This is an archive of past discussions with User:Djsasso. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. I noticed you reverted a couple of instances of this spelling, citing ENGVAR. In fact, "honorary" is the correct spelling worldwide, as a quick look at a dictionary would have revealed. Do you want to revert yourself, or shall I? --John (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually Honourary is how its spelled in Canada and the Commonwealth. And AWB was actually fixed today to address that fact. A link to one of the two discussions today at AWB about the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
You can revert me if you like since I can't find an online version of Canadian English. But do note that atleast 2 other people also reverted you. Ironholds being one. This might be the only version of Honour that doesn't have the u. Since I know for certain that honourable does. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Ironholds had the good grace to self-revert when he realised he was wrong. Honourable is correct in British English, you have that one right. --John (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
History of Star Trek on NBC Deletion
Djasso: Wikipedia records that you deleted the article 'History of Star Trek on NBC' last year beacuse it didn't meet up to Wikipedia's standards. However there was talk in the debate over whether or not the article was going to be deleted that the rerun dates and pre-emptions were important to some fans and that the article should be transwikied to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. You deleted the article before it could be transwikied.
I have a copy of the source of "History of Star Trek on NBC" and I want to post it on Memory Alpha. Because you boast you are experienced on Wikipedia I want to ask two things, first, is it copyright infringement against Wikipedia if I post it on Memory Alpha. Second, if it was illegal to put it on Memory Alpha, would you delete it if it was re-posted on Wikipedia. --John6380 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
As long as you note on the talk page and edit summary (at Memory Alpha) that you are transwiki'ing it from wikipedia you will be compliant with the GFDL license and it would be allowed. As far as reposting it, I personally wouldn't delete it as I probably wouldn't notice that you reposted it, but its more than likely someone else would notice and either delete it or nominate it to be deleted again. -Djsasso (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha, sorry I wasn't able to make them for you guys, I hadn't been on in a while...but you guys got it done anyway. I hope I will have enough extra time to be able to get one a little more often now. It seems as though WP:Hockey has been thriving though if there are more task forces being made, and that's good to hear. BsroiaadnTalk18:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No worries all is good. Glad to have you back. Can always use good editors. We have been having quite the boom lately. -Djsasso (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Maatkit. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Windpaw (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah right. But now days everything is done right there only! Initialy we had two bureaucrats, and those two were not available more often, that is why we wrote all bots request will be perfomed by Steward on Meta! Thus you don't have to worry about Bot flag. We have user Kipala, who is bureaucrat and he's always available!! What you have to do, is to add your request to the place which I shown you above. Cheers,--Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 12:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
That one I can't do. You will have to take that to templates for deletion. But if you put that its unused it will get voted to delete pretty quickly. Just post the link to the tfd on the project main page and you will get hockey edits to go !vote on it. -Djsasso (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem making the move. But we might want to put up a requested move for that. I don't think its super controversial, and I know we have no standard of what to call a team that has stopped operating and had multiple names. But at the same time when this has happened we have usually left it as the last name of the team. -Djsasso (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Requested move might be a good idea... I know this though... they played just short of 600 games as the Sting... 49 games as the Pack... and 37 games as the Hercs... and the fans have been pissed that they ever changed the name from the Sting... nobody will ever truly think of them as the Quinte West Pack or the Trenton Hercs... so I figure the Trenton Sting is the MOST NOTABLE name of the franchise as the other two names were used very little. DMighton (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning. I just know it could cause a back and forth moving thing. (Though I doubt the team is notable enough to warrant that kind of attention.) -Djsasso (talk) 03:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Haha yeah, I saw it on someone elses userpage and its been making me laugh so I thought I would put it here for a little while. -Djsasso (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Your Bot in de.wp
Hi Djsasso,
could you please wait some days before you run your bot at German wikipedia? It does not have the bot flag yet. You only have to wait about 5-6 days. It's a bit annoying, because we have Sighted versions, so anybody has to mark all the edits as controlled. --Aktionsheld (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
NCAA Division I men's ice hockey standings templates
Hey. So I've noticed a real lack of NCAA DI ice hockey content and it seems like lately we've really had an abundance of DI team season articles poping up, half of which somehow manage to stay and the others consensus delete lol. Anyways, so in a effort to sort of prevent these team article while adding to the content level of DI, I'm going to go through and start making season articles (league wide of course) for each year. I've started with the current 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's ice hockey season. Basically, I was hoping to get your opinion on standings templates. As you can see at that page, I've made six templates for the six conferences that compete in DI. Aside from what I've made and what should soon be deleted (thanks for your comment there, btw), there's also a 2002–03 WCHA and 2007–08 WCHA template. The thing is, I don't really know if I should make templates or just stick the hard code into the articles. For this season, Wisconsin, Bowling Green, and Michigan all have season articles, so it's sort of justified for now because as long as the template is being used elsewhere, it's saving space (Minnesota has season articles for both of those other WCHA templates). But once I start making the season articles for years past, I want to go either one way or the other. I'm leaning towards just putting hard code into the articles, and if for some reason DI team season articles become the thing to do, I can just make templates. Then again, I like not having so much clutter in articles, but that's aside from the point. Any thoughts? – Nurmsook!talk...04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Since old seasons aren't going to keep changing hard code would be fine, but as you said, templates would leave the source of each article a little cleaner. I am pretty easy on this. Going on current articles templates are probably the best to use, but the past ones don't really matter to me. And I must say I agree with you, this is probably needed. -Djsasso (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Some of the conferences have their own conference championships pages. I know I saw atleast one the other day. It was set up similar to the stanley cup playoffs pages. -Djsasso (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm admin on it.wiki. I've seen this edit of the your SassoBot. I've rollbacked this edit 'cause, on it.wiki, the interlink to sections are forbidden.
Could you modify your script in order to not add interlinks containing the #?
At the moment I don't find the policy, but it's an usual style on it.wiki. The reason is simple: Suppose that sv:Toppdomän has no interlink toward it.wiki.
A bot running on sv.wiki, seeing that an interlink exists on it.wiki toward that article, will add a counterinterlink from sv:Toppdomän to it:.ws, and that's wrong. This error will be copied into all other wikis' articles linked to the svedish page, worsening the situation.
This problem has occurred more than once in the past and, due to bot jobs, the error spreads quickly. I'll continue to look for the policy, but that's the reason.
You don't have to modify your bot, the standard script is right. Your bot were simply copying an erroneous interlink added in another wiki. I've deleted that interlink from all wikis, and so it will no more be added. Bye Jalo22:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
More fun... could you restore this picture: File:Hamilton Red Wings.png? I asked the admin who deleted it, but he hasn't responded in at least three days. It was deleted due to a bad edit by an anon that I didn't notice until after the image was already deleted. DMighton (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry man, I thought maybe cuz its like an "international draft" that the accents should be there. Guess not. Thanks for the info, I will stop putting that stuff in now. My bad again.
Because the english page is a disambiguation page and the russian one is not, or atleast its not marked as one. If it truely is one it needs to be marked as one or bots will continue to remove it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a bug in the bot algorithm, then. The RU page is a page about the name, Yuri; it gives a few sentences about the name, then a list of notable Yuris. The EN page is a page that gives a list of notable Yuris. They seem like a match; among other things, you'll note the RU page gives the EN page as equivalent English language link. --GRuban (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Basically the bots look for the disambiguation tag. I am not sure what it is on the russian wiki. I will have to go look. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the interwikis for this article are a mess. The problem is that on some wiki's articles about names are different from disambiguation pages about names. So there are alot of wikis that have two interwikis linking to same article which causes havoc. I am going to manually try to clean up this instance. -Djsasso (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned you had some "histories" of the Canadiens franchise in one of the discussions at WP:HOCKEY today. I was wondering if you could take a look at the history timeline I have on my sandbox and let me know if I am missing any major or interesting points in Canadiens history? I'd like to begin work re-writing that article soon, especially given the relatively poor condition of it to start in the hopes that we can get it on the main page for December 09. thanks! Resolute00:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I will take a look and see if I see anything, just got a brand new Canadiens book for x-mas that I haven't read yet, maybe this will give me an excuse. Its been awhile since I was a "fanatic" of the Canadiens, sort of got swept up in the flames after living there for 9 years. But now that I am on the east coast I will probably see more Canadiens games on TV than flames games so will end up reverting back. -Djsasso (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the Japanese CBS Records article must be renamed to Sony Music. I an unable to edit the Japanese article as I don't speak or write in Japanese. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Neither do I, but I meant in terms of interwiki links. Bots would keep readding the interwiki until the link from the japanese article was changed to link to the Sony article. Which it now has. Heck for all I know the japanese article is named the proper way. -Djsasso (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Djsasso, you removed the German interwiki for Denethor with the reason "interwikis are not supposed to link to sections of pages".
Why do you have the impression that interwikis are not supposed to sections of pages? It is indeed a normal practice to do when a language doesn't have an independent article on an item, but instead have collected multiple items in one article, in this case about Tolkien characters. I see no problem in this, and it helps find the description of the item in the other Wikipedia. I see that you operate an interwiki bot, so you must know that the bots have not any problems with this kind of interwikis either, and that they will not try to link back from the larger article. Byrial (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Its actually the bot that made me notice, I had at one of the wikis I was asking for approval on tell me they don't allow interwikis to sections when my bot was adding them. So the assumption then became that all wikis don't allow it because once an interwiki is on one site it ends up on all sites. I personally have no problem with adding them, I just didn't want another conflict with my bot. The reason I noticed the Denethor article was that my bot was about to add another link to another section. However, it could have just been another editors mistake because after you objected I looked up on enwikis interwiki page and it does make the distinction that they are ok as long as they don't link back. -Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! Please disable this bot of yours, it removes interwiki links from certain articles (e.g. surnames). Watch your bot, please, and happy editing! KNewman (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
It removed it because the page on the french wikipedia is a disambiguation page. And non-disambiguation pages should not interwiki with disambiguation pages. -Djsasso (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't put the rule in so its not my policy, its in the standard interwiki bot code. I can ask the developers to remove it. Oh and it would be nice if you would remain civil and not shout at me by bolding. -Djsasso (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping the bot while the issue is considered. My apologies for the bold; your bot was repeatedly doing something unhelpful, five days after this issue was raised here. I was trying to attract your attention. --Rumping (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
SassoBot and disambiguation pages
Hello Djsasso,
I noticed that your bot removed several interwiki links from pages whose corresponding article is a disambiguation page (e.g. Brulion/pl:Brulion,[3]Bruni, Texas/nl:Bruni,[4]Bruno Arcari/it:Bruno Arcari[5]).
In these examples, the articles corresponding to the ones in English still exist—they just have been moved. Your bot should update these interwiki links accordingly instead of removing them. Thanks, Korg (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the plan was to go through them when my run was done and check the list and if they exist as another name to put the proper link in. You just beat me to them. As far as I know the standard interwiki code isn't smart enough to do it automatically. -Djsasso (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I tried looking in the code for interwiki.py to see where it deals with disambiguation pages. This link takes you to the code, and then there is a routine called disambigMismatch. It has this comment:
skip is True iff the pages have mismatching statuses and the bot is either in autonomous mode, or the user chose not to use the given page.
If skip is true, it will not remove the links. This makes it sound like it expects the operator to make a human decision when the disambiguation status is different. Perhaps because it is too messy for the bot to decide automatically. The bot operator is just supposed to work around the issue as best they can :-) EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't usually let my bot remove links so its not really something I ran into until recently. I don't think I will bother doing it unless I am in manual mode. Too much clean up to do when I get up in the morning now. Thanks for taking a look though! -Djsasso (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yet your bot is doing a good job in removing links to pages that no longer exist: as an example, it removed a link to a page that was deleted in April 2007! As it appears that very few bots are doing this, this task is certainly welcome. Thanks, Korg (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
"people get too upset too easily about it"
This attitude is unhelpful. If you receive complaints, please turn off your bot even if you aren't convinced you and your bot that might be at fault. In fact, if people get upset, chances are you have missed something rather than you being accosted by a group of people whose tendency to get easily upset is statistically improbable.
Again, could you add an immediately visible explanation of your bot and its actions, as well as a emergency shutdown button? Both to be shown directly after clicking the bot link from the pages where it has taken action.
The emergency shut down button that you see on bots is usually just a graphically pretty link to the block button. Its explanation of what its doing is in its edit summary. As far as the statistic improbability, I don't think so. Statistically on a wiki people often get upset before they calmly talk about the situation. So no, I do think I am correct in saying they got upset too easily. -Djsasso (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Interwiki links only removed, not added where they should be
I must have missed fixing that one, as mentioned above, thats a bug in the standard code. I no longer remove wikilinks until it is fixed by the developers. -Djsasso (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your user page on Greek Wikisource to your original version and corrected the links by adding the prefix w: to point to Wikipedia. I hope you like it, else just revert me. Andreas (T)15:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I knew it was supposed to have a w but I think I was just a bit asleep that day. Thanks for fixing it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
SassoBot damaging Wikipedia
Would you please stop using your SassoBot on interwiki links for surname pages. Your bot is damaging Wikipedia by making erroneous deletions. I have had to undo these changes several times. See the following revisions:
Stopped a long time ago if you would have checked the above conversations on my talk page. There is a bug in the main bot code which caused that and affected many bots not just mine. Though some have asserted that its not actually a bug and that surname articles should not link to disambig articles. You will also note that there was an ANI on this topic and it was found I did no wrong. -Djsasso (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Also you might have assumed a little good faith and actually checked what the reason might have been behind the removals before you went reverting them and making attacks in your edit summaries and then creating a page to basically try and shame me. Nevermind the fact the edits were a month ago and a quick check of the bots edit history would have shown pretty much no interwiki removals in that time, except the odd one that was done manually. -Djsasso (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Vidyalayam nursery and primary school
I am looking for information about this school, especially for images and for contact information for alumni.
So far the deleted Wikipedia article is my best lead.
I am not arguing against the decision to delete the article; perhaps Vidyalayam is indeed not notable enough to include in Wikipedia.
But I'd like to see the deleted article anyway.
Is that possible?
Among the places you can find me:
http://wiki.frath.net/User_talk:Eldin_raigmorehttp://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Eldin_raigmore
The article had no information in it really, was a one sentence stub that basically said the school existed. -Djsasso (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
The Vidyalayam primary-school and nursery-school is on the CMC campus in the Bagayam district of Vellore. IIANM it was founded in about 1918; I think there is on-line documentation to that effect (provided that's really what it says; I may have misunderstood). Students must speak English to be admitted, and all classes (except for those intended to teach other languages) are conducted in English. The school has a Christian emphasis. The Indian Constitutional interpretation of "freedom of religion" permits pretty much any kind of Christianity, but does not permit denominationalism; in India all Christians must be just Christians, not Protestants or Catholics or whatever. In 1960 the first paid professional non-Christian faculty-member was hired; Mrs. Bhalraj, the Principal. The students tended to be the children of faculty and staff and employees and students at the Christian Medical College in Bagayam and/or its associated Hospital in downtown Vellore. When I was there all of the teachers were either the spouses of faculty and staff at the CMC or the CMCH, or parents of students at Vidyalayam; and nearly all were female. Many of them were foreigners. Many of the teachers had experience and certification in teaching from their home countries (whether or not that was India), but all of them were unpaid volunteers except for the Principal. Some classes were taught at the teacher's home; at certain times of day a class-ful of pupils could be seen bicycling from school to "teacher's house" or back. Everyone was taught English; everyone was taught Tamil, the state language of TamilNadu (which, then, was called "Madras"); and everyone was taught Hindi, which was, officially, one of the two national languages of India. Since students came from nearly every English-speaking country, they might be at different levels from their age-mates, and would take different subjects at different grade-levels (to use American terminology; British, Indian, and Australian terminology were different). For instance, I was in fifth-grade English and in third-grade Math while I was considered, overall, to be in the "fourth grade". A strong (and AFAIK always successful) attempt was made to provide adequate instruction in all the "basics" or "fundamentals" required (such as reading and writing and arithmetic); there was also a class in "scripture", that is, in the Bible. Other than that, though, the ability to provide instruction in certain courses varied over time, depending on the availability of a teacher qualified to teach it. I have been looking for an image of the school flag. I haven't been able to find a website for Vidyalayam. All I've found is material on the CMC-CMCH website saying the school is available for the children of students, faculty, staff, and employees of the hospital and medical college; and snail-mail addresses for people replying to Vidyalayam's "teacher wanted" ads. Eldin raigmore (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. This edit of your bot added a link to en:B-Boy to the ru:B-Boy page, which is incorrect: the the English page is about a wrestler, while the Russian one is about a PlayStation game. I rolled it back. Regards, Modbear (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea but probably not worth the effort since these scores are static and will never change. Might be a better idea to bring it to the main talk page as people who know template stuff better than me might be able to chime in if its worth it. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It may be rather static for most of the time, but it'll save much space in some pages. The "Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics" page is currently at around 87kB. Every time that page is edited, that much space is stored again. This template saves around 900 bytes for each game, and there were 38 games - in the men's tournament alone. The size of IH@2006WO could be halved - or more. Each team also played a number of games. Those pages will benefit too. In addition, there will be more Olympic Games, and thus a lot more space to save in the future. The lesser maintenance effort could be considered as a minor bonus. Thanks for your encouraging comment. LarRan (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yup like I said I think its a good idea, its just alot of work, so if you want to do it be sure you are willing to put in the effort because I don't think many others will want to lol. Human nature to be lazy. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through the nominations and have noticed the following have received reviews from you, but no indication whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL:
Please could you take the time to revisit the articles and candidate pages, check them against the new Featured list criteria, and indicate whether or not you support or oppose their promotion to WP:FL. It would be much appreciated as the nomination will not have to be kept open any longer than necessary.
Finally, please accept my apologies for the brusqueness of this message; the same wording is being sent to everyone who has outstanding reviews, with only the names of lists being changed. Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 05:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Halifaxrmflag.gif
I have contacted HRM, and the official HRM flag with the kingfisher is in the public domain. I do not know of any laws pertaining directly to the flags other than the Trademarks Act. Here is a copy of the response from HRM:
"Timely inquiry about the HRM official flag (Kingfisher flag).. the whole use issue of HRM's official flag (kingfisher) as well as the HRM Logo flag has been under review and discussion for some time.
The admin order was amended about a ago to allow for duplicates of the official HRM flag to be purchased (through regular flag outlets) and flown proudly by the public when used in accordance with the intention of the flag. The Admin order also outlines fines for violation..so the official flag is allowed in the public domain. The HRM logo flag is to be retained for corporate use, and the coat of arms much more restricted to official use only (as with the coat of arms of the Province).
We are also considering registering with Government of Canada Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada.
We have just updated the administrative section of the Admin Order to make that much clearer and outline the administrative bodies within HRM to address these issues. That will go to Council in May. In those changes my office (Municipal Clerk's office) has oversight of the use of the Official HRM, Coat of arms and other such symbols. Corporate Communications has oversight of the HRM logo (as the administrative logo/brand of HRM)...
Last year, you tagged this article for PROD and it was deleted. Please note that undeletion has been requested at today's DRV, and as a result, the article has been restored as a contested PROD. You may wish to nominate it for AFD. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Geeze, its about a football player who didn't exist...not the one this guy is talking about. Guess it will have to be afd'd. Tho it wasn't really my prod. I just changed someones speedy to a prod. -Djsasso (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Trusted users like admins on other projects don´t need edits. You gonna get the flag latest on monday when one of the ´crats is online. We are small wiki and bots are filling the recent changes page, so we usualy let them work only with flag. --Seha (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
All non-Marathi Bots please do register yourself with bot name, controllers User name, talkpage, with brief info the work Bot carrying out; source of Marathi words reffered by the bot etc. at Marathi Wikipedia Local Bot Request.
Other than interwiki linking,prior permission from Marathi wikipedia Burocrats or sysop is must.
Non-Marathi Bots are requested, to not to carry out any spellcheck/spellchange in Roaman or Devanagari script in Marathi Language wikipedia or wictionary; except in cases of specific request comming from a Marathi Wikipedia Sysop after due consensus at Marathi Wikipedia.
Where bots or non Marathi wikipedia want to request spell change shall do so first at mr:Wikipedia:Embassy in a separate subsection.
Non-Marathi Bots shall not carry out any change in any images and pictures or shall not upload any images and pictures without express permission or request to and from Sysops or Burocrat from Marathi Wikipedia with due consnsus and/or requirement.
Note for Hindi language bots संस्कृत, हिंदी तथा किसीभी भारतीय भाषासे मराठी व्याकरण और मराठी शब्द लेखन भिन्न हो सकता है इस लिए अमराठी भाषायी बॉट/बॉट नियंत्रक (मराठी भाषी बॉट के अलावा और किसी भाषा के बॉट नियंत्रक) द्वारा मराठी भाषा विकिपीडियामे शुद्धीचिकित्सा या शब्द '"शुद्धीकरण प्रतिबंधीत है।।
Yes, that was the old policy. My comment is about changing the policy. Please return to that discussion and talk about why you do or do not want to change that policy. -Djsasso (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, Djsasso. Please change the HEADER in the editnotice to the following:
| header = PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE STATISTICS FROM THE 2008–09 NHL PLAYOFFS. THEY WILL BE REVERTED.
as the header still indicates that we will revert all stats from the season which we would not at this time. -Pparazorback (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Dj. Is there a reason you could not discuss this with me before reverting? I had a good reason for adding the template (a template which did nothing to change the appearance by the way but did much to aid the synchronization of pages); your reversion was not called for. For someone calling for discussion, I do not understand how you can be so quick to hit the undo button - you could have created the discussion yourself. Or am I right that everyone need to seek the approval of WikiProject Icehockey members such as yourself for all future edits? I wasn't aware of that guideline. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I actually did try to discuss with you but you removed my comments, I took that as you not willing to discuss. No you don't have to get approval for every edit, but it is general courtesy to discuss major changes that will affect multiple articles, which based on your talk page you have been told before. -Djsasso (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Minnesota Wild
Now that Risebrough & Lemaire are gone, hopefully the Wild will end that annoying rotating captaincy stuff. I'm not gonna get my hopes up too high, though. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow... I've been following the Twins for about 8 months and have never heard of the K&A sponsorship... although it doesn't shock me. You are aware that they are the team sponsor right? Don't we normally avoid that? Or do you think the disambiguation supersedes that? Just asking. Example, I've been debating renaming the K&A Wolverines to the Thunder Bay Wolverines for that very reason. Either way, K&A sponsors half the sports in TBay... just like the AKO Fraternity does in Windsor. DMighton (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah you can move it back if you want. I just thought it might be an easy way out of the disambig situation. :) Whatever you feel best. We have things like Pengrowth Saddledome etc, so I don't really know if thats an issue or not. -Djsasso (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
From the book "The Official Illustrated NHL History" (2006 edition) by Dave Pincus:
Page 14:
... the NHA played with six men to a side while the PCHA used seven. But as the NHA turned into the National Hockey League, the main governing body for professional hockey, the game became more homogenized.
Page 20:
Livingstone was promised that the players would be returned to him at the end of the season, but that was merely a diversionary tactic. After the 1916-17 season, the eight-year-old NHA was reorganized as the National Hockey League ...
I still don't think you understand. We agree that this is what happened. We haven't disputed this. What we are saying is that the NHA and NHL are seperate leagues. The topic is the history of the NHL not the history of the NHA and NHL. -Djsasso (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that they are the same league is OR and POV. Your quotes above prove as much. That the NHL was formed because of the NHA, there is no question. That it was created with many parts from the NHA, no question. That they were the same league, definately not or all the same teams and owners would have been in it. The whole reason they did what they did was to make sure it was seperate legal entity (league) so he could not fight it in court to make them let him play. -Djsasso (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"That the NHL was formed because of the NHA, there is no question." That's what I've said all along, and why I felt the History of the NHL topic would be better (more comprehensive) to have more about the NHA. The NHL did not come from nothing, it came from the NHA. Alaney2k (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
But our point is the scope of the topic is history of the NHL. The fact that it came about because of the NHA is talked about in the first article of the series. The actual NHA article does not fit the scope, just like the actual NHL article does not. If you want a featured topic of the growth of professional hockey that would be different. -Djsasso (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the NHA article itself is out of scope. To your points: as you've mentioned "created with many parts from the NHA". Those many parts (e.g. rules/trophies/season) are not well covered. Or well covered enough for me. Your 'History of the NHL topic' is more of a recitation/summary, less deep. The NHA followed a course of setting its own rules. E.g., it adopted six-man hockey to save on labour. The NHA rule change is why the NHL played with six-man hockey from the start. That is a major development in hockey history. The NHL adopted at their first meeting, in the minutes, to operate under the NHA rules. What were those? What was the game like at the start? Instead we have some recitation of from one league to the next. A lot of that is somewhat irrelevant. Switch from AHAC to CAHL? Why is it relevant? It doesn't have to be growth of pro hockey to be different from what is there. The background section should be moved to a separate article, with direct explanations of the relevance of this stuff. Why was the IHL relevant? (rhetorical) Alaney2k (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to in my opinion, don't know about Resolute, that everything comes from something. So where do you draw the line. The start of the actual NHL for example is a clear red neon line with little room for arguments about it being POV or an arbitrary cut off, while including the NHA which I fully admit contributed to what the NHL is today, could lead to questions like "What about X which also contributed to the NHL?" or "What about X which caused the NHA to do this which caused the NHL to do this?". Remember a feature topic doesn't have to have every single relevant article in it. The idea is to keep its scope as limited as possible, which is why Resolute choose to just include the years the actual NHL was operating. -Djsasso (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, my point was a weak oppose. I would go with the majority. I believe there is something lacking for the background. But it can be worked on. But if the feelings are shared that it needs to be worked on, then it seems clear that it is not quite Wiki's best work. I've been working on cleaning up the template. Now the pre-NHL cat, to help make this line clear. My NHL line includes more background on the teams/rules/trophies etc. of the NHA that formed the NHL. Maybe just move the background and founding, or just background (though I was thinking a title of 'Founding of the NHL' would be best) from the 1917-1942 article into a separate article and expand that and that would accommodate everyone. The articles of History of are quite good, well-written, well-cited. A bit lacking on the background and I think to focus on the NHA for that would be good enough. Alaney2k (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If you can find citeable information that doesn't violate WP:SYNTH or WP:OR to create an article called Founding of the NHL or something like that then I would support that probably. -Djsasso (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Diacritics removal obsessions
Me obsessed? Does this mean you won't be obsessive, if I were to remove diacritics from the NHL team rosters' birthplaces? If I removed those? Ohhhh Nelly, the response I'd get. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I know, that's why I don't remove them. Edit warring or going-around-in-circles discussions on that topic, is not what those Roster Templates need. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
AfDs
Thanks, I'm trying to find some standard that can apply to non-notable NFL draft picks as well. Most can pass WP:ATHLETE, but not all, and I'm getting a bunch of "drafted=notable" type of arguments. Thanks. Grsz1102:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Goodluck most football people believe if you even played D1 ball you pass, which I have a hard time buying. -Djsasso (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Zherdev interview! Not only does it end the chaos on that page, but it was a good interview too, thanks for it! :)
--Lvivske (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hockey players, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Eightofnine (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you're not going to actively participate to help resolve the dispute by mediation, please avoid further reverting of articles as you did here, unless you are prepared to find reliable sources for each. I've been deleting dual citizenship from articles which claim Russian and Ukrainian nationality because this is legally impossible, and as far as I'm aware, I'm acting completely in accordance with WP:LIVE. Reinserting uncertain or contentious material to a biography is not. I will try to resolve the dispute with the other parties involved.--Eightofnine (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Claming a person is Ukrainian-Russian doesn't necessarily mean nationality or ethnicity. You do realize that right? If you were born in the Ukraine and moved you are still called Ukrainian because your history is Ukrainian. Nor is it particularely contentious. You also failed to discuss on the talk pages of the articles which is a key component that needs to be done before filign a mediation request, as such no I won't participate in mediation and will continue to revert if you continue to violate WP:BRD. -Djsasso (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Linking to the article Ukrainians in Russia, which specifically deals with ethnic Ukrainians, is contentious material. Do you realize that or did you not pay attention to what you were reinserting into the article? I have no problem saying a player is ethnically Ukrainian, if this is sourced, which it was not. Further, you've completely ignored the issue concerning the infobox, which deals with countries players are eligible to play in. The infobox has nothing to do with countries of birth, or ethnic background, or which country someone spent time in, or whatever other sense of "nationality" you can come up with. Since the citizenship is revoked by law, as stated in the Constitution, they are no longer eligible to play in that country. If you keep inserting this material, proving they can still play rests on your shoulders. By the way, WP:BRD is not policy, while WP:LIVE is, and under WP:LIVE I am obliged to delete contentious unsourced material. --Eightofnine (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well the infobox actually is about where they were born, and if they played internationally for another country that is what the 2nd field was for. However possibly changing that is under discussion. -Djsasso (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
The template documentation currently says "nationality_2 (if a player has dual citizenship)." Notice there is no past tense there? It doesn't say anything about past citizenship or what counntries players formerly played for, only what countries they are eligible to play for now. If citizenship is revoked, you're not a national of the country, especially if they don't recognize dual citizenship in the first place.. I'm following the template's documentation as it specifies to, not rules which are under discussion and may or may not be implemented at some point in the future.--Eightofnine (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the rules that might be implemented in the future are the ones you want to happen. The current standard is to list it the way that you do not like it. If you notice the second field is the one that says dual citizenship, the first one does not mention citizenship at all. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is in the documentation, then it has already been implemented. Further, the nationality field says nothing about adding former countries. By adding a second field for dual citizenship and not former citizenship, the template clearly implies to only add countries if current multiple nationality is held.--Eightofnine (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for taking the time to add sources. However, you still cannot link to Ukranians in Russia until you prove that each player is ethnically Ukrainian. Good luck with that. A better way would be to simply link to each country's article, like this Ukrainian-Russian, to show affiliation with both countries and leave ethnicity out of it. Further, the sources are from as early as 2002, and some of these players had not played for Russia yet. Of course they were Ukrainian citizens then, when citizenship had not been revoked yet. You need to find sources which mirror the current situation, or show that players were playing for both countries at the time the sources were published. --Eightofnine (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well the sources actually mention ethnicity (of Ukrainian descent). As for being as early as 2002. Tverdovsky played for Team Russia as early as 93, Vishnevsky as early as 97, Zherdev in 02. So I don't think age of the references would be a problem either. Though as I mention they were meant to prove ethnicity not citizenship so age of reference wouldn't matter because ethnicity is permanent. -Djsasso (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll review the sources for claims of ethnicity. As for nationality, if the sources are from years before or after they played for Russia, there would be no problem, would there? There would also be no problem if they lost citizenship but applied for it again. Articles need to be able to prove the holding citizenship in each country simultaneously is possible, which is what is implied in the infobox, to be of any relevancy. --Eightofnine (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Andre Roy Page
I see that you removed my info on the Andre Roy suspension in the pregame warmup. Why did you remove it. It was well referenced and it was factual info. Please respond on my talk page.AndrewEnns (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Because its a case of WP:UNDUE. A single suspension in a hockey players career does not warrant such a big section on a player page unless it was of a major variety such as the Bertuzzi incident. -Djsasso (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Worlds
Hello, do you think you could fully protect both Ice Hockey World Championships and List of IIHF World Championship medalists on Sunday if Russia wins (even if they don't, full protection might not be a bad idea)? I know pre-emptive strikes are generally discouraged, but lets not forget the edit war that instantly erupted last year, and there has already been trouble this year, so it wouldn't be completely uncalled for. Thanks, Scorpion042220:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I will watch and proceed if I am around. I will be a little more easy on what I considered too much vandalism or warring. -Djsasso (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That Soviet/Russia PoV pusher, is starting to become a pain. I've thrown down the guantlet & suggested he take is complaints to the complaints departments. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is a breach of Neutral point of view and Assume good faith and a case of harassment and personal attacks . Please do not let patriotic feelings to become more important than the Wikipedia policies. You have not been Assuming good faith by dismissing all the facts and instead using an original opinion on top of any facts. I would also ask you not to referrer to those who posses a view opposite to yours, as "pain" and "troll" , and please do not "be a little more easy on what you considered too much vandalism or warring" to those who is not seeing the world as you do. I hope this won't happen again Andreyx109 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Says the guy who keeps accusing everyone who has an opposite feeling than him of having patriotic feelings (Which are personal attacks by the way.) My opinions were based on the fact that you didn't have a source which is a wikipedia policy and had zero to do with patriotic feelings, I could actually care less if russias totals are combined or not. -Djsasso (talk) 04:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Shall we let bygones be bygones? I think the most important task for us was to make the article correct, and we made it, the information is correct now. Thank you for your hard work and professionalism. Andreyx109 (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I will put it on my watch list for now, I don't really like to use protection as a preventative measure...if I see 2 or 3 more IP edits that aren't good I will protect it for a few days. -Djsasso (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA, which was unable pass with a final tally of (45/39/9). I plan on addressing the concerns raised and working to improve in the next several months. Hopefully, if/when I have another RfA I will win your support. Special thanks go to MBisanz, GT5162, and MC10 for nominating me. Thanks again, -download ׀ sign!01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Majorly RFA talk page question
Hi Djsasso. I rarely comment on RfA anymore but I didn't think your question number 22 on Majorly's RfA was fair. It is pretty clear that opining for retaliation for an oppose vote on his RfA is poor form. But referencing this in the veiled form of a question asking Majorly to comment on whether this breaches WP:CIVIL, is unfair. If you indeed witnessed this on IRC, I suggest you (1) append your views to your oppose rationale or (2) bring the issue up on the talk page of the RfA. I do not think that posing it in the way you did in the questions section is fair to the candidate. Thanks -- Samir06:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. There seem to have been a glitch with your bot: this edit[9] stripped a page of all its interwikis and shouldn't have happened. It was in February and you have probably worked out such bugs, but could you please check that your current code logic won't repeat it? Thanks. 62.147.38.26 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Also, I would suggest that your bot outputs a log entry when it does such a massive removal, so that you could investigate the diffs de visu and detect such problem edits. 62.147.38.26 (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually the removal was correct because the english article was a disambiguation page and none of the interwiki links to it are disambiguations pages. The non-disambiguation pages should be pointing to their specific english counterpart. -Djsasso (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't all I did. I uncapitalized totals in "NHL Totals." 90% of the time I'm not just doing that, I could be changing the text from [[1997-98 WHL season|1997-98]] to [[1997–98 WHL season|1997–98]], fixing the text as well, changing -- to —, linking regular season, season, and playoffs, and uncapitalizing totals. And the reason I fix the links is so I won't have to deal with them in what links here. Matt Walker links to both 1997-98 WHL season and 1998-99, when I check the links for 1998-99 I'll probably forget I already fixed his stats.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
And that is your opinion, when it was discussed we did say Quebec was an exception because unlike the NHL, the QMJHL officially acknowledges diacritics. -Djsasso (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
About the birthplaces diacritics: I just offered GoodDay something he probably will never find proof for, just to end that discussion in a conciliatory way. Cheers. LarRan (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as Quebec is a part of North America? No diacritcs should be allowed. PLEASE, don't change this & respect the North American/Non-North American divide. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, I've absolutely no doubt that the pro-dios crowd vastly out-number the anti-dios crowd. It's only a matter of time, before those guidelines are completely repealed. I should be amazed, that the compromise held out as long as it did. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The compromise was to stop edit wars, and quite frankly was unnecessary as long as certain edits that get too hot about the subject just left them in their orignal form...either with them or without them. However, certain editors don't have the ability to refrain from arguing about it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
When all is said and done, the anti-dios editors get the rotten end of the hockey stick (again). We both know, it's only a matter of time, before those dios compromise guidelines are complelely repealed (or ignored). GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
That is how concensus works, sometimes you are on the losing end. I still don't see why it hurts you so much to see them. -Djsasso (talk) 15:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe I've made my protestations on the coming changes, quite clear. When one's going out, it's best to do it with a bang. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
But there are no changes being made, if you haven't noticed that quebec articles have been using diacritics for years then I suppose it would seem like a change to you, but nothing is actually changing. -Djsasso (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
That is the problem, you aren't adding any content. You are just repeating what you already said over and over. I actually asked you very nicely to stop repeating the same thing over and over. Continue to do it and I will ask another uninvolved admin to look at blocking you for disruptive editing. You have now been asked by multiple editors. -Djsasso (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd already looked at the Campbell Trophy article, and still wasn't 100% sure, or if WP:HOCKEY had particular guidelines, why I figured I'd ask :D Best, umrguy4203:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Like I said, no worries (other than about 3 ECs on WT:HOCKEY), and it's 11:45 here, so I'm off for the night myself. Have a good one! umrguy4203:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
speedy delete
(I was trying to signal to go ahead and delete after I was notified. The image was replaced. But I guess I selected wrong or their was no correct button to press.) I think we all have our Jekyll and Hyde sides. This was more my Costello side than my Abbott side. Abbbboootttttt'Alaney2k (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Double Standard
If the NHLPA supported dios usage on those player's birthplaces? You'd be ramming that website down my throat. Like I said, when a sources supports your side?, it's great. But when it doesn't? It's Wiki loop-holes time. I offer my consent for something which would effect hundreds of articles in exchange for a mere 30 Templates, but no dice. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF, GoodDay. It might be a good time to just back away from the debate. Your opinion is known, and clearly we have no consensus to modify our current compromise on diacritics. Resolute15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
My argument has been that there's no need to modify the current compromise, it's fine the way it is (NO dios on NA based hockey articles, YES dios on non-NA based hockey articles). GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Yup I was just about to send you a message. They are still able to sign with any team up until the actual hearing happens. Once the hearing happens they are either signed to the team or become a UFA. :) -Djsasso (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I was considering deleting 'something else' from all 30 NHL team articles, without notifying others at the WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think he should be removed from the captain list until the team announces another captain either. But if you insist on making them match you can remove the C from the table, but the player stays in the table. The whole reason we rewrote the table the way we did was so we didn't have to remove players during the summer and all the trouble that used to cause. -Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll reverse things at the Habs article & restore Koivu & Kovalev to the other article. I reckon, the IPs will put up a fight. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
PS: If you, Krm500 and the others (both pro & anti-dios) wish to place somekinda 'sanction' on me, I won't fight it. Though I'll try to change my approach to the topic (diacritics), I'll never change my opinons on it. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not asking you to change your opinion. I mean i would like you to but you have just as much right to have it as I. Its just the methods you use that I have issue with. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to change my habits, concerning the Diacritics topic. Not for my sake, but for other's sake. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes they can be, and I can revert them if someone doesn't follow them (Just like you do when someone adds diacritics to North American pages). See the problem and why we should follow them? The whole point of them is so we don't revert each other back and forth. I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying when I said that. -Djsasso (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting 'tag teaming', but if enough editors choose Lvivske's versions (via reverting), then you couldn't revert them (Revert limit). GoodDay (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
So what you are suggesting is an escalating war because those people who like them would also of course revert the other people... Again the whole point of the agreement was to avoid those wars that used to happen with 10 people on each side reverting each other. -Djsasso (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The agreement was not respected, when it was decided retroactively that French accents would be applied to Quebec-based hockey articles. Thus contradicting the 'North America amendment'. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you think contining to bicker about it will help the situation more than hurt it feel free to continue to do so, you do have that right. But be aware of how it makes you look. Even people who agree with you have said you are a little to zealous on the topic. -Djsasso (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Also the North American amendement has never been respected, concerning the NHL team pages (yep, those Rosters -again-). GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes I am aware you think that. You obviously have alot of energy and passion, why don't you take that and create some articles? It is much more constructive I am sure you will agree? -Djsasso (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Article creating, isn't my specialty (I've only created two). Besides, creating a hockey article, opens the risk of more diacritics. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I shall likely continue to grumble (though in a calmer tone). Finally, we've come to an understanding on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Diacritics at MoS
Hi, could you please weigh in here since your name was mentioned? I want to make sure you have a chance to give your thoughts about the matter. The fact is, the hockey project seems to be ignoring the MoS, and I'm just curious why. --Laser brain(talk)02:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, fine...would YOU like to discuss sorting this out?
Well to be blunt, it doesn't really belong at all on the page. Atleast as lists. Anything notable and not trivial should be fit in wherever its being talked about in the article. But frankly most of those facts have no business in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Really. That may be your perception, but mine is that it does belong and it doesn't work as text in the article, definitely not how it's currently presented. And would you mind doing this on the Talk page for the article, so other people could participate, please? –ConkblockCity (talk) 07:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Dj. Whoah there some on blungeoning my credability. FWIW, my brief 'rebutal' there, shall remain brief (we don't need to go another round). GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry GoodDay but you have said on many occasions that there is a covert operation to sneak in diacritics with no one noticing. That is the equivalent of a conspiracy theorist on the credibility scale. Whether or not you accept it, I would say getting your view on the situation is probably the least credible person to get the story from. For example on the opposite end of the scale credibility wise and of the same opinion as you, a more reliable person to get the story from would be Resolute. -Djsasso (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing. In another conversation I mentioned that GoodDay was an extremist in the diacritics debate and that his opinions re there being a secret mission to spread diacritics to all of wikipedia as part of some conspiracy was a bit of an unreliable viewpoint when someone quoted what goodday told him the situation was. And that a more reliable view of the situation from the side who thinks they don't belong might come from you. -Djsasso (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Expos/Nats
Just letting you & Resolute know, I haven't flipped my beany. I'd be content to change my opinon on merging, if a movement begins for splitting the other 29 MLB articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
While I really do not understand your "all or nothing" approach to Wikipedia, you don't have to justify your reasons for supporting or opposing a change beyond what you stated in the debate. Dj and I are both involved in that debate anyway, so neither of us will be making the final decision on a potential merger. Resolute23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yup as Resolute mentioned I am involved and can't close the discussion anyways. I get involved in this debate at the baseball project fairly often, its one of the reason I actually watch their page at all. That and their habbit of trying to make us use too many nav boxes has me watching their page for attempts at pushing their viewpoint onto other articles. They often don't understand that just because an article is a baseball article that it is also a quebec article or a canada article or a sports article in general. They want to be consistent with their 29 other teams. Yet I could counter with all quebec based sports teams that have moved have separate articles. Why should it be consistent with the other baseball teams and not the other quebec articles for example. Then they argue that well football merges them...the counter to that is that well the NHL and NBA projects don't...I personally am really confused that any project about any subject would want to have fewer articles with less information. -Djsasso (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If the both of you can convince others to split all the other MLB franchises? that would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
They are as likely to support that as we are to merging relocated NHL teams. Best we can expect is to preserve the status quo. Though I wonder what their reaction would be if I wrote a good article on the Seattle Pilots without anyone from WP:MLB noticing... Resolute23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If I was more of a baseball fan I would probably write articles for some of the teams that had moved. But I don't know enough and not sure I would want to spend my time researching something I am not totally interested in. -Djsasso (talk) 03:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Minor League Hockey task force
Djsasso, currently there are five Wikipedians (including myself) that would be committed to this task force. We originally wanted to start an ECHL task force, but did not beleive we had enough to make it a very successful task force. I believe that by expanding the scope of the task force from ECHL to all minor leagues more Wikipedians would join and we could work on making all minor league hockey team and league articles more uniform, as well as developing these articles further. I wanted to wait for approval before inviting more Wikipedians to join.
Some of the articles that our group have developed from Stubs to possible B/GA status include the Erie Panthers, Las Vegas Wranglers and Toledo Walleye articles. I have also created season-by-season articles for five of the seven seasons of the Las Vegas Wranglers and another Wikipedian and I are developing one for the Toledo Walleye.
I would really appreciate your help in developing the task force and give pointers on how to get it under the WikiProject. Is there a chance you could walk me through on setting up the official task force?
Ok just to get started I would create a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Minor League Ice Hockey task force. A good page to model it after would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Junior Ice Hockey task force or Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/College Ice Hockey task force as they are the same sort of task force as yours but involves junior/college hockey. The next step would be to add the link to that page onto Template:Hockey Navigation in the appropriate alphabetical spot. I think you will probably see where it goes easy enough. Once this is done let me know and I can add the task force to the project banner. I would recommend if you guys are going to do this that you set out your scope to be teams/arenas/leagues involving minor league hockey and not necessarily include players as most nhlers have played in the minors as some point and it would lead to adding the task force to the banner of almost every ice hockey article. Or if you do want to include players, just don't tag them as such. But that is personal opinion, you 5 can decide which way you want to go. I believe the college task force includes them in their scope but does not include the task force parameter on their talk page as they do with say an Arena. -Djsasso (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
The Dios on Hockey articles
By jumpins Dj, you're as stubborn as me. The time is coming for 'both of us' to step aside & let the others work things out. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Dave Lowry
Hello, Dj.
A while ago, I move Dave Lowry to Dave Lowry (ice hockey). I hadn't had the time to turn the redirect that was created as a result into a dab page, that's why it redirected to the hockey player. Is he (the ice hockey player) notable enough, do you think, as to have the "original" pagename, rather than having a dab page?
I would say so, even if he isn't the other page is a small stub that is not very well written, I would wait till at the very least the other page is a bigger better page. I only dab both pages on articles when the two articles are clearly at the same level of writing. Otherwise I leave whatever had the page name first there. -Djsasso (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Well in most cases I always have it as DJSasso....I just never realized my sig wasn't that way until the other day. -DJSasso (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
troubled page
Hi. You're an admin. I don't know where to ask. I edit an article Toronto Port Authority and the edits get reverted everyday by an employee of the agency. The agency has been in numerous disputes with the city of toronto and that is part of the article IMO. Could you look at it and see if my edits are 'slanted' and/or what do I do about the employee's edits (under Wiki policy). It was once protected and marked as non-neutral. What I've tried to do make it into a readable article, but the ed just keeps reverting out stuff. Not your area, but let me know what I can do, as it is frustrating. Alaney2k (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries, your edits were in goodfaith. He should have been discussing instead of reverting. I of course have no way to tell if he is an employee or not. As long as your information is cited, it is relevant to the article. I don't live in Toronto so I don't really care either way and know nothing of the topic, but the edits you made do seem ok to me. I've locked the page to admins for a week. Try and hash out anything you can in that time, if edit warring continues I will take it farther. But be aware that if you keep blankly reverting him as he is doing to you, that could impact both of you. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Djasso your conclusions based on Alaney2k's tearfull story are not based on the facts. Alaney2k has a poitical agenda thats he is trying to push, hardly neutral. I have requested assistance from an editor as per the Wikipedia rules which he seems to bypass. If you wish to know the truth I will be happy to comply. Alaney2k has reverted as many times as I have and subverted the truth consistently. He is not the historian for the Toronto Port Authority but has taken it upon himself to discredit the agency at the cost of his integrity. I have been editing this page for many years. The article has been in dispute in the past and through the effort of many people for and against the TPA we have reached a consensus. Now Alaney2k has taken it upon himself to almost entirely rewrite the article since the fall of 2008 and the consensus has been lost. As I stated in my request for assistance, instead of locking the article at Alaney's2k's last rewrite why not go to the begiing of 2009 when there was consensus. As per your suggestion we take the dispute to the discussion page; that has been done. No amount of discussion as dissuaded him from his mission. [[User:K[censored]on|K[censored]on]] ([[User talk:K[censored]on|talk]]) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately you appear to have a Conflict of Interest and should not be editing the page anyways. So you don't have much of a leg to stand on if you are claiming he is writing from a POV manner. I actually find your edits to be less neutral than his. I don't see any sort of consensus having ever been reached on the talk page of that article. I just see you reverting others edits. I would probably recommend you don't edit the article since you have a clear conflict here. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for getting involved. The article was quiet for about a week and then a section I added was deleted, and the lead was reverted. Since then, it's been back and forth. I know that I do not own the article. But, I felt my additions were appropriate. I was wondering where do you get an article reviewed for npov? Alaney2k (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I guess we'll see what happens when the protection comes off, but I've had no reply from Kdickson, and no-one has looked over the article and posted any comments. I'm going to look for more places to request a review. Alaney2k (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, as a employee he/she should not be touching the article, especially when it is to remove information that is critical of the organization. That's a big nono per WP:COI. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
A Habs fan in Calgary. Were you ordered to leave town? :-) Kovalev is going to score big-time against Montreal, les Canadiens ne sont pas la! :-) Alaney2k (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually ended up being a fan of both teams. At the start I was Habs all the way and still cheered for them if they played the Flames....but in games not involving the Canadiens I got pretty passionate about the flames. Its infectious when you are in a city as passionate as Calgary is. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I rather hope you weren't at the Flames-Habs game here last year though... though singing "na na na na, hey hey hey! goodbye!" was a fitting end to that game after enduring the soccer chant all night. ;) Resolute22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I must also say I never once cheered or the Hitmen other than so they would be able to meet my Wheat Kings in the playoffs so I could see them play a few more times a year lol. -DJSasso (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Go to the hockey project, or look through the TFD archives where they have been deleted well over 10 times. I think if you look at the early revisions of the roster template you will even see that it used to be a navbox that was converted when one of the many times consensus was reached. Roster navboxes are found to violate WP:EMBED in that links in navbox's should already expect to be found inside the page the navbox is being placed on. All players on a team would not be linked to normally from each individual biography article. -DJSasso (talk) 10:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Russian Ice Hockey
Hi. All russian ice hockey clubs have in the name words "Hockey club". It's official name of clubs. Please do not remove my changes. WildCherry06 12:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually the hockey project already decided that they do not use the HC and are in the process of reverting your changes. You might actually want to talk to relevent wikiprojects before making wholesale changes without discussion. You might also want to read WP:COMMONNAME. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I probably should, reason I haven't is that I need to see it working inside another template which would require me do a live change to an even bigger template. Trying to make it recognize "Unified Team" like {{flagIOC|EUN}} since country data doesn't recognize that team since it wasn't a country. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Because the ice hockey player template now uses national team instead of nationality to avoid POV conflicts and we have it automatically identifiying the country because {{ih}} is embedded directly in the infobox. See Darius Kasparaitis an example for how its effecting a live article. From what I can tell this is the only case that this will be a problem. All other countries seem to work. So I just need an if then else statement to work...but wikicode for if then else seems to be horrible. -DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I think I would have put the {{ih|...}} as the infobox parameter on each player article instead of embedded in the infobox code, but too late for that. I think I've successfully hacked "ih" to work as you want it to. — Andrwsc (talk·contribs) 17:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems to work. And yeah I thought about it being that way but some people wanted filling out the parameters to be as simple as possible. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh I know there will be others. I just meant that its the only country that doesn't seem to work. For the World Championships it was called the CIS which does work. So its only the 25 or so players who played in the olympics that year that it will effect. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Shanahan
Right, he did have a contract. But we don't know if he'll go to another team yet. I say give it a couple weeks and if there's no talk of him going somewhere else, we can remove him again. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Dj. I'm not looking for a dispute with anyone. It's just my statement, therefore I'm not gonna respond to critasism of it. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That is my point, you purposefully stated a inflammatory statement then said you would not respond to complaints. That is disruptive. Continue to do so and you will be blocked. Your WP:POINT editing has gone on long enough. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
No offense intended, but your threat of a Block is a tad OTT. The childish comment (at the WP:HOCKEY) was un-called for, too. But, I shall let it slide. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so in the slightest. You take every opportunity to slip that comment into discussions that have nothing to do with them and have been doing so for years. If you weren't a hockey editor and I wasn't trying to give you the benefit of the doubt I would have blocked you for this type of behavior long ago. You are way past the line of appropriate behavior. And what benefit of doubt I have been giving you is running out fast. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the constant references to the war on diacritics is getting quite WP:POINTy, but isn't all that disruptive overall, since most people have simply tuned the argument out. I can see where some people would be getting frustrated at how often you remind us of your opinion on diacritics. I agree with that position, but its not something that needs to be held front and centre at this point. Not unless we see growing disruption in that arena. Resolute18:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If you both wish me to 'delete' my opinon on how to improve the WP:HOCKEY, I will comply. Since I'm no longer a Project member, perhaps it would be best. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
We can probably just leave the section alone. I don't think anyone really wants to debate it. Its just as big an issue to them as diacritics ends up being in hockey. A few of them agree they should all be split, but most of them are very vocal about not splitting them which really truely makes no sense since in the end it means information will be lost to the wiki. But meh its their project...though I suppose I have been fairly active there lately. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The situation still stinks, though. The Brooklyn Dodgers, New York Giants (for example) have World Series titles, where's the Montreal Expos don't. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, and hopefully the longer this one stays split people will see the benefit in splitting them. Cause those articles are pretty pathetic right now because they are smashed together. Lots of big info that should be there but isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, though the hard work I've put into the Phillies article doesn't necessarily like the above comments. For me, I suppose, this all comes down to one simple question: "What is the New York Giants?" (or Brooklyn Dodgers or Montreal Expos or whatever). And my answer is likely quite different from yours. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't make the distinction, because to me, they are the same. The 2003 Expos moving to Washington and becoming the 2004 Nationals, to me, doesn't change who they are. They just are. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and see I don't think it changed who they are at all. I just think its another section of their history. I think I treat the franchise pages as history pages and you treat the franchise pages as seperate from history pages. That is probably another reason we differ. -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I mean, if you look at the amount of information that's on the Phillies page, for example, in addition to the history summary that's already there, it would be a lot of adding on if the Phillies had moved and there was another 50 years worth of coverage in one article. I don't necessarily think that the history pages are "separate", but they are subservient to the main article; that's the whole point of the history, seasons, etc., etc. being a topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
If the Nationals ever decide to re-locate, whoah nellie. I'm thinking about the Athletics & the Braves (for example). GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
More merge discussion, yay!
We'll just have to let everyone ineffectively complain again, then again agree to disagree, then move on again. And then do this all again in six months. *sigh* Resolute16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it just makes no sense to me that people wouldn't want easier to follow articles with more information, instead of having the jumble of mess they have now where its hard to find the information you want cause you have to sift through the history you don't want to find the history you do want. They say its cause they want it easier to navigate, but the current situation is way harder to navigate than the version we prefer. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes with New York Giants (National League) redirecting to the history article instead of the San Francisco Giants article. Basically it would be like if we called the Atlanta Flames article History of the Atlanta Flames and then redirected Atlanta Flames there. While I would rather the article be called New York Giants (National League) it is a definate first step in the right direction. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I dread the day (and it's coming), the NHL expands into European markets. Those yearly 'September' visits, aren't fooling me. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I personally hope they will, but don't think its likely. Almost all but 2 or 3 arenas in europe hold less than 10,000 people. And people pay the equivalent of like $10-$20 dollars to go to a game. They won't pay the $150-200 bucks a ticket that you pay for an NHL game. An they would have to charge double or triple that because they have 1/3-1/2 the number of seats in their arenas. -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it's a good job you mentioned that because I was on my way to change it. I was working on other redirects (Defense (hockey), defence (ice hockey), defenseman (ice hockey) etc) and and ready for the defenceman (ice hockey) redirect. So I will now leave defenceman (ice hockey) as it is and change the other redirects to that. Thanks for the heads-up, and apologies if this has been ongoing, haven't done these type of edits in a while. Raphie (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just read about it and I guess there is no need for all the redirect fixes. I believe once upon a time I read someone getting told off about it (probably fussy) and I thought from that it was essential to fix redirects, hence I've done it before. Thanks for that. Raphie (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Your bot now has a flag! Your welcome. Cheers,--!Muddyb Blast Producer (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
