1940. It is not neutral and it is misleading.

And the AfD just ended no consensus, because there were lack of interest. And no consensus doesn't mean that the article now has to be fossilized in stone for ever asi it was. --Klõps (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may interject. The Afd at Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) was to Keep as an article. So far, you've been going against that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If I may correct... against that NO consensus--Klõps (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you are unaware, a result of no consensus on Wikipedia per policy defaults to a Keep status quo. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but I left You 2 miles of arguments, only thing You have to say on all of this is... this?--Klõps (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Because I am not going to fight with someone who had to resort to edit warring and name calling instead of discussion from the get go....if you would have stopped and discussed at the beginning then things probably would have gone a lot smoother. Instead you immediately started edit warring and name calling which was really just stupid. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Talking about name calling, You are the one who constantly calls me and others nationalists, and love to reduce my arguments saying that I am a part few who think... Fact is that You figth to keep the title unneutral... Please give me Your reasons why You do this. Between Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) and History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) it is VERY HARD te see why we should keep the unneutral and misleading one. And what is nationalist about the other. I cant see Your reason inside Your head if You don't tell me that! Saying that it is because of this faild AdD is just a joke. No Consensus does not mean that the article is now sacred. The AfD was about deleting it, and no consensus was reached to do so--Klõps (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Because that name isn't unneutral, the name of the country at the time was Republic of Estonia and the article is about the time period 1918-1940. Both of those facts are true. There for it is completely neutral. When you start adding in History it starts to slant it in an unneutral way because while a lot of people do consider it a continuation, there is still a significant amount that don't. By adding in the History you add in the slant of one opinion. By sticking to the name and date you avoid that debate and are completely neutral. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

there is still a significant amount that don't

Thats what I am asking give me names and adresses of those.

Meanwhile in the real world outside Your Russian POV it is not debated – it is, in fact, a fact. Read here State continuity of the Baltic states, Occupation of the Baltic states, Baltic–Soviet relations, United States House Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression and the Forced Incorporation of the Baltic States into the U.S.S.R., Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

Sticking to the name and date is completely unneutral because it states that there was a country named Republic of Estonia that ceased to exist in 1940. But in reality the the fact is that Republic of Estonia exists from 1918 until today, and it is the same republic. Putting history in front says that it is about certain time period in the history.--Klõps (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh You little a soapy guy. You forget that we have article history in wikipedia and it is other way around. These articles have been created with Estonia as Birthplace. It has always been so. But there are a few soviet fanatics that have changed those. Anyway if You step back from your fanaticism then Estonia is a neutral version. It is not Republic of Estonia for people born after 1992. etc. Think about peole from Scotland. And please go and move Burma to Myanmar and then come back with Your stories.--Klõps (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NB! You are acting strange. I gave You clear points to answer, but You give Your counterarguments on completely other subject.--Klõps (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NNB! If I'm the troll whose fighting POV as You claim, then why do You only fight for the title and the other technicalities (misleading infobox and the direction sentence that says that there is another Republic of Estonia) why wont You change the article that I made so that It has Your sourced views.. the noncontinuity of Baltic States etc.--Klõps (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On birth places where You say that You are protecting them. Let's take this one: Juri Kurakin It was created 26 February 2007‎ and it was perfectly ok to state that he was born in Tallinn, Estonia. And it was so until 20 january 2014 when edit warring began and You came along. And so it is with majority of these other articles it is within last year when these have been changed to Soviet Union. So the BRD is to keep them Estonia.--Klõps (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's take others where You or Your friend are edit warring Karl Burman created 16 August 2006‎, died Tallinn, Estonia until 3 January 2015

Marko Asmer created 20 March 2006‎ was born Tallinn, Estonia until Your friend came 23 January 2015.

Andrei Borissov created 4 September 2007‎ .... and Your friend is here

Riin Tamm created 13 December 2012‎, Estonia changed to Soviet Union in March 2014

Tõnis Mägi created 13 June 2011,‎ Estonia to Soviet Union in 25 September 2014

Ilja Glebov created 28 February 2007,‎ Estonia to Soviet Union in January 2009 back to Estonia in March 2009 and then 6 years went past until Your friend came 25 January 2015

Heiko Niidas created 12 June 2009‎, Estonia to Soviet Union (what a surprise by whom) 3 February 2015

Grethe Grünberg created 23, January 2007 Estonia to Soviet Union 13 October 2013

Katrin Siska created 2005, Estonia to Soviet Union 15 March 2014

I can keep on going with this list, but facts are that these articles, where You have been protecting Soviet Union as a birth place, in fact have all been created as born in Place, Estonia or have been so many years. Facts show as that it is opposite of what you argued, I cite: A few Estonian editors over the last couple years have tried to sneak Estonia back in by converting articles slowly back over to Estonia and when we notice the changes we change them back. This is a produce of bovine digestive tract the reality is that a few editors over the last year have sneaked in and changed Estonia to Soviet Union.--Klõps (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, as they are noticed they are fixed to the standard. Just because you found some that sat as Estonia for awhile doesn't invalidate what I have said. Many of them do get created as Estonia first because editors might not be aware of the standard. And as people notice them they fix them. But it isn't hard to take a look over the last two years where you can see a couple of editors changed hundreds of articles over in some mass edits in their attempt at Wikipedia:Fait accompli so that people such as yourself could claim there was consensus on the issue, look at all the articles that use it that way. But the fact of the matter is, most people are not as fanatical about making hundreds of edits to undo the work they did so some have sat unreverted for a long time. A number of the ones you point to above are perfect examples where H2ppyme went and changed a large number of articles away from their long standing version, when he was reverted per WP:BRD you then proceeded to edit war back to your preferred version instead of discussion as BRD asks. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Be careful around this topic, DJ. I don't want to see you going through what I went through, concerning another topic, years ago. Anyways, perhaps a discussion will 'someday' be opened to settle the Baltics dispute, for years to come. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS A lot of people think that the standard is as it is. You and Your friend think the standard is other way around. I gave You a list which shows that the edit consensus had been for a years just Estonia, until You came along! I don't see mass changes of Soviet Union to Estonia as there isn't such a thing.. (if You excuse me! I have to call it a lie until it is proven true). But I see a few user doing opposite. And I really went through all the history of those articles and I chose those because these are the few on which You or Your friend are editwarring--Klõps (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Klops, I don't want to see you go through what I went through (a few years ago) either. I'm asking you to change your approach on this topic, please. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have given arguments. I constantly emphasize that what I do is for neutrality. I have pointed out what is neutral and what isn't and why. What I don't get is the answer to my question why is it so important for You that there isn't word History in front of Republic of Estonia. And why You needed to editwar to reenter the sentence that says that there have been two different entities named Republic of Estonia?--Klõps (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit consensus requires there to be no controversy over the situation, as you can clearly see by the many people that have reverted the names to either version and have been involved in the debates on many pages, you can see that the format is controversial, therefore edit consensus does not apply. That sentence did not say there have been two different entities. Not even remotely, it said that the page the person was on covered the Republic of Estonia from 1918-1940 and if you want history for the current era go to the Estonia page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is very easy. Use google. about 1 in 100 articles of Estonian biographies birthplace has soviet union or SSR and 99 have Place, Estonia.

The sentence in question is This article is about The Republic of Estonia from 1918-1940. For The modern Republic of Estonia, see Estonia

There cant be two ways to understand it. And it is unnecessary. And the new lede already specifies that, but the old crappy one that You defended says that it was a separate entity from the modern one.And You still haven't produced a single argument...--Klõps (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an uninvolved third-party editor, but I am not an unbiased observer. I have Djsasso's talk page watch-listed because DJ is deeply involved in editing sports-related articles and following his talk page discussions is a good way for me to track what's going in various sports topics. Imagine my surprise when I saw a discussion about the Republic of Estonia pop on my watch list.

My first bachelor's degree was completed in East European Studies at two major American universities (Virginia and Florida), and I completed 50 hours of university-level credits in communist and socialist political theory, socialist economics, Russian language, Russian/Soviet history, Eastern European comparative politics, etc., at the height of the renewed Cold War in the early 1980s. Some of us here were already adults in the waning days of Soviet-led communism, and some of us even studied the political systems of the USSR in a structured academic environment of respected universities. Some of us not only know the real history, we lived it.

I can state unequivocally that it is uncontested fact that Estonia was officially known as the "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" from 1940 to 1990/91, during which time Estonia was an unwilling constituent member state of the USSR. Denying that reality of a Soviet military/political occupation of the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) during the period 1940–91 is no less a propaganda falsehood than the Russian claims that it was a voluntary relationship; we all know that it is not a coincidence that these were the first three Soviet republics to declare/reclaim their legal independence as the USSR came unglued following the attempted coup d'etat against the Soviet government of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. So, no, the Estonian SSR (1940–91) was not the same government, but it was the de facto successor to the Republic of Estonia (1918–40); the two governments were not the same, and you would be hard-pressed to find any scholarly source outside the Russian language that would accept such a claim. What the Red Army did in the Baltic States in 1940 (and again in 1944–45) is no different than what the Nazis did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1937–38, or Poland in 1939. The Estonian SSR government was the de facto government of a constituent state of the USSR; you don't have to like it, but you should be able to acknowledge that reality in an intellectually honest manner.

As for people born in Estonia during the Soviet occupation, yes, their birthplaces should be listed as [City], Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- or however you may decide by consensus to consistently abbreviate the names of those now-defunct communist entities. This is no different from how Wikipedia treats persons who were born in other parts of the Soviet Union, the former German Democratic Republic, the former Czechoslovakia, the former Yugoslavia, the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, the former Russian Empire, or any other political entity that no longer exists. We do not anachronistically rename territories with modern names that did not exist in some prior historical period.

FYI, I have several Lithuanian ancestors, and I can tell you that none of them were Russian/Soviet/communist sympathizers. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is simply a matter of historical accuracy in stating the correct name of the country as it existed during the time period in question (1940–91). Nothing more, nothing less. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion You see here isn't anything as intellectual as Your post, because It is not possible with his attitude.

we have two problems here. First one is History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)

• It was named Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) and under the title said that this is about one RoE if you are interested in the other one see Estonia
• It is fact that there is only one RoE, that became independent 1918, and was occupied between 1940 to 1992.
• I have given him links and articles on the subject like State continuity of the Baltic states etc
• He clearly states that saying there is continuity of the Baltic states is unneutral: When you start adding in History it starts to slant it in an unneutral way because while a lot of people do consider it a continuation, there is still a significant amount that don't.

The question of birthplace is secondary here, there has been 500 miles of discussions... You can start reading here Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth

No consensus has ever been established, but mutual consent, exept a few users, is for baltic stats to use just the common name, whithout specifying if it was Republic of ... or ... SSR, as in both cases these countrys were known with their names. What Djsasso and GoodDay are practising is to use form Tallinn, Soviet Union or other provocative forms diff. Even British biografies won't say Edinburgh, UK.

• Until the format has been agreed, these articles should be kept on current line.
• Politics and fighting should be kept away from BLPs until the agreement has been made!--Klõps (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

What's provocative about correcting a birth/death place? From 1940 to 1991, it was Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. No matter what occurs on Wikipedia, that's what those places were. If that bothers anyone? tough. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, as for Wikipedia? I've learned over the years that if enough editors demand that 'blue' is 'orange', then 'blue' will be shown as 'orange, or atleast there'll be a long drawn out debate over whether or not 'blue' is 'blue'. Just one of the project's unavoidable failings. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Between black and white there are thousand shades of gray. If it is as simple as You say why then are there these long debates Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth, Country of birth, for historic (and current) bios, part II and many more... without any result.--Klõps (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And between blue and orange You'll find thousand shades of brown. --Klõps (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Though I 'gnome' edit via the Random button, I guess it's likely best that I avoid correcting these articles. It seems my corrections are only gonna be stalked & reverted. Very frustrating, but that's Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of season schedule tables

DJ, please take a look at these threads: [1] and [2]. I am not opposed to change, but I do think we should carefully consider the proper way to implement changes in contravention of well-established practice. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hiding one's IP, when accidently posting/editing signed-out

Would you hide my IP, too? at Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island? I had forgotten that it could be hidden :) GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I can hide it only from regular editors, if you want it hidden from admins as well you will need to ask an Oversighter. I have hidden it for now. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Though I've nothing to hide, who are the oversighters? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Oversight. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I've asked arbitrator Roger Davies to oversight. Anyways, IP addresses tend to get changed every few weeks. I just don't want anyone accidently blocking my IP :) GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Estonian war

See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive170, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive170! Please help me!--123.140.222.75 (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

One of these ends nowhere and other ends with a long rationale why Soviet Union is not used. More 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc --Klõps (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

RB Canadians

Hey, I moved this article too quickly: Rayside-Balfour Canadiens... they changed their minds on the spelling and went with Rayside-Balfour Canadians... so I need to move the article, but there is a redirect in the way... I was wondering if you could delete the redirect so we can move the new Canadians in? Thanks!! DMighton (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! DMighton (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me

Estonian user Violated 3rr first. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents--123.140.222.75 (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Manitoba Moose

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manitoba Moose , has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Tom Danson (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

College templates

After raising the issue a while back in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive63#College_Hockey_Nav_boxes, im going to try and give deletion a crack. Since i'm not really familiar with the tfd process i recalled you said you'd be able to find some past links of precedence that i could use to help delete the templates? I tried looking but i'm not that educated.. Any help would be appreciated.

And one other question if i succeed in deleting one template do i then have to do the same steps to every other college championship template, or is there a quicker way?? Triggerbit (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If you can hold out until this evening or tomorrow I can find you the links. I will be busy during the day today so won't have a chance to look until then. As for a quicker way. You could put them all in the same nomination or do them in groups of a couple at a time. I believe it explains how to do this on the main Tfd page. If you can't how let me know and I will take a look for you. -DJSasso (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Persondata RfC

Hi, You participated in the previous Persondata RfC. I just wanted to notify you that a new RfC regarding the methodical removal of Persondata is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

NHL team articles infobox

I look forward to the day, that you just for once, will stop opposing me. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And I look forward to the day when you stop doing things you know are incorrect since you have been part of many discussions on this very topic. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Someday, you'll need my help on this project, Djsasso. See if you'll ever get, sir. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

All I did was correct a mistake you made, you are the one that decided to fly off the handle. I gave the benefit of the doubt assuming you had forgotten how we handle seasons but then you decided to edit war. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my 'outburst' above. GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock

I just blocked a registered acct sock of SNIyer12, I noticed you have tagged most (all?) of the IPs at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SNIyer12. Is IP block or article semi-protection needed?—Bagumba (talk) 02:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

IP block could possibly help but I always worry about collateral damage with them. I haven't looked closely enough at the ranges to see if there would be any. As for semi-protection, we do it sometimes when he gets particularly bad, but I also leave some open sometimes because there are certain pages that are his go to pages, so soon as I see an edit there it helps me know that he is active again and I follow the trail of edits. -DJSasso (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Chicago Blackhawks Task Force

Djsasso i've noticed that you are a member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey and have made numerous contributions to Ice Hockey articles. Because of this I think you could be a valuable member for a task force for the Chicago Blackhawks. On my sandbox i've been making a test page for it and if you want you can check it out. If you are interested in starting this task force please inform me ASAP so we can get started. Thanks!!! Da Drewster (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

See my comment on the Ice Hockey project page. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayne Gretzky 99 Award

Is there any award other than Wayne Gretzky 99 Award? Recently Velan Nandhakumaran is awarded with "Wayne Gretzky Award".Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you mean? Any other award for what? -DJSasso (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

My doubt is cleared now. Thanks.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hockey Player Submissions

Hello. Sorry I am not sure how to inbox you, as I am fairly new to wikipedia. I had created a half dozen articles, all but one marked for deletion. I was just seeing if you can clarify the WP:NHOCKEY rules for submission, especially #1: Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league. Is the NHL considered the only professional league. The reason I submitted entries for some Winnipeg Jets prospects, is I noticed players who were drafted later, and are not likely to ever make the NHL. Examples would be Marcus Karlström and Pavel Kraskovsky. Does Wikipedia consider the KHL a "top professional league?" If there is a list of hockey leagues, other than the NHL, which fall under this guideline, it would really help me, in trying to create article at a later date. Any help would be greatly appreciated, as the two players I brought up as an example, have not been any more remarkable, than the players deleted. Thanks for your time. WpgJets4Life (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

No worries, we were all new once. The list you are looking to is linked on WP:NHOCKEY but you may have missed it. The list is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. Now I should stress that WP:NHOCKEY is just a rule of thumb, meeting it does not necessarily mean an article can be created or will be kept. The main notability article for all articles regardless of topic is WP:GNG. If it doesn't meat GNG it doesn't matter that it meets NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY was just created as a way to help people guess before doing the research to find sources if an article probably meets GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Cheers! WpgJets4Life (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for helping out a newbie, with edits and criteria for ice hockey players. WpgJets4Life (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted article

Are you insulting me with this article reverted? AaronWikia (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Insulting you? I don't even know what you mean. I am merely reverting back to the layout of the article at the time your Afd failed. You have attempted to change the content in such a way (making it about ice rinks?) in an apparent way to circumvent the Afd outcome. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You know what? Shut up! AaronWikia (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hope you enjoy the rest of your day. :P -DJSasso (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You said I need to stop reverting and get consensus or I will likely end up blocked. I refuse not to stop reverting. AaronWikia (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologized

I am sorry, Djsasso. For what I did is wrong for reverting this article and get consensus and getting blocked for two days. From now on, I will never edit or revert this article for further notice. AaronWikia (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Taylor Chorney

I thought it was the other way around in these instances, such as Sean Couturier. --Parkfly20 (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would probably flip Sean Couturier. I believe we have typically gone by birth country as it is somewhat more objective whereas when you start trying to decide at what point is someone the other nationality you start venturing into more opinion based decisions. But I can obviously see both sides of the argument. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Oppose so you get only one cookie, but a nice one. (Better luck next time.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

please review requestz

Could you please take a look at the building up requests at the username usurpations page. Thanks Wikipenguin 8 (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Dolovis and DJSasso and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Arbitration amendment request archived

The Dolovis arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

More SNyler IPs

They have been using 107.10.43.51, 24.154.205.176 and 24.144.241.194 in the past few days. Deadman137 (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry I missed it until now. -DJSasso (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries, they are now using 24.144.240.20, 72.23.99.60. Deadman137 (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, blocked the active one and marked them both as used by him. If he makes any more recent edits on the one that hadn't edited in 10 days I will block it too. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

About your logouts...

I can't say that hasn't happened to me ... because it has. This might be a suggestion that I'm not sure if you have done or not: Have you tried to choose the "keep me logged in for 30 days" option when logging in? I've noticed that the "sudden log out" issue happened to me less often after doing so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Poll for naming convention for list of leaders/champions. You are being contacted to help form a consensus based on your earlier participation at a related thread, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 40#Proposed moves for some single-season stat pages. Thanks in advance. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Blackhawks

I do not understand your actions on the Chicago Blackhawks article and its talk page. It is my understanding that any editor may place a npov tag when a discussion has reached a dead end. I was not the only complainant, I entered a discussion involving an anonymous editor who unfortunately chose to pursue an edit war. However I agree with the basis of the discussion, three editors of article are not allowing for any POV other than their own. It is also my understanding that when a pov tag is placed, a new section on the talk page is appropriate in order to start to discussion again, hopefully with new participants.FriendlyFred (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

And any user can remove the tag when they don't feel it is appropriate. A new section on a discussion that was dead for some time is appropriate. But that discussion was literally ongoing. So starting a new section is often seen as trying to hide the older comments from new participants. I think you need to focus on discussing the situation, and refrain from what appears to be pointy edits. As someone not involved in that discussion the section you are complaining about does appear to be neutral is it mentions opinions from both sides of the issue. If you think it can be even more neutral while not coatracking in the more general topic (which is already linked to in the section) then I suggest continuing to discuss. But as I read that discussion it appeared to me that what you want is to remove the neutrality and to push the section to only really discussing one side of the controversy which would then actually be NPOV. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The point I have been trying to make is that giving equal weight to both sides of an issue when one side is represented by scholars in peer-reviewed sources, while the other side is represented only by individual opinions in newspapers, is not neutral because of undue weight. Two of the three participants in the discussion reject the idea that peer-reviewed scholarship exists on the issue, which to me indicates the need to expand the discussion. The NPOV tag was the beginning of the process of doing so. The next step is a posting to the NPOV notice board.FriendlyFred (talk) 00:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

No the topic is the controversy, controversy does not rely only on scholarly research. The opinions on both sides of a controversy are of equal weight when trying to remain neutral. You are confusing quality of sources with weight of different parts of the subject. They are very different things. Being neutral means you don't give one side of the issue more coverage than the other when they are both major viewpoints. Discounting newspapers just because they are newspapers is the very definition of being POV. Having just read the controversies article that you mention as being primarily written by you I can see where the others in the discussion are coming from, that article is very heavily POV, there is almost no coverage at all of the other side of the controversy. You can't have a controversy with only one side or it wouldn't be a controversy. That article needs a heavy rewrite. And I should note they don't reject the idea that there is scholarly research on the topic, but that you can't peer-review opinions like you can with hard facts. -DJSasso (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox highlights order for Tony Gwynn

Since you participated before at the 2012 discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_32#Order_of_achievements, you are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Infobox_highlights_order to help reach a consensus on the first highlight to list in Tony Gwynn's infobox. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Landon Bathe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Landon Bathe 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/Landon Bathe (2nd nomination) 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 notice from the top of the article. Joeykai (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

SNIyer12 New IPs

72.23.38.243, 24.239.112.119. Deadman137 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Also 72.23.251.149. oknazevad (talk) 16:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Add 24.101.134.31, 24.154.205.13, 24.101.130.214, 72.23.249.49, 72.23.80.48 and 24.101.130.104 as well. Deadman137 (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I wasn't around much due to holidays but I have marked most of these. I could only block the first couple because most hadn't edited in a month. -DJSasso (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of removal of global bot status from one or various accounts of yours

Hello PAGENAME}}. You are being contacted as owner of one or more accounts flagged with global bot status. This is to inform you that pursuant §1.1.4 of the global bot policy as amended by this RFC one or various of the global bots which you operate are inactive in the terms laid out by the global bot policy. As such, global bot status from those account(s) have been removed. This message is being left on Meta-Wiki and on your homewiki. We thank you for your work as global bot operator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can raise them at the Stewards' Noticeboard on Meta-Wiki. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio ~~~
— This message has been automatically delivered by on behalf of MarcoAurelio.

Global bot

This message is being left on your talk page at Meta-Wiki and those of your home wiki(s). Sorry for the duplicates.

Dear global bot operator: Some days ago you received a message in which you were informed that one or various accounts you hold lost a global bot flag because of inactivity. Due to a mistake, messages informing about this were not sent before removal took place as policy mandates. As such, if you think your bot will be active again on global bot duties, you can request the restoration of the global bot flag on the stewards' noticeboard at Meta-Wiki within the next two (2) weeks after this message has been posted. Please note that this removal was purely procedural based on inactivity. If you have any questions, you can reach me on my talk page at Meta-Wiki. Please accept my apologies in advance for this. Best regards. -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of MarcoAurelio at 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Another SNIyer12 New IP

24.101.131.186 is the latest and it looks like the lock on the Rangers last championship season needs to be reinstated. Deadman137 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocked both IPs he was using on there. If he comes back on that page I will reinstate the lock. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Your bot in Ukrainian Wikipedia

Hi. You have received this message, because you have a bot in Ukrainian Wikipedia. For a long time, your bot has not committed any actions in our project. Currently, Ukrainian Wikipedia community decides what to do with inactive bots. We encourage you to visit this page and inform the community whether you would need the bot flag in the future, and if so, why. If you no longer need the flag, we would be grateful if you inform the community.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page, or place them on the page to which I have referred. Unfortunately, I cannot look at all the pages, so if you ask the question here, most likely, I can not answer.

We expect a response from you within a week of receiving this message.

Thank you for attention. Best regards, bureaucrat of Ukrainian Wikipedia Максим Підліснюк (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

PM regarding the "Birthplace abbreviation in player infobox"

Sorry for asking this here as I didn't want to pollute the main discussion. What do you mean by "It wasn't until the debates over the status of the Baltic countries did we really start listing sub-national entities for other countries."? I'm from one of those countries and somehow didn't hear any ice hockey-related debate regarding this issue. Clarification would be nice. Cheers. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. Already found and read that discussion. Both parties had good arguments. While I completely agree on "Moreover, the incorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the USSR had never been recognized de jure by the United States or virtually any other Western country", but I can't deny (even if I hate it) that our three countries were a part of USSR (despite it being illegal as in previous statement). Oh yes, I also encountered nationalists in Baltic-related articles and I usually leave that crap alone when I can. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that debate raged on over many different talk pages. Went on for quite awhile. And yeah trying to stay out of that pit of quicksand is a good idea. I usually avoided it when I could, but it boiled over at that point, I think someone went on a mass changing spree or something, I forget. -DJSasso (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

He's back... again

Sorry to bother you yet again, but our favourite little vandal from Ohio has come out of hiding using the IP addresses of 24.154.205.6 and 72.23.99.14. Deadman137 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hockey on the ice. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Right now this links to bandy, which is quite ridiculous if you ask me. Hockey on ice is ice hockey, and the redirect should justifiably go to that page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

List of Dallas Stars seasons

Would you consider temporarily protecting this article? There is an Australian editor (minor IP hopper, though I don't suspect any wrongdoing in their using of different IPs) who seems bent on ignoring the consensus of the Round name Rfc, I have tried to talk to them directly on the matter with no response. If I have over-stepped please feel free to tell me to screw off and I'll figure something else out. Deadman137 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

To be fair that Rfc was really only about that playoff bracketing, but your reverts of their edits do make sense so I have semi-protected the page for a week. We will see if that makes a difference. If it doesn't let me know. -DJSasso (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Right after the protection expired they were right back at it. Deadman137 (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

We will go with a longer protection and hope they get bored. If they don't I will start playing wack a mole with blocks. Feel free to keep warning them if you continue to see them. Makes it easier to say they were warned when it comes to blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

a little help

there is some persistent nuisance editing by what appears to be the same person. The hockey pages involved Bulgaria men's national ice hockey team and Bulgaria women's national ice hockey team don't appear to be malicious, but are annoying. Can you give me a little direction on what to do next, I am tired of reverting and don't know the other subjects well that this editor is repeatedly changing. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, their edits are acceptable, if not the nicest looking. They are good faith edits. Did you try talking with them rather than just reverting? I might actually suggest using the tables he creates but get rid of the god awful colours. The tables are much easier to read (minus the colour). -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The tables are one thing (they are not correct but seem to get closer each time), but "The Bulgarian men's national ice hockey team competes in Division I at the Ice Hockey World Championships. The team has participated once at the Olympic Games. Their greatest achievements came in 1998, when they won the Balkan Championship along with the IIHF World Championship. They continued their legacy when they won the World Championship, one more time in 2014. The team is currently ranked 33rd in the World and several of Bulgaria's key players play in the NHL both in Canada and the United States." Why would I discuss that?18abruce (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I am not familiar enough with the data one way or the other. It appeared to me they just put the information in a table. Didn't realize the information changed. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

quick question

Since I respect your opinion on wikipedia matters, am I in the wrong in my recent "edit war" with an IP on American Hockey League about the Springfield Falcons note in the table list? It seems minor to me (there have been dozens of relocations and all the others say "see main article") but I have no intention of trying to cross the entire three revert rule and the IP's edits are not wrong just overly specific (in my opinion). Yosemiter (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say so, myself, and I've been eyeballing the exchange. Leaving aside my innate bias as a longtime Springfield season ticket holder, a catchphrase of mine is that no one hands out prizes for the first one to make an edit. The situation is still in flux ... heck, we don't even know for a certain who these mysterious investors in the new Springfield team are, or whether they might (or are in a position to) name the new team "Falcons." The cleanest way of handling it might wind up being changing the Pirates entry to the new Tuscon team. We don't know yet, and there's neither any rush nor any need to write an essay about it in the table. Ravenswing 21:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say you are wrong, but there often comes a point where you just let it be for now per the reasons Ravenswing mentions. I am a bit disappointed Portland is moving. I was thinking about hitting them up for a game next year since they are the closest AHL team to me other than the one over on the rock. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Of course I'm glad Springfield still will have a team, but I dislike it coming at the expense of another New England town. Portland's had poor attendance in recent years, though, and that nasty lease dispute didn't help. I'm given to understand Godfrey Wood is spearheading an effort to bring a ECHL team in ... and as to the mysterious investors in Springfield, it suddenly struck me who they must be, last night: the MGM casino interests, wanting to keep bookings up for the Civic Center. Ravenswing 18:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
• It certainly is a shame since it really seems to indicate the death of old minor league hockey for a more development based system. But then again I only had the WCHL (or even lower semi-pro) teams locally. I moved and then the AHL Utah Grizzlies were immediately replaced by another ECHL team. So I guess I might be a bit less attached to any teams and a bit heartless about relocations. Yosemiter (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Seems prudent. My first year as a season ticket holder in Springfield was 1988-89, and only two teams are left from that year: Hershey and Rochester. Other than those, only Springfield, Utica and Binghamton still have teams. I still grit my teeth over how the Maritimes were cleared out of teams, and that really hit 20 years ago now. Ravenswing 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah the Maritimes were cleared out before I moved here so I had no attachment to any of those teams. That being said, like most of Canada I prefer to have the Major Junior teams in town than the AHL anyway, enjoyment factor seems higher seeing the kids play than seeing the minor leagues with its older washouts sprinkled in with prospects. -DJSasso (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• Since you folks are keeping an eye out, it seems definite the new Springfield team won't be named 'Falcons.' The local paper's just announced a Name The Team contest. [3] Ravenswing 10:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Hockey on the ice as ice hockey

Hi. I'd like to know the source you have for saying hockey on the ice could mean ice hockey. I won't argue, I'm just interested. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I also wonder. Doesn't Djsasso have any source to support this? Röd Boll (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Err ... how about common sense? Ravenswing 12:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not a factor in this case. Hockey on the ice is not a descriptive sentence when used as an old synonym to bandy, it's a compound word, a term for a certain sports code. I want to know if it really has been used the same way for ice hockey. Djasso says it has, but when asked, has not presented evidence for this. Röd Boll (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Whether one is a compound word or not doesn't actually matter. And for the record "hockey on the ice" is not a compound word, football would be a compound word for example. It is very much a descriptive sentence. One that has very obviously been used for ice hockey and is still used for ice hockey. As such is an ambiguous term. Here is one example from 1843. Here is a better to read article that talks about it as well. The pertinent quote from the last article would be "The first recorded uses of the word "hockey" in what we know today as Canada, are credited to members of the British Armed Forces in their travels abroad. Arctic explorer Sir John Franklin noted that his crew members, who included Royal Navy men, exercised by playing hockey on the ice at Fort Franklin, Northwest Territories, in 1825. Eighteen years later, in 1843, a British army officer recorded in his diary that he had learned to skate and play hockey on the ice at Kingston, Upper Canada." -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is another. If you click on the actual photo it mentions that the subject was playing hockey on the ice. Which is clearly ice hockey based on the stick he has. And these are just very quick google searches. If I were to actually go find scholarly books I could find hundreds more but I am busy at the moment. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And another from 1900. Clearly not bandy due to the number of players on the ice. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hell, here is a modern day use of the term to mean ice hockey. Want more? -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

No, thank you. I just don't understand why you couldn't give these links when originally asked for them. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File:USA Hockey.svg

Hi Djasso. I believe the consensus reached at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive 67#File:USA Hockey.svg was that only the file's use in USA Hockey was NFCC compliant. Anyway, I'll ping @GermanJoe, Stefan2, Masem, and RJaguar3: just to clarify. It's possible that this may require additional discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against an additional FFD discussion, although 5 participants was already a relatively good number of editors - especially for file deletion discussion with notoriously low participation. However, until a new discussion ends differently, the current consensus should be respected and the file should be removed from additional articles. GermanJoe (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Hockey Canada.svg

Hi again Djsasso. This file was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 30#File:Hockey Canada.svg and the close by Explicit was "The result of the discussion was: keep in Hockey Canada, remove all other instances." This can be seen if you look at File talk:Hockey Canada.svg and it the edit sums of the various articles where Explicit removed the file like this edit. If you would like Explicit to reconsider his close, then please discuss it with him per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

FFD discussions like Afd discussions are not set in stone. Just like an article can be recreated, someone can later come along and re-add images. If you feel that there is still a consensus to delete them feel free to open a new discussion. That being said there was very little participation in that discussion and based on the discussion at the other page you are in, I am guessing there is little consensus for their removal. I am not challenging his close so your link is not applicable. He made a fine close, my edit is that I don't believe there currently exists a consensus any longer, if there ever truely was one as such I am boldly readding the images as I am able to do. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was closed by Explicit in good faith based upon a consensus established in previous FFD discussions and the administrator's interpretation of relevant policy. The file was then removed by Explicit from the articles after his close. If you disagree with the close or would like clarification, then it is up to you to discuss it with the closing administrator. FFD is the community venue for discussing file relate matters and the closes of FFD discussions are a consensus. Continuing to re-add files removed as a result of a FFD discussion is likely to be considered a violation of WP:3RR, but removing them is not per WP:NOT3RR. If you don't believe a consensus exists, then discuss things with Explicit and explain your reasons why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

8 months after a deletion discussion is considered more than enough time to recreate/readd something that was removed in discussion. No one is obligated to go back to the original closer of such an old discussion to ask them to reconsider their close. If he closed the discussion only a week or two ago or something like that, then yes of course I would go to him. Continued removal would be edit warring as well. If you think there is still a consensus for them to be removed them feel free to FFD them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus may change, but there is no expiration date on FFD closes and they do not become invalid simply because an editor does not agree with them or feels enough time has passed since the discussion was closed. It is up to the editor wishing to use non-free content to justify its non-free use, not the other way around. Since the file was removed as a result of a FFD discussion, it is up to you to discuss things and justify why its non-free use is now NFCC compliant. Anyway, I have asked Explicit to clarify his close. If he agrees with you, then he will revise his close accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say there was an expiration date. I said that there is a point where the closer does not need to be consulted on their close. If an article for example is deleted a year ago and it is found out today that the player is indeed notable the article can be recreated immediately and does not need to go through DRV or have the closer reconsider. An editor can just do it. FFD or any of the other deletion mechanisms on wikipedia operate in the same way. Multiple discussions with considerable more editors than in the deletion discussion have indicated their consensus that sport federation logos are completely NFCC compliant in these uses, as such the material situation of the image has changed allowing any editor to readd it in the same way the material information about the article in the example above had materially changed. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be snarky, but it does seem that you are suggesting that FFD closes are only valid for a certain period of time or at least until someone decides to re-add a file removed per the FFD discussion. I agree they are not set in stone, but there is a way to discuss/challenge/question them as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Explicit closed the discussion on January 23, 2016 which means that a little more than 5 months have passed since then, so we are not talking a year or years after the fact. The arguments made in the FFD discussion were made in good faith and reflected similar closes made in other NFCR/FFD discussions going back as far as August 2014, so a consensus on such logo use had been established via FFD. While it's true that there is an ongoing discussion at WT:NFCC regarding the use of such logos, it is still unresolved and I do not think it is close to a consensus yet. It may turn out that community will decide that such usage is NFCC compliant, and if that's the case I believe the close will be retroactively applied. However, this does not mean that simply discussing whether this usage is OK means that previously properly closed FFD discussions per WP:FFDAI are no longer applicable. Non-free use is not automatic and it is the burden of those wishing to use it to establish that the non-free use of a particular file is justified. If a file has been removed from an article because of a FFD discussion determined that its non-free use is not justified for said article, then it is the burden of those wishing to re-add the file to show otherwise either by discussing things with the closing admin/editor or establishing a new consensus via FFD. It should make no difference how much time has passed since the FFD discussion was closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to add underlined sentence. -- 00:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)]

(edit conflict) DJSasso, I'm afraid your comparison to an article about a player to a media is well-intended, but misguided. In your hypothetical scenario, the article was deleted as non-notable, and was recreated a year later after the subject became notable. It would not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 because the circumstances have changed, and you are correct that a DRV would not be required in this case. However, for the image, the circumstances remain entirely the same. Consensus is not permanent and it can change, but through a community-based discussion. The idea that the result of a discussion at FFD (regardless of the user turnout) can be ignored once a couple of months fly by creates a slippery slope, and just opens the door to abuse. This would require users to go through the process of re-establishing consensus that was defied without discussion, continually, for the course of the oncoming years. Hopefully, you can understand how this process would ultimately be unhelpful in the long-term. You don't disagree with my closure, and that's fine, but perhaps revisiting the issue by nominating the file and arguing for its inclusion in other articles at FFD would be a better way to approach the situation. — ξ^xplicit 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Another round of whack-a-block evader

IP addresses 173.91.152.44, 24.112.248.184, 72.23.175.14, 72.23.100.135, 24.154.65.221, 24.239.49.185, 72.23.101.10, 24.101.132.217, 72.23.100.52, 72.23.249.55, 24.154.103.26. Those are the all the new ones that I have found so far. Deadman137 (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok cool, took care of it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Provincial Junior Hockey League

• Please see: Empire B Junior C Hockey League and Template:OHA-C. I would appreciate a third party before this devolves into an edit war. Could you please look into it. Convo here: [4] Thanks! DMighton (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Djsasso. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

RTagoe33

Hi Djsasso, RTagoe33 is causing some disruption, repeatedly making edits which I've objected to without any explanation, for example here. I'm wondering if this could be a return of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SNIyer12? I'm not particularly familiar with the master, but they seem to have similar interests and behaviours. 72.23.80.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), for instance, seems to make very similar edits. RTagoe33 was created a day after you blocked 107.10.43.51 as a sock of SNIyer12, so the timing is very convenient.

I can file a new SPI, but wanted to run it by you first as you seem to have a lot of experience with the master. TDL (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

undeleting hockey players

Thank you, I was running through U18, and U20 pages checking details and came across a few who passed NHOCKEY now, or will soon (I think). If I run into any confusion over them in the future I will let you know. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Scott Pitt

Could use a little help. Went to nominate this article for deletion and the usual prompts did not come up. Instead it linked to a 2012 discussion where it was closed as delete, I don't understand what has happened here or how to proceed. I am suspicious that Dolovis simply recreated a deleted article but I don't know for sure.18abruce (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It was a recreated article, if you look at the comments in the source of your original change it tells you how to fix the post so that it links to the new nomination. You are probably going to have to do the listing manually instead of using a script is my guess. Basically you just have to alter the link so that it links to one with a disambiguation for 2nd nomination. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Djsasso.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

SNIyer12

They're back and using the IP addresses of 24.101.176.119, 24.101.134.12, 72.23.205.127 and it looks like they created a new account using the username of Brownsfan677. Deadman137 (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I had been wondering about Brownsfan a few weeks back. With the inclusion of those IPs which are definitely him it gave me enough evidence to block based on WP:DUCK. So they are all blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

::But is Browns fan or his IP doing problematic editing. WP:LOGOUT says 'There is no policy against editing while logged out per se.' I personally disagree with almost all the sports articles he's been creating but is that a reason to block? Your block summary says block evasion. Is Brownsfan the sock of a banned user?Sorry about the above. If its SNIyer12, then all these articles he's been creating should be speedy deleted under WP:DENY. I will nominate them but are we sure it is SNIyer12?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

FYI there is no block template on Brownsfan's talk page and he is appealing the block....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah 100% confident that it is SNYler. We know SNYler is in youngstown and makes these sorts of edits. Browns fan clearly edited while logged out as he was editing at the same time as these IPs which clearly link to SNYler as they are also from youngstown. And the types of edits are his usual edits, especially the ones surrounding the Rangers cup year. Unfortunately we can't officially CU it against SNYler because he hasn't edited in that account for awhile. A number of sports projects have been playing wack a mole with him for years. Alot of his edits get reverted on sight per DENY but they often don't because they end up mixed in with other good edits so few people want to take the time to clear them out when they are sometimes ok edits. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Can you speedy delete this creatio[5] of his?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. -DJSasso (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I just saw how Brownsfan admitted[6] to being SNIyer12. He needs to read WP:STANDARDOFFER then not sock at wikipedia for at least 6 months to a year then ask for reinstatement. In the past I have been a hunter of notorious sock puppeteer Ryan kirkpatrick[7] who has created over 100 sock accounts. He was told of the Standard offer too. Ryan k has been quiet of late either that or his most recent sock(s) haven't been discovered yet. I became familiar after he created a bunch of hockey rivalry articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Djsasso. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hockey

First, sorry for the snide comment... Been a long morning over here. Second, great comeback!! Made me chuckle. To expand on what I said in response, I think that some of those hockey pages could be possibly be notable. My issue is that there was an editor who signed up for an account and created like 150 pages full of broken templates and loads of stats. Many of the pages have had broken code for over a year. Why is this important? Because it indicates to me that no one really cares about the pages, otherwise they probably would have been fixed at some point. These also seem to represent someone's attempt at using Wikipedia as a web host. Bottom line, I'm really advocating WP:TNT for most of these pages. That being said, if you or someone else wanted to take the time to clean them up (or eventually re-create them) with proper formatting and cited information, I wouldn't have any objection to that and would actually withdraw the AFD for those pages. Just sharing my thinking. Hope you are well! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there was nothing personal in my comments. Just looked like an indiscriminate attempt to nuke all of a users pages. A lot of your issues with them are completely valid. I just hate nuking pages just because they are in a bad state. There is a WP link somewere that talks about how you shouldn't comment at AFD based on how the article is, only on how it could be if it was done properly, that afd isn't for cleanup or some such thing. I figure most of them will end up getting deleted but some of them have quite a bit of content I think would suck to lose. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe what you are looking for is WP:DINC. I'm split on that. I think in some cases it is a valid argument to be made. For example, if a user signed up and created 1 or 2 pages today that were in this state, then I would tag them with maintenance templates and work to clean them up, not take them to AFD. But, these pages are over a year old, no one is bothering to clean them up and no new material is being added. It is based on this last reason that I went the AFD route instead of the cleanup route. This was really a drive by editor who created then left. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ice hockey team season

What pages broke? I tested the hell out of this before I made the changes.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to follow up on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_5#Template:Infobox_ice_hockey_team_season... Are you supporting the merge now? If so can you vote to merge? If not I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seemed to be supporting it. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCIH

Is a consensus needed to make a change to WP:NCIH? This is what is confusing – All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey). It assumes that for GMs, coaches, and other staff diacritics shouldn't be used on North American articles. However, I think this is just a silly mistake, because it makes no sense to give a cookie to one side (players) and ignore the other (staff). What do you think? – Sabbatino (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

We say players, but really it applies to everyone. Its just bad wording. If you tried to do the opposite for non-players you would likely get reverted just like if it was a player. It's just that players are the most common situation so that is how it was worded when written. But applying common sense it applies to all person names. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I still think that it should be clarified that this policy applies to all NA hockey-related people. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

International ice hockey tournaments

You removed notability from international ice hockey tournaments (thank you for doing that). Still, someone deleted at least 2016 Channel One Cup. J 1982 (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Restored. Just so you know anyone can object to prods. So if you seen a prod you don't agree with you can remove the notice. You just can't do it with Afds. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:MassCourts

You deleted Talk:MassCourts in 2005 per WP:G5, but you did not note the user. Can you please clarify which user created the page in violation of WP:G5? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

User:HanselnGretel who was a sock of Kumioko. -DJSasso (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

"standard to leave sponsorship in place, and saddledome by itself was never its name"

Where is this? Why are we letting corporate naming rights dictate how we cover sports facilities on Wikipedia? Unless there is no non-sponsored, common name, these companies should not get free publicity on Wikipedia. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether it is for sponsorship or not, it is the actual name of the building. And a quick google search of "Scotiabank Saddledome" and "Saddledome -Scotiabank" shows more hits with the name than without which would throw any argument trying to state common name out the door. We don't make judgement calls on Wikipedia to avoid giving free publicity as that would be not be WP:NPOV, we state facts. And that fact is, that is the name of the arena right now. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected template edit request

It looks like I need an admin to edit Template:Infobox ice hockey team season and I was hoping you could help me out. I made an edit request at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey team season last week. After the templates were merged last January, it lost the minor league affiliates parameter which is used on at least 100 team season pages (and more). Maybe the change is not required, but they don't hurt anything either and the parameters are already in use despite not being on the merged template. Thank you. Yosemiter (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup looks like the guy who did the merge missed them. Fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I ask you for a third opinion or refer someone?

Hi, long time no write. Hope all is well. I am involved, unfortunately, in an edit war on the following articles Conn Smythe, Allen Road and Marilyn Bell. On each page is a scan of a front-page from The Globe and Mail. An editor has removed them from the articles and I have put them back and requested a 3rd opinion. However, they keep being reverted. I have opened an incident. Can you provide the 3rd opinion or do you know an Admin who has experience in non-free articles? If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I'd like to see process followed. I do sincerely think they pass the requirements. If you say no, I understand, but maybe you can pass it along. I'd rather be editing. (There must be a bumper/user page sticker like that) Alaney2k (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you have some opinions at the report so I will let them deal with it. I am not a huge expert on the specific image issue you are having. -DJSasso (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

List of countries with ice rinks and ice hockey listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of countries with ice rinks and ice hockey. Since you had some involvement with the List of countries with ice rinks and ice hockey redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. AaronWikia (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

機械人權限撤銷預告/ Notification of pending suspension of bot permissions due to inactivity

根據中文維基百科機械人方針，任何機械人及其操作者如超過兩年沒有活動，經機械人權限覆核並向操作者發出通知就會除權。如欲保留機械人權限，請於一週通知期內至此告知。如欲恢復機械人權限，歡迎再次申請。最後謹此感謝以往良多貢獻。
According the Bot Policy of Chinese Wikipedia, bot accounts that have had no edits for two years, where the listed operator has also had no edits for two years, will be deauthorized. Prior to deauthorization, the bot will be nominated for review and a one-week notification will be issued. If you wish to have these permissions retained, please post to this page within a week. Re-application of the permissions is needed if you remain inactive for the notice period. Thank you for your past efforts.—J.Wong09:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	A barnstar for you Tallahassle (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for letting me know that redirects are okay, but you'll have to link me to the section of WP:R that says redirects for a template (that has no bearing on the spelling style of the prose) should be created for no reason where they did not previously exist, as I've missed it. I don't understand why that would need to be changed. -- Acefitt 08:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The script changed all Canadian spelling on the page, going back through to cancel the change of something that isn't an issue would be unproductive. It is not like the only change to the page was changing those templates, if I had just gone on the page and changed only those templates I would agree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Irish ice hockey players

A tag has been placed on Category:Irish ice hockey players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as a category that is empty, is not currently in a deletion discussion (or was emptied outside of that process), and is not a category redirect, a disambiguation category, a featured topics category, or a project category that by its nature becomes empty on occasion. This category may be deleted if it has remained empty for at least seven days.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AaronWikia (talk) 05:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Do not empty categories out of process. If you think they should be deleted, bring them to WP:CFD. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't empty them out of process, I simply re-categorized them in the applicable categories since these were duplicates of already existing ones. I also didn't think they should be deleted, I redirected them per WP:CATRED as these are not the first time categories were used/created with "players" instead of "people" for this set of categories (by set I mean type not specifically these two). In particular the portion that says "However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over....Instead, we use a form of "soft redirects" to solve the issue." -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please note that you are leaving misleading edit summaries, marking the size of non-existent photos and deleting removing templates but marking these changes as minor. e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leon%C4%ABds_Beres%C5%86evs&diff=next&oldid=773412249 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I accidentally changed my edit summary for a bit and didn't notice. If I could go back and edit the summaries I would. Not really sure how it even happened as it was mid run. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sun Zehao

If you have time could you take a look at this article. The bulk of it is clearly plagiarized from german wikipedia, but I don't know what action or remedy would be suitable. I tried reading the guidelines but got lost, thanks for any help you can offer.18abruce (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The easiest way to deal with it is to use the {{Translated page}} template on the article talk page and warn the user which I have done. I took a look and it was very clearly from that source. The problem now of course is how many other pages has he done that on. -DJSasso (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Prod stuffup

Hi. You added a prod tag to Alec Kirschner. However articles that have received a prod before are not eligible to have a second prod. You must check the history to see if this has happened before adding prod to an article. Instead you may use WP:AFD process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I am aware, simply didn't notice that it had been marked as a prod when I did it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of categories

This edit removed a number of categories from the article for John Carlson (ice hockey) without explanation. There is no edit summary, nor do I see any edit summaries for other edits. I will revert the edit, but I would appreciate an explanation for your edits here and in other such articles. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty simple, he was born in Natick. He wasn't born in New Jersey, consensus in the Ice hockey people from categories is that we only use the category for the place they were born, because you can only be from a singular place as opposed to lived in a place. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You can be born in only one singular place, but you can be from many plural places. In Carlson's case, he was born in Natick, but lived the remainder of his childhood in New Jersey. As he moved at the age of five, he may never have been on the ice or played hockey in Natick. In many ways, it's far harder to justify that he belongs in Category:Ice hockey people from Massachusetts, based solely on his having been born and lived as a toddler in the state.

As the article demonstrates, all of his youth hockey was in New Jersey. Take a look at Category:People from Woodbridge Township, New Jersey, which states that the "The people listed below were born in, residents of, or otherwise closely associated with Woodbridge Township, New Jersey." Further notice that the categories use the word "from" rather than "born in"; if you can point to a policy that limits from-ness to being born in a place, I'd love to see it.

As an admin, I would hope that you would have made a far better case for removal of categories, and it should go without explanation per Help:Edit summary (which starts out with the section "Always provide an edit summary") that every edit should be accompanied by an appropriate edit summary, especially where the justification for the removal of content in the edit is so tenuous. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the arguments on the other side of the issue. From means where was your origin, your origin was where you were born. You may have lived in X place but you weren't from there. I have lived in many cities but I wasn't from any of them, I am from the city of my birth. Typically, most from categories only include those born there. I admit I did not see the description on that particular category as such if it is described that way I won't argue it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello old friend

I have semi-returned to editing again. Nice to see you're still around. I created a new article today. I'm sure you'll see it soon enough. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes its been a long time since I have seen you around these parts. I have mostly slowed right down editing here myself, except for the last month or two I have done a bit. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop stalking me

I should report you for following me around. I only posted the AfD notice on the editor's page. How is that votestacking? You should try to control your temper. I seem to have fallen on your bad side and that's not my doing. I cannot control you. I have not baited you or insulted you, yet you regularly dismiss my opinion. Alaney2k (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't followed you around. Please show me where I have been following you around or retract that accusation, I simply saw you posted on someones talk page who I had on my watchlist. Click the link in my comment that explains votestacking. Votestacking is notifying people who can be expected to vote a certain way in an Afd discussion while not doing the same to people who could be expected to vote the other way. I don't regularly dismiss your opinion, in fact I have supported you in your opinion a number of times when you have come and asked me for help. But in the case of these recent articles it is like you have completely forgotten the standards of wikipedia. All articles have to meet GNG, as Ravenswing said, we don't just say "Oh the media isn't covering them as much as they should? Then I guess we will just ignore GNG." That is the argument you have been making while at the same time throwing out bad faith accusations to editors of the Wikiproject, which as a very experienced editor you should know better. I have no issue with you, in fact I have enjoyed your presence on the wiki and wish you still took part in the hockey project, but I can't help but notice you seem to get into a lot of arguments lately, recently I saw you getting into quite the fight on the Canada article. Perhaps you are burning out on the wiki and need a break, I don't know. Either way I think you need to calm down, it is rather hilarious that you are telling me to control my temper when I am quite fine about things, whereas you are the one here ranting about reporting me and claiming I am stalking. -DJSasso (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I worded it too sternly, more like I should have expressed it more as surprise, like "--EEK-- --WHAT-- YOU'RE STALKING ME? I CAN'T BELIEVE IT! I'M GOING TO TELL MOM!". :-) I don't want my talk page watched, thank you. I think putting someone's talk page on your watchlist, then accusing me of something to be things you should explain, though. (I don't think you should ever have a person's talkpage on watch) If I have a difference of opinion with you, then you should stick to the topic. Calling it a "big no-no", not your finest hour. :-) The rest of your rant here, well, I'll just toss that in the bin, and you should probably too. (As for Canada, I was surprised a bit by Moxy's comments) As for the hockey project, and your specific viewpoint on the articles supported by it, I guess we'll simply disagree. I think that a lot needs to be rethought there. Like the notability standard. Like the bias against women pros. These things will get addressed with time. Alaney2k (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Watching peoples talk pages is pretty much common practice, so much so I am surprised you haven't watch listed anyone's talk page. If I have interacted with a person chances are they are on my watchlist, especially if I have left a message on their talk page at some point so I can see the reply. Also sometimes people need third opinions or because a topic comes up that is of greater interest than to the parties involved on the talk page. And as an admin, it sometimes helps to see if a pattern is developing in someones behaviour that needs to be handled. I probably have hundreds of talk pages on my watch list. But I guess we will have to disagree about the bias thing, we hold both men and women to the exact same standard. Meet the WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I decided since it came up to take a look at how many people were watching me and you on Wikipedia:Database reports/Most-watched users but you don't have enough to show up. I have 133 people watching my page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I kind of feel like it is someone listening in on other conversations at a coffee shop. Alaney2k (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Jean Bougie and Pat Larochelle

I should have known you'd be wearing your lawyer hat. I think these two players' content should be on a "List of Montreal Canadiens (NHA) players" page instead of their own articles. There is no way, no-how, not-ever, I can't put it more strenuously, that there will be significant coverage of these players ever ever ever. These were amateur players borrowed for a game or two. They returned to amateur play. Seriously, putting players who have played in one game should go to a "List of" page, before being promoted to article. For these older players, it's a practical matter, for newer players, it might be a way to control the creation of new articles. For the older players, well it might make more relevant articles rather than permanent stubs. Possibly a "move" proposal? Alaney2k (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Well ... as to that, I was pushing the premise one day that these utterly obscure one-game-ever blokes should just go on a list page, because there was no way, no-how, not-ever that significant coverage would ever be found (say) of Some Guy who played one game in 1881 for the Worcester Ruby Legs. Sure enough, someone took me up on the very player I used for an example. Ravenswing 14:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I could safely bet my bottom dollar that will not happen for these players. I wouldn't bet against it for football players and the UK. Their newspapers and media and books go much further back. Alaney2k (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Err ... newspapers and media and books in North America go back to the 17th century, so I feel pretty sanguine that there isn't a hockey player who ever laced on skates who predates the written word. That being said, let's take Jean Bougie. Just off of the SIHR list, we see his date of birth, that he was born in Valleyfield PQ ... and that there are two other Bougies listed from Valleyfield, a Georges Bougie with a birth date thirty years later, and a Jean-Michel, which the Ottawa Journal records as having scored a couple goals for the Valleyfield Braves in 1948; not at all unreasonable that they're sons or nephews. Jean died on October 19, 1918, which at his age suggests either that he was on this side of the pond and died in the Spanish flu pandemic, or that he was in the 1st Canadian Division and fought in the Battle of the Selle. Not all that shabby for twenty minutes worth of Google Fu at 2 AM, without taking much in the way of genuine pains, for an utterly obscure player, is it? Ravenswing 05:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• This argument comes up at the WP:NSPORTS page for a variety of sports all the time. Some dude who played a single game who people say can't possibly meet GNG, and when the people at NSPORTS go looking for sources they pretty much always do end up finding them. Things people forget is that often the coverage comes from before they played professional or as is often the case it comes long after they played and they get coverage because they were that guy who played one game on the team. Sports historians/writers tend to cover things the average person would be surprised about. I vaguely recall one player in I think in rugby that they didn't even know the full name for having met GNG because there were sources talking about not knowing exactly who he was. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Because it looks stupid. Putting players such as this in a grouped file, is still better that two-line stubs for years and years and years ... Yes, I am objecting in a minor way to the premise of the presumed notability, in wikipedia, because then a stub can stick around forever. (Sure, if someone objects and someone else gets busy, they can find something, but in the meantime, it's shit. Why put up with that? It should not be an article or nothing argument.) But not really, in this case. I think a case for a grouping can be made for simply a better more useful article. Put them separately and it's a bunch of stubs. Put them together and it becomes informative. This approach might be applicable in other cases, instead of bickering over 100 or 200 games, or minor awards, or the quality of sources, or the notability of leagues, and on and on etc. Actually, I don't know what standard there is for lists. WP has many obscure things. Alaney2k (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:GNG

I think you need to go read WP:GNG again. A US president is always notable. The sentence about passing mentions is about how facts are collected from sources, it is not about how Wikipedia articles are written. Bandy Hoppsan (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Yes of course a US president is always going to be notable. However, that has to be verifiable by sources, sources that are a single line that says "Guy X is Y." is a passing mention and thus doesn't prove that the subject has notability. You have to be able to prove notability with sources. In Wikipedia terminology if you can't prove someone is notable with sources they aren't notable. It is sort of like innocent until proven guilty. They are non-notable until proven notable on Wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Also right from the very first sentence of WP:N. "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." (emphasis mine). -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)