User talk:Djsasso/Archive 9

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

ANI

Your right and that's part of the reason I'm not going to waste my time commenting anymore. I have explained my point and it doesn't seem like anyone wants to do due diligence and look into the background. Their bullies plain and simple, I don't feel like I should need to cower to those two jsut because they are allowed to do whatever they want. Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Jeremiah Metcalf

I was considering creating a page for Jeremiah Metcalf, but I see that you were the admin that deleted a previous attempt. Per WP:NMMA a fighter is presumed notable if they fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization. WP:MMATIER lists Strikeforce as a top-tier MMA organization. Jeremiah Metcalf has had 3 fights in Strikeforce - one on October 7, 2006; once on November 16, 2007; and once on June 27, 2008 (see http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Jeremiah-Metcalf-16262). Therefore, it would seem that he meets WP:NMMA and thus has a presumption of meeting WP:GNG according to WP:SPORTCRIT. Before creating this page, I wanted to find out some more information on why it was deleted and if the 3 fights in Strikeforce in view of WP:NMMA were considered. RonSigPi (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh geeze I deleted that 5 years ago. I don't believe WP:NMMA existed at that time and the article was in very poor shape with no references. Being that it was a prod that expired it was a reasonable delete. But I can't be more specific as I don't really remember. -DJSasso (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Mind if I revert?

Hi Djsasso, re this, would you mind if I remove what you wrote along with the IP? Please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP, we are trying WP:DENY here, we're way past trying to get this individual to see the light. Zad68 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks... Zad68 16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Dix

I'm tired of the whole matter; I have largely been avoiding political articles but happened to have Dix on my watchlist, saw the POV changes and reverted....and reverted and reverted and reverted, literally every few minutes, no time to think of rewriting it, and then during the time it took me to report it to 3RR and to BLP noticeboards, User:MastCell slapped down the block and protect and real editors came along to do what I hadn't had the time to do......and then the #$%@# reporter shows up and grabs the ball and claims a touchdown......and "has no regrets" for violating a host of Wikipedia guidelines/rules..........I came back here as recreation, after seeing to getting NPOV for Idle No More and Theresa Spence, which were out of control; now I'm being made a public pariah by a completely false news item (reliable source my a$#) and ganged up on by a bunch of info-goons..........and you know what? I'm in Koh Samui and won't even be voting in the election, I wouldn't even be voting NDP if I was.....there's a large body of historical and geographical material I'd intended on working on here; instead it seems that I'm going to have to face the adminship over complaints by a pack of......oh, never mind, it's just really disgusting and I'm bored with it; User:jb.murray reverted (censored) my reply to Macutty, pretty funny given that Macutty accuses me (and Resolute LOL) of being buddies and out to censor and that we're all a left-wing conspiracy and so on......sounds just like a troll in the HuffPo, quite frankly, and I have no doubt that's who some of these people are; Skookum1 was my blogging name for a long time before Wikipedia and only lately did I mention in the forums that I was a Wikipedia editor and it was shortly after that this kind of harassment started appearing here.........bored with it, if it goes to Dispute Resolution and it's not "tossed out of court" and becomes a burden to my time and energy, this will be the second time I leave Wikipedia; there's always Wikipedia Review where I can tell my story without being scolded and disciplined and be told not to WP:BITE the newbies; but what about newbies, or old lurkers, how are mounting a campaign to bite ME?? I could care less now, really, my life is moving on from BC, this was like an ugly part of its culture reaching across the Pacific and dragging me into the cesspit that is BC politics.......and amounts to bullying, but that is their m.o...........Skookum1 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said to jb.murray, have a look at my usercontributions today...then look at theirs.Skookum1 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on your behaviour one way or the other. Was just stating that if the other editor had a problem with you there was a more appropriate route for them to go. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

We're not dealing with sane people........look at Macutty's latest.......I didn't say you were taking one side of the other, just groaning at the thought of hours spent defending myself to the adminship because of a bunch of POV lunatics. Apparently we're all a club out to keep guys like Macutty from doing what they want here......http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adrian_Dix&curid=6929702&diff=551036885&oldid=551004310 We'll see if they get it together to "wikilawyer" me, if it starts happening I'm not sure what I'll do, but may just say "fine then" and leave forever.......Got lots of emails and posts asking me to come back after my last boycott, but with my name now in the media (because of the SPA User:Sunciviclee who's the Sun reporter Jeff Lee) it has added a new dimension to anything I do here, and the amount of time I spend here when I could be writing for a living....... Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Reviving Eurohockey.net discussion

I came across your post at the hockey page regarding your discussion about Eurohockey.net, which I missed out on. I re-opened it here:

[1]

. . . because I have some information about the site--namely that it's inactive. I think that's evident from visiting it and seeing that the latest updates were in March 2011. I know the creators of the site and they no longer have anything to do with it. They now operate Eurohockey.com, its successor site, which I mention in the re-opened discussion. Just thought I'd let you know. Cheers. Djob (talk) 16:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Player pages are still up to date. It appears to only be the news section that is out of date. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dynasty (sports)

Although the NHL lists dynasty teams, the question of dynasties is subjective, and unofficial dynasties are widely talked about and discussed in the NHL. Teams even sell dynasty banners (in the case of the 1970s Bruins, and movies have been made about the Broad Street Bullies Dynasty.) Additionally, no team has won back to back Stanley Cups in the modern era other than the 90-92 Penguins, and they are often referred to as a dynasty. Back to back NHL champion in the modern era (post 67) is unheard of as evidenced by it only occurring once. The 90s Red wings are repeatedly referred to as a dynasty even though they are not "officially" recognized on the NHL page. It is all encompassing for this section to list these unofficial dynasties, while making note that they are unofficial Alligatorwine (talk) 2:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Weather box colours

I'm not sure that there is any real consensus to use one colour over another. So I'm going to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment at Template talk:Weather box but it may take some time to get all the details together. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Weather box#RfC - Colours to be used in the weather box. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is best that some of your edits to the weatherboxes should be reverted back to the verisons before I changed the snow colours because it does not seem fair to me that you are preventing me from changing colours based on my edits from yesterday (eg. precipitation colour = green) while letting other users change colours as well (green or blue or pastel). It is not fair for two or more users to gang up on me and prevent me from editing. If I am changing the standard colours to green precipitation colours then why does the additional parameters exist then? This is similar to how the units are displayed as imperial units if the parameter metric first is not used.Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:BRD. That is how its is supposed to work. When the first person reverted you, you were then supposed to discuss it. Not revert them again. As such I returned it to the original so it could be discussed. I don't know what other changes were made by other people I only see your very large number of reverts of his reverts. And change that affects many pages must be discussed before being undertaken. And based on discussion on the weather box talk page it looks like you already knew the changes were controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This would mean I have to talk about this on each page that I edited, especially the major city articles where a lot of people would view the article?Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or talk about it in a centralized location with pointers from pages. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

for now, we let's wait for a consensus here - RFC. No matter if win the violet, blue or green, consensus will be adopted to all articles as (new or not new) standard. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Uklanjanje bot zastavice / Removal of bot flag

(Bosanski) Želim da vas obavijestim da je se na bs.wiki donijela odluka da se uklone bot zastavice kod neaktivnih i/ili interwiki botova. Vaš bot spada u najmanje jednu od ove dvije kategorije. Ova odluka je donešena zbog zbivanja oko Wikidata koje je dovelo do toga da su interwiki botovi postali nepotrebni. Ako želite da zadržite vašu bot zastavicu onda možete podnijeti taj zahtjev ovdje sa dodatnim informacijama o poslovima koje bi bot obavljao i na koji nacin. Imajte na umu da ovo treba da bude konkretan i koristan posao za zajednicu da bi se zastavica zadržala. Ako imate bilo kakvih pitanja kontaktirajte me na mojoj stranici za razgovor. Ukoliko ne reagujete na ovu poruku će se uklanjanje zastavice izvršiti nakon nekoliko sedmica. Međutim, uvijek ste dobrodošli da podnesete novi zahtjev za bot zastavicu.

(English) I want to inform you that on bs.wiki there has been a voting that resulted in accepting the removal of bot flags for inactive and/or interwiki bots. Your bot has been identified to meet at least one of these criteria. This decision has been made due to the new developments with Wikidata by which all interwiki bots have become unnecessary. If you want to keep your bot flag, then please report that here by indicating what new task your bot will be performing and how this will be done. Note however that this has to be a concrete and useful task for the community before it will be accepted. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page. In case of no response, the removal of the bot flag will be performed within a few weeks from now. However, after that period you are always welcome to file a new request for a bot flag.

-- Edin^(r) 01:23, 27 april 2013 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinwiki (talk • contribs)

Discussion notice

You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#RFC-birth date format conformity when used to disambiguate so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Birth date format conformity .28second round.29.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your WP:NHOCKEY related PRODs

Per a request on my talk page, I've undeleted Anton Zlobin, Sean Maguire (ice hockey), Bryan Rust, and Scott Wilson (ice hockey born 1992) as "contested PRODs". Legoktm (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Questionable page-move

Hello Djsasso! I noticed that Dolovis has moved the player article "Hans Johan Andersson" to "Johan "Bois" Anderson". I don't agree with this move. "Bois" is just his nickname; alot of players have various nicknames from the fans, and I think we should go by his other firstname (as it was before this move). Do you think Dolovis' move was correct? Thanks in advance, Hey Mid (contribs) 20:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

He was half right. Based just on looking at the external links and not doing a true search it looks like the article should be Johan Andersson. If it needs to be disambiguated the Hans is probably better option than the Bois if (ice hockey) doesn't work. -DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I moved it back but Dolovis has objected and created a request for a move. Feel free to comment there. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

New script for a Tab to Simple

Greetings. I just created a script that adds a tab to simple at the top of the page. I am still working on it (like making it appear in red if the page doesn't exist in simple) but it works pretty well. It saves the trouble of having to search the article for the link. Since I know you use simple a lot I thought you might find it useful. If you want to use it (or see it) here is the import script. You just need to add it to your Vector.js page. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

importScript('User:KumiokoCleanStart/SimpleWPTab.js');Kumioko (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Does it just look for articles with the exact same title? Or does it check via interwiki? -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just the same title. Its not perfect, but it helps. Kumioko (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I ended up discovering that with some testing. I actually had very similar code on simple to do the opposite but never thought of doing it here. Cause I rarely go in that direction. But I do think I will use it now. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Passchendaele

Your change is not to the original state.Keith-264 (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It is the original state prior to all the edit warring I had to go back quite a way to see it. Looks like you and others have been warring over it for some time. Either way, stop reverting back and forth and go talk. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Team picture of Stanley Cup winning teams

It seems that you don't want me to mention everyone who was in a Stanley Cup team picture with a footnote that they did not appear, for some reason. Several other Wikipedians, like Reso lute, think that it is perfectly fine to present these facts if I can cite that they were in the picture. What is wrong with mentioning everyone in a picture if it is a fact? It seems as if that you might be some New Jersey Devils fan who agrees with General Manager Lou Lamoriello, that only qualifying players should be in the team picture, like how Willie Mitchell was not in the picture in 2000; and trying to impose your beliefs on other teams. That is subjective, which is irrelevant. That is up to each team. It is objective that most other teams include non-qualifying players in the team celebration. They are on the roster in the sense that they are eligible to actually dress and play, even though they did not appear; but not, however, officially on the Stanley Cup roster engraved on the cup. What is wrong with including them in articles and distinguishing them from the official championship roster on the cup with footnotes? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem mentioning everyone in a picture on the picture page. But you wouldn't list them all on a finals page because that would be undue weight for that page. Listing who celebrates with the team is trivial and not notable. Lots of people celebrate with the team when they win, but we wouldn't list all of them because that isn't notable for an encyclopedia. To be honest what you are trying to do is subjective. Officially the only players considered to be on the championship roster are those that they engrave on the cup. So wikipedia uses that list because its objective. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

But it is only a few more players. What is wrong with just listing those few players and adding a footnote that they did not qualify to be on the official championship roster, but were on the teams' rosters and did get their championship rings? Many of the Stanley Cup Finals articles aready list those players, even ones I did not edit, like the 1986 Stanley Cup Finals. It is objective that they were not on the official championship roster, as their names are not engraved; but it is also objective that they were on the teams' rosters, and got their rings. Why should those trivial facts about just a few players be deleted and not shared with everyone? I think it is notable, because people can find out the names of all the players who got their Stanley Cup rings, and remember them even though they don't have their name engraved. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Draft

Hi DJS, question, a player like Viktor Hübl article says taken in the NHL Draft, but do players this low down the Draft ever actually play a real match in NHL? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Not a lot but it does happen. He would meet WP:NHOCKEY though because he played in the Czech Extraliga for quite awhile. -DJSasso (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

And 26 Czech National Team appearances in this case, no I'm just asking what the sentence means ... do they even get paid a prize money for having been picked and not called? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

No, basically drafted just means that a team gets to hold your rights for a few years. You can't sign with any other team in the NHL unless the team that drafted you releases you. Generally players that far down probably don't expect to ever play. But there are still a fair number who are late bloomers and do eventually play. In the case of Hubl he was drafted in the 9th round. They don't even go that many rounds anymore if that says anything of the likelihood of a player being drafted that low playing. -DJSasso (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, well maybe it's worth a few beers in Prague for kudos value. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

NBA team abbreviations

Hi, I do not see where the discussion for the National Basketball Association team abbreviations took place. Could you please direct me to the page?Hoops gza (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It was on Talk:National Basketball Association. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Hoops gza (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Underwater hockey

Hi, Can you please explain why you reverted the change to Hockey?. in the section entitled 'Other forms of hockey', the opening sentence states 'Other games derived from hockey or its predecessors include the following:'. As stated in my revision, Underwater hockey started as an underwater game called Octopush. I seen a reference that cites the inventor of Octopush as being unhappy with the current naming and that the game evolved as a winter-time diver training activity. These are the reasons why I object to the classification of Underwater hockey as a derivative of Hockey.Cowdy001 (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not it was called octopush to begin with, it was quite clearly modeled after hockey. Or at the very least its current form is. It would be patently ridiculous not to list something that has hockey in its name as not being a form of hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: AHL divisions

Until it's been announced what the alignments are, it's best we leave the new teams to their own section (after all, I don't expect Utica to play alongside Milwaukee, Chicago & Rockford). I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Tom Danson (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Pending an announcement by the league they would remain in the same division. Like the Winnipeg Jets did in the NHL. I see where you are coming from, but a lack of announcement would indicate for the moment that they are staying in the same division. -DJSasso (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Snezhnye Barsy

Please be more careful when moving templates. When you moved Template:Snezhnye Barsy you moved it to say Template:Template:. I just reverted it in case there was something else associated to that change I didn't see. Because of the coincidence with this and your comments on my talk page I wanted to clarify that I am not following you. I periodically check for Template:Template: because it happens fairly often. Kumioko (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Biographies and Stanley Cup rings

Is it fine to briefly mention in a biography article that a player like Dan Boyle has a Stanley Cup Ring, or is it not notable enough? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What people usually do for people who won the cup is just mention they won the cup. Getting a ring can be assumed.-DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What about players on a team's roster who do not qualify to be on the official Stanley Cup champions list, like Tim Brent, Andrei Loktionov, Doug Lidster when he was with Dallas, or Jassen Cullimore when he was with Chicago? These players got rings. They generally get rings and a day with the cup. In that circumstance, can getting a ring or a day with the cup be assumed? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Personally I think you are far to hung up on the rings. A ring is just a gift from the team it isn't an award. It is the equivalent of getting a Christmas bonus or some other performance type bonus. As has been mentioned some teams give out hundreds of them. It is rare but there are some teams who haven't given out any (you'd have to go back a number of years). Rings really mean little. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that some teams didn't give rings to any employees at some time. I am hung up on the rings because I don't want people to assume that non-qualifying players do not get rings, because they generally do. I know that getting a ring is assumed with official Stanley Cup champions and can be assumed. Non-qualifying players generally also receive these gifts. Can it be assumed with non-qualifying players who are signed to these teams' rosters, or can it only be assumed with qualifying players? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Delete

Hi, can you please delete Mircea Hudima? It is obvious that the page is a recreation of Marcel Hudima, which was deleted per an AfD discussion back in August 2011. I have found nothing about Hudima on the net aside from this bio on eurohockey, which does not offer any indication of him having played for any notable team(s)/league(s). --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 01:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

"Ethnicity" tables in Halifax

Hi there. I saw you undid (twice) my removal of an "ethnicity" table in Halifax Regional Municipality. I've now gone and explained my edit on the talk page. I hope you'll go have a look and let me know what you think. If you have a chance, have a look at the discussion I was part of 3 years earlier, too (it's only a few topics earlier on the talk page - not an overwhelmingly crowded talk page!). I hope we can find a resolution to this. Cheers, AshleyMorton (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese provinces; renaming discussion

Hello - I'm contacting you because you participated in the discussion on the proposed renaming of Cà Mau and/or An Giang Province. This is to let you know that a discussion on a number of similar proposed moves is taking place at Talk:Bac Ninh Province. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Provincial capitals RM

Hi. As you participated in Talk:Bac Ninh Province you may wish to be informed that there's also a RM for the same-name-capitals of 5 of those provinces at Talk:Bac Ninh. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Boston Celtics Game Log Mistake

Hi. On the game log for the 2006-07 Celtics Season, you may have accidentally put in data from the 07-08 season, as Garnett and Allen weren't on the Celtics in 06-07. Could you please take a look at this? Thanks. Bostonsportsfan04 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't actually put the info on the page I just substituted the template that was already there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oilers roster

FYI: This is the 3rd offseason in a row we had issues with the Oilers roster template. I was involved last year. TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I know, he does this every year. Last couple times I have not bothered to fight with him about it...but he almost broke the 3 revert rule this time so it was time he be warned. Will have to see if he decides he wants to talk about it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

He does want to talk about it... But, at least have the class to refer to me by name, rather than a "he". That's rather impersonal, don't you think? I have a username for a reason... You'll find me on the Template talk:Edmonton Oilers roster talk page. Russ Jericho (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

We are on an online website. Everything about it is impersonal. But I do apologize, I meant no disrespect by it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Image problem

Could you please look at this? File:Dixie Beehives.jpg... it is listed as not in use... it has been tagged for deletion automatically twice now... but it is in use at the Dixie Beehives article... any idea what is going on here? DMighton (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Same thing here now too Weston Dodgers. DMighton (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it might be resolved... thanks anyways. DMighton (talk) 03:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Picture

I've since used a more recent photo. And, yes, I know what the general principle is, but the lead images for several tennis players, including Federer and Murray for example, tend to show at least a little bit of background. That's probably a bit more interesting than an extreme close-up of someone's face. Happy editing. -- James26 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

NHL rosters

The official sites are the only places to determine team rosters, but most of the editors use the last transactions that were listed at the same sites which did not indicate that any players were demoted. I was under the impression that RFAs should be listed on the rosters while UFAs are removed even though some editors had honored my to keep the UFAs listed because they could be re-signed and would be easier to add said players to the rosters. I only edit the Islanders & Devils' rosters and I "hide" those players who are "buried" in the system (like Josefson for the Devils). Raul17 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah its tricky during the off season. It isn't that big a deal to me either way. I have no problem leaving UFAs on since we can indicate that is what they are. Its more the minor leaguers that get added that I have issue with. Basically if the team isn't listing them then they probably shouldn't be listed on the roster. (have no problem with hiding them...it was just easier to sync things up during the off season to remove them...during the season I would have left them) -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Disappearance_of_Kimberly_McAndrew

I am writing an article about the Disappearance_of_Kimberly_McAndrew and I would to have your feedback on this article, I feel it is part of our Canadian history of missing person in Nova Scotia. I would like to keep it on Wikipedia.jbignell (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC relating to Vietnamese geo article titles

Since you participated in either the previous RfC or in a recent related RM you may wish to be informed of Talk:Gia Bình District#RfC: Should non-exonym Vietnam geo article titles have Vietnamese alphabet spellings?. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

MJAHL

It appears that in the past few days that the Junior A league in the Maritimes has again changed its name. A newbie has changed the name to Maritime Junior "A" Hockey League. I tried to correct this by removing the quotations, but the redirect page won't let me make the move... could you please move the aforementioned article to Maritime Junior A Hockey League? Thanks. DMighton (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. DMighton (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello Djsasso, thank you for explanation about fully professionel. It's a logical approach. So we must do something like this in tr.wikipedia. Just ı want to say thank you.Beyazmavi (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Move/Possible AFD

Hello could you help me move a page?

the Page Jeremy Blain was recently created, but it seems to be the wrong spelling. According to the Chicago Wolves reference article on the page it was spelled Jeremie Blain, which is the redirect and another redirect Jérémie Blain exists which is not pointing to this page. I did a Google search and it seems to indicate (if i did it correctly) that the name with the diacritics is the common name (9,210) and the current name the least used (5,200). Unfortunately the Utica Comets site has not added the roster yet to compare to. Because the diacritics is already in use I cannot move it on my own. Would you be able to help me move this?

Also I didn't check the coverage of the articles from the search to see if he meets to determine if he meets GNG or not, but it looks like he falls short of N:Hockey playing in only 72 minor league games. I figured I get the name situation figured out before worrying about that.

Thanks. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have moved it to the version with ie at the end as it appears to be the most common spelling. As for the diacritics. I included them because that did appear to be used the most as well. Since there are redirects for all versions it shouldn't be an issue. As for notability he probably does fail it but I am not sure its worth taking through Afd right now since he will pass the 100 soon enough. I might suggest a prod however if you don't find enough sources. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for moving those around for me. I don't think I'll bother with the PROD or AFD, I'm not a real stickler for the 100 game line in the sand. If I ever get back to writing I suppose this is one I can put in my mental to expand list. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion

This is an special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 20:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for un-deletion/copy of an aritlce

Hi. I saw you deleted the article "Vaad Rabonei Lubavitch" a year ago. I'd like to have it, work on it, and then upload it again. Is there a way to do it? Regards, Yambaram (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

It has been restored. Do try to improve it or it will likely be deleted again. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! And you think it'll happen because article's subject isn't notable enough, right? I could do my best expanding it to prove otherwise, and if it's deleted again, then so be it. Yambaram (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I haven't looked into the notability, but generally if someone prod's an article they will tend to come back and put it up for deletion if it ends up recreated. So do your best to proove notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fc

Template:Fc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaanus Sorokin

Jaanus Sorokin vandalism--112.169.25.24 (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

The edit war

Can you help me understand what's going on at Jaanus Sorokin and all these other articles these guys are edit warring on? I skimmed through the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles and I can't make much sense of what people are disputing or whether there was any discernible outcome. Is it just about whether to call it "Estonian SSR" because of the time period? --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Its a bit of a mess, but there is a block of about 4 or 5 editors that are insisting on calling peoples birthplaces City, Estonia even though wiki-wide convention is to use the name of the country at the time of birth. They state that because the Soviet Unions occupation was illegal that the place wasn't City, Soviet Union or City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union even if it was commonly known as that outside of Estonia. A couple of them have gone through every person born in Estonia changing them all to City, Estonia. The hockey project however held a specific RfC on how too list it for hockey players and consensus to keep it at or at the very least lack of consensus to change from City, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union resulted. From what I can see a couple months later unnoticed by most of the hockey project H2ppyme changed them again to City, Estonia. At which point him and the block group edit warred with this Tokyo editor. It then was notice by me and the hockey project and protection was requested. It was given for a month and then you know from there. During that time there was an RfC to try and decide one way or the other for every bio article which came to no-consensus. However, there was already consensus on hockey articles. I know its confusing and the debates over it are spread out over probably close to 10 different forums as each time they didn't get what they were looking for they started a new discussion in another forum. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Truth be told, looking at that article, there's another factor: do you think Sorokin passes notability standards? I'm not seeing it, myself. Ravenswing 14:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I hadn't even thought about that. I had completely forgotten that NHOCKEY was changed and this player wouldn't meet the new version. Want to nominate it? -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if he even met the old version. GNG and all that. Reso lute 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah he probably never met GNG. But he could have met NHOCKEY by player in the top pro league in his country which some people interpreted the old one to mean. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It was nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaanus Sorokin. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

tl;dr: Plain, simple, nationalistic revisionist history. Reso lute 14:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

OH MY GOD THE ESTONIAN CIVIL WAR STARTED AGAIN!? *dies inside a little bit* --Львівське (говорити) 14:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It never stopped. I've lost count of how many times Leo Komarov has had to be protected because of this idiocy. Reso lute 14:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

i feel like i'm to blame for bringing this to WP:HOCKEY in the first place --Львівське (говорити) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the overview and explanations. I would probably pick something more important to edit war over, like whether the Red Wings are the best franchise in the history of hockey (which is true). --Laser brain (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But articles like this are just a small battlefield in a larger whitewashing campaign. When I was checking H2ppyme's history to verify my memory of previous revert runs by him, I was a little astounded to see this behaviour going back three years on bio articles in a variety of fields. Reso lute 14:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You WP:HOCKEY guys are apparently intent on ignoring the consensus formed at WP:ESTONIA, you guys have absolutely no understanding of the wider body of literature with respect to the factual status of the Baltic states. Claims like "nationalistic revisionist history" just demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the topic. As User:Laser_brain states, perhaps you guys should really concern yourselves with whether Red Wings are the best franchise or not. --Nug (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your private deals don't get to override wiki-wide naming conventions. As WP:CONLIMITED stipulates, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." You assuredly do not get to declare that you have a private consensus, when the sentiment at the Baltic-states RfC last year in fact ran strongly against your position.
That being said, you fall into the all-too-typical trap of the partisan: that you equate failure to agree with your position with failure to understand your position. Regardless of your geopolitical grievances, there is a naming convention in place on Wikipedia, and we abide by it in our own articles. As with the Sorokin AfD, if you want to overturn that consensus, you know where to go to accomplish that. I'm afraid, though, again with the Sorokin AfD as a guide, you're going to have a hard time convincing people that your motives are anything beyond partisan nationalism. Ravenswing 09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently consensus in reliable secondary sources about international agreement on the issue is "partisan nationalism" to you. Even published hockey sources agree on place of birth. But that is not enough to sway some WP:HOCKEY members over their misplaced POV. And what "community consensus" are you talking about, can you post a link to the discussion? Your private consensus at WP:HOCKEY is not equivalent to "community consensus". --Nug (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Except that there has been a wiki-wide consensus that birth locations are named as of the time of their birth, and we all know the wp:commonname of Estonia at the time was the Soviet one. That has been the case long before WP:HOCKEY reconfirmed their position on it with their RfC earlier in the year. So yes there is a wider community consensus that your Estonia project is trying to override. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So is this your plan then, Nug? Whine, bitch and moan repeatedly until people simply throw up their hands in disgust and you get your way? Seriously... go find something useful to do. Reso lute 14:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You know full well what I'm talking about, Nug: the Baltic states RfC, in which the head count ran two to one against your POV. Come to that, how about you link to your private "consensus?" Ravenswing 17:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I find it...questionable...that they had a vote by "WP:ESTONIA" but there is no talk page discussion over there at all on this topic. Did they convene in private? Is this some WP:EEML type of situation of collusion? --Львівське (говорити) 18:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's why I asked for a link. I've already been over the WP:ESTONIA talk page and the archive, and I haven't seen any such "consensus." All there is in the archives is a link to the RfC, a year and a half ago. Perhaps Nug could come up with some evidence to offset the increasing presumption that this alleged "consensus" is a complete fiction. Ravenswing 22:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS exists as evidenced by the fact that all BLP's under WP:ESTONIA, except the articles edit-warred by you guys, have place of birth as "Estonia". In my experience the only other people taking exception to this are disruptive sock puppets like this, so what are you so worked up over something like this, apart from your apparent loyalty to User:Lvivske who started this dispute in the first place? --Nug (talk) 07:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Go back and reread that guideline, and you'll see that it states very plainly that such an alleged "consensus" does not exist when it is under dispute. The mere fact that people disagree with your position constitutes dispute. Therefore, no consensus. Just more evidence, were any required, of your bad faith. Ravenswing 08:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just want to point out that running a private "WP:ESTONIA" re-vote of the same members who lost every single RfC so far is just bad taste conflict of interest. If a wikiproject on estonia can override everything then so could a WP:RUSSIA or WP:USSR. You'd think us, an independent non-partisan non-political WP would be the best to judge on this. Then again, that's why all the independent RFCs have gone the same way.--Львівське (говорити) 17:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin recently observed it doesn't seem like there is an overridding consensus either way. The wiki wide consensus is sovereign state at the time of birth, and the consensus in reliable sources is that the Baltic SSRs were not recognised as sovereign states. The place of birth of somebody born in Tskhinvali would be Georgia since Georgia's sovereignty over South Ossetia remains internationally recognised. As for wp:commonname, the common name of Estonia during the Soviet period was "Estonia", as been shown to you previously. Every single biography of a living person under WP:ESTONIA lists place of birth as "Estonia", even ice hockey bios until User:Lvivske recently started inserting his apparent Soviet POV into them and you other guys piling on in apparent WP:HOCKEY solidarity. --Nug (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign state at time of birth was the Soviet Union, which 100% of the world recognized. In contrast, only some western countries viewed Estonia as a sovereign state at this time.--Львівське (говорити) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your view reflects what reliable sources describe as Russian nationalist POV. Only a handful of countries recognised the USSR's sovereignty over the Baltic States, Nazi Germany was the first, then Nazi occupied Netherlands, Sweden then post Franco Spain, maybe one or two others. That's it. --Nug (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

So I'm a Russian nationalist and a Nazi now? Wow. --Львівське (говорити) 21:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've not called you any such thing. --Nug (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Only that my views ascribe to Russian nationalism and dated Nazi historical interpretations. I get it. --Львівське (говорити) 22:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It is documented in reliable sources that one of the aspects of Russian nationalist discourse is the view that the USSR had sovereignty over the Baltic states. It seemed worthwhile to point that out to you, as you may have been unwittingly holding such a coincidental viewpoint. You claimed "100% of the world recognised" so I rebutted that claim by naming the handful of countries that actually did, how is that ascribing a "dated Nazi historical interpretation"? --Nug (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

100% of the world recognized the Soviet Union as a sovereign state, but it as disputed whether Estonia was de jure part of it or simply occupied. We've all been over this. You choose to go by the Western cold-war viewpoint that didn't recognize it, the rest of us decided to go by the de facto reality - that it was in the USSR and the USSR was the state of birth. No one here is ascribing to a Russian nationalist POV, I don't think anyone in this WP is even Russian. Ironically, we're all westernerns for the most part - and even in spite of this we know how to face the reality events. --Львівське (говорити) 23:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

100% of the world recognised the Soviet Union as a sovereign state, but that recognition did not extend to Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic states. Nor is it a "Western cold-war viewpoint" (a classic Russian nationalist meme btw), all of the sources cited with respect to the continuity of the Baltic states are post-cold war, and a number of secondary sources explicitly state that the view on Baltic continuity is not disputed and generally accepted by the international community. --Nug (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

All fine and good, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia naming conventions. You've been asked repeatedly, now, to prove the consensus at WP:ESTONIA you claim was made. You've been reminded now, repeatedly, of the RfC in which you participated. Our interest in debating the de facto sovereignty of the Soviet Union over Estonia is not only meager, but it's been a moot issue for over two decades, and there's nothing about you filibustering until you get the last word by default which will change much of anything. Part of editing in a consensus-based atmosphere is to recognize when consensus is against you, to lose gracefully, and move on. If you cannot do that, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the environment for you. Ravenswing 08:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already pointed out to you that WP:EDITCONSENSUS exists as evidenced by the fact that all BLP's under WP:ESTONIA, except the handful of ice hockey articles edit-warred by you guys, have place of birth as "Estonia". Sovereignty is the principle around which intentional relations has been built since the 1648 Peace of Westphalia. According to international law, sovereignty is the legitimate exercise of power by a state: de jure sovereignty is the legal right to do so; de facto sovereignty is the ability in fact to do so. Since when is "de facto sovereignty" placed ahead of "de jure sovereignty"? As Rephael Harel Ben-Ari in The Normative Position of International Non-Governmental Organizations under International Law states:

"Thus de jure sovereignty is indeed the normative manifestation of the idea of the equality of nations, based upon the triangular relationship between nation, state and territory. In this respect, it is the manifestation of the relationship that man, being a member of a nation or people, enjoys with the state, as a particular form of socio-political organisation, through a certain territory, as a definite 'homeland'. It also constitutes the international community, reflecting the 'unity of humankind' that encompasses all nations of the world living under the overarching roof of a common legal order. In other words, de jure sovereignty emphasises the territorial nation state - with all three components of this idiom being essentially indivisible - as the normative building block of the global legal order"

Seems rather tendentious to claim "de facto sovereignty" overrules "de jure sovereignty" with respect to birthplace, particularly when the former usually refers to an external occupying regime where as the latter refers to the territorial nation state. --Nug (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Godzilla2014Poster.jpg

Could you push something among the admins for this file? File:Godzilla2014Poster.jpg I don't want to keep reverting. You are the only admin I know. Alaney2k (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like another admin protected it before I could take a look. Let me know if you have any other problems I am happy to help. -DJSasso (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at ice hockey pages

Hi Djsasso. Per WP:BRD, it's poor form to mass-revert changes to infoboxes when a discussion is in progress, especially without even leaving an edit summary. Please do not do this again. Thanks, C 679 06:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And per WP:BRD it is a good idea to revert back to the last stable version until a consensus for change is reached. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

IRC

Hi, several people from the baseball wikiproject are getting together after Wizardman's sudden retirement to figure out a better way to organize the Wikiproject. One of the ideas we came up with is having our own IRC channel to help each other, as well as new users with collaboration and content. If you need help connecting to IRC join #wikipedia-coffeehouse ^connect. The IRC channel for Wikiproject Baseball is #wiki-baseball ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sochi Olympics

Hi, I tried adding that Aleš Hemský plays for the Czech national hockey team in the lead of the article and was reverted. What is normal WP Hockey practice in such cases? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the guidelines: The lead section is intended to explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

So, the ground rules relating to what should be included in this section (and what should not) are thus established. I don't see how anything in Project Ice Hockey is going to overrule Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Ales Hemsky's participation in the Sochi Olympics or any other association with the Czech national team is A) not a a significant factor in his notability, B) is not one of the article's most important points, and C) it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Mention it in the article if you wish, just not in the lead section. 173.212.80.159 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding yourself if you don't think national team play is a significant part of an athlete's notability. The fact that the article body doesn't cover it well is a flaw in the article's current quality and not an indicator that playing for the Czech national team isn't important. Myself, I would fully support reintroducing that line (ideally while also adding some prose to the body, if In ictu oculi is up to it). Reso lute 22:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And I would fully support you fucking off. Fuck the guidelines as well, because they obviously don't mean anything. Shame on you as an administrator. 173.212.80.159 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I would support a report on this IP for WP:NPA. As for the the article I have added "Hemsky was the Czech Republic men's national ice hockey team highest scorer in ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics with three goals and four points." at the bottom of the article, but I still feel that him playing for his country merits mention in lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And you are, of course, right. It is impossible to think that being a world champion and Olympic medalist is anything but a key part of a player's notability. Reso lute 23:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can't handle it when people disagree with you, you will find editing Wikipedia to be a continuing, and probably short lived, challenge. Reso lute 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I am glad I missed all this.... And yes having played on a national team at the olympics is probably one of the most notable things a player can do in his career so it most assuredly belongs in the lead. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"Frankly I think removing it is greatly harming the article and is the image equivalent of a POV edit"

OK, you just accused six editors of POV pushing. Really? REALLY? Honestly, sometimes I get the feeling you spy on me from time to time to see what I'm doing, then comment on the next thing I'm doing to tell me how horribly wrong I am. You did this at Simple and now you're doing it here. It's essentially hounding at this point, and needs to stop. p b p 00:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You think to highly of yourself if you think I have time to check in on you. Not to mention I don't even remember the last time I commented on something you did. Probably close to a year ago, so hardly hounding. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was four months ago. The issue isn't so much that you do it often (though it's hardly infrequent), it's just that every time you do, it's a borderline personal attack at me and anyone who agrees with me p b p 19:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Right so not hounding if its been 4 months. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tristan Jarry

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

No Mojo?

Why isn't Mississippi Mojo worthy of an article on Wikipedia? It competes in the highest national league. David B. Blue (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It didn't claim why it was notable. If you can make a claim go ahead and recreate it since it was just a speedy deletion However, just playing in the highest national league in some sports might not be enough to be notable. You are going to have to find news articles from multiple sources that talk about the team in detail to show it has notability. And they should be from more than one geographical location. See WP:RS and WP:GEOSCOPE. In my limited search it only looked like a somewhat local rec league team. Especially seeing as how every game in the league is held in the same location. -DJSasso (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Duclair

I might be misremembering this, but I think that Anthony Duclair had a larger article created on him following the draft which had failed GNG and at the time he did not meet NHockey. The page has been recreated and appears to pass NHockey now. I was wondering if you would be able to un-delete the old version? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Merge any info from old revisions you deem useful. -DJSasso (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you I'm hoping to go through it this weekend. Cheers! --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

re: Ottawa Senators

Just curious how you get to decide what's relevant and what isn't. You give a man a title and a little bit of power and he'll typically do that sort of thing. Caper454 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing to do with Djsasso (or Ravenswing, who reverted you first), having a "title" or "power", but rather the necessity for consensus. I'll add my own voice into agreeing that the removed text is not relevant to the Ottawa Senators article. Reso lute 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We could, after all, easily turn your question around: how is it that you get to decide what is relevant or not? That being said, the test of relevance is simple -- does the information directly pertain to the subject? In this case, it does not; this isn't the Canadiens' article, and so whether Montreal won the Cup that year or went belly up has nothing to do with a description of the Senators' first win or first season. As you gain more experience on Wikipedia, you'll get to know a bunch of these subtle distinctions. Ravenswing 02:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry experience isn't the issue here. He has been around a long time as User:Freshfighter9 and User:ChakaKong so he knows how things are supposed to happen. He is just having a fit because he didn't get his way which is what he usually does. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhh. One might wonder why flipping to a new/old account. Well, then, with ten thousand edits under his belt, it's safe to say that it's not that he's a newbie ignorant of how things done. I really can't claim I have much use for someone hiding behind a 200+ edit account to play the ingenuous card. Ravenswing 23:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so nice to see that you guys still control everything hockey related, still somehow perfectly understand everyone's motives, and still think so gosh darn highly of yourselves that you remain completely oblivious to your own complicity in driving constructive editors away from the project. Give yourselves a pat on the back for your awesomeness. I'm curious about where I might find evidence of the consensus you mentioned. Has the subject ever been discussed? Two or three guys against one is hardly a consensus and you guys should know that. I mean, you guys know everything, right? And one more quick point: I certainly don't regard anything I've done as "hiding" behind anything, or playing "the ingenuous card". All I've ever done here since day one is work every bit as hard as either of you at trying to improve the project. False judgements of my motives doesn't help you. Caper454 (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, quite aside from the intense irony of someone frothing at the mouth at having his motives disparaged turning around to disparage the motives of others, there's this: there has to be fifty people a day on Wikipedia who pitch intense hissy fits over people disagreeing with their edits. A good many of these edits are trivial at best -- oh, say, like this one. A good many of those editors scream that The Cabal Is Out To Get Them, and threaten (either explicitly or obliquely) to quit Wikipedia. Once upon a time, I was bothered by this. Nowadays, I just shrug and suggest that no one forces them to participate here, and that they're the best judges of their own time and energy. Trying to win the drama queens over to the light of reason just takes too much effort. Ravenswing 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If you’ve concluded your verbal assault on me, let’s get to the heart of the matter. The offending sentence stood unopposed in the article for a number of years. That is not an exaggeration, that’s a fact. All of a sudden you decide to remove it without explanation or discussion. Well, I’m still wondering where this consensus, the only thing propping up your entire argument, can be found. The fact is (and facts are kinda important at Wikipedia, I believe) that no consensus to remove the material exists, and a lack of consensus typically results in keeping the version of the article as it was prior to the attempt to delete the material. That is what the guidelines state, my friend. Do you want to discuss that inconvenient point or do you want to insult me some more? Caper454 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well considering 3 people were opposed to it and only you wanted it. That is a consensus. I am sort of surprised after all these years you don't know that. Secondly there is a whole guideline about trivia which deals with this so it isn't even just the three of us. Just because it was unnoticed for awhile doesn't make it valid. And reasons have been given from our end. Your entire argument, however, has been I like it. -DJSasso (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that you are an administrator, it's a bit odd that you don't know what consensus is. There has been no debate, let alone anything that could be defined as "vigorous" or "in depth"; it's just you and your pals forming a bloc and getting your way as you have become accustomed to. As I said, 2 or 3 guys against one is not consensus. Caper454 (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So make an argument for why it should be there. We have. So far all you have done is try to disparage us over and over. I would note it was you who came here disparaging people instead of stating your case. Lacking any kind of argument from you yes it very much is a consensus. -DJSasso (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is rather amusing, Caper. You claim that consensus is the only thing propping up my argument. Kindly point out above where I mention consensus at all. Beyond that, your willful ignorance of how Wikipedia works would be corrected if you were a newbie, and is not in the slightest degree plausible or acceptable in someone with your edit count. There is nothing about how long a sentence is in an article that has the slightest bearing on whether it's acceptable to alter or remove, and you know that ... or you ought to. Barring an article under ArbCom restrictions, no one needs to secure prior approval before performing any edit, and you know that ... or you ought to. You keep claiming there's been no debate. One was not required, and you know that ... or you ought to.

But that being said, what's stopping you? I don't have to open a debate to secure justification for my edit, but what prevents you? You could start one up on the talk page, you could start one up on the hockey WikiProject's talk page. What stops you? ... other than, I suspect, that you're afraid to look foolish for going to war over such a trivial edit, and the likelihood that you'll come out with exactly as much support as you have now: to wit, zero. Ravenswing 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"Bad faith"

This is at least the third time I'm asking you this, but it will be the last. You continue to accuse me of alternatively either editing in bad faith or accusing me of assuming it in others. Stop. This is disruptive and will not be tolerated. I have come nowhere close to accusing anyone of bad faith, and even explained this in no uncertain terms after you continued to assert otherwise. If you continue, I will bring this matter up at WP:ANI and let others address your behavioral problems, because as an administrator you should have some basic understanding of WP:AGF and WP:AAGF, and the fact that you either don't understand that or choose to ignore it is worrying and if it continues, needs to be addressed. - Aoidh (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You have continually claimed that I was canvassed to a discussion and that I was acting on Resolutes behalf despite no evidence of that. The fact that he asked a talk page to do something doesn't mean that someone else acting had anything to do with his request. That has been explained to you multiple times. The fact that you continue assume that we are acting on his behalf is disruptive. Comments to that effect are disruptive. And per the very pages you quote in this message, disruptive comments are examples of bad faith. So feel free to bring it to WP:ANI and watch the WP:BOOMERANG effect in actions. And you can see my reply to you in the other discussion for the exact bullet points of WP:NPA that you violate each time you comment on us being a clique and each time you accuse me of being canvassed when you lack evidence my action was because he put out a call on a talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Now your assumptions are spelled out. I would love to see a diff where I have accused you of acting on his behalf, or that I continue to assume anything; I promise you, you won't find it, especially when I've already explained that I am not assuming anything of the sort; continuing to assert that I'm thinking something I've already told you I haven't is problematic behavior; I'm sure I would know what I'm thinking better than you. Your interpretation of WP:DE is as inaccurate as WP:BADFAITH, especially when your comments were, the entire time about myself. Here is the diff showing that "Resolute canvassed others to edit-war on his behalf". That is indisputable. What I did not say is that you acted on that request and that your editing was nothing more than a result of that; this was nothing more than your own assumption. As for the rest, including the bit about "Comment on content, not on the contributor", that is something you, Resolute, and Ravenswing are all guilty of as much if not more than I, because on this discussion you have done nothing but comment on me. You have made assumptions and jumped at those shadows, being offended by what you're thinking I've said instead of what is actually being said. Please show any evidence that I acted in bad faith with diffs, not generalizations. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding the comment on you being part of a certain clique, a clique is defined as "persons who interact with each other more regularly and intensely than others in the same setting". It wasn't used as a pejorative, it was used to note that you interact on the same articles frequently, and that you collaborate frequently (which is a good thing on a collaborative encyclopedia), but that because of this frequent collaboration, you don't necessarily represent an impartial outside analysis. That's not a personal attack nor was it intended as one, I'm sorry if you took it that way. - Aoidh (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that in the context you are using it in, it is considered a pejorative. You are a smart guy, I am sure you know that the term clique is in almost all cases considered a pejorative so don't waste my time and play innocent. Your entire actions surrounding this page have been to attempt to discredit the people that disagree with you. You have made it an entirely poisonous atmosphere for any remote attempt at discussion from the minute you started your edit war tear to the next moment you started templating regulars, and then calling people parts of cliques who are acting on Resolute's behalf. Of which you said me and Ravenswing were a part of. Do you need the direct quote again? That isn't an assumption, that is your direct words. You out and out said we were working on his behalf, otherwise we wouldn't be part of the clique working on his behalf now would we. There is plenty of evidence, that you reject it doesn't mean there isn't any. -DJSasso (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

No, in the context I used it in, you considered it a pejorative, and oddly enough "Your entire actions surrounding this page have been to attempt to discredit the people that disagree with you" is exactly how I honestly, truly see these comments directed towards me on that article talk page, so maybe it's not as black and white as you're making it out to be, especially when others telling you that "It would be helpful if you stopped misrepresenting things?" I would love for you to provide a diff, yes, because despite saying "there is plenty of evidence" you haven't provided a single diff; I can't reject what isn't there. Please, provide a diff that backs up what you're claiming: where did I "out and out [say you] were working on his behalf?" - Aoidh (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Heck, you accused me of coming in to the discussion by way of canvass, as well as claiming that I had some sinister "purpose" to doing so. I would be pleased as punch to see you take this to ANI; having been a regular contributor at ANI, I understand -- which you apparently don't -- that the regulars there regard WP:BOOMERANG as holy writ. Go for it. I'll bring the popcorn. Ravenswing 17:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed the comments I made to you, and I'm afraid I never accused you of coming to the discussion "by way of canvass", nor did I accuse you of some "sinister purpose". In the future, you may want to read the comments other editors write, because what you're suggesting I've said and what the diffs show aren't exactly matching. You're also more than welcome to read WP:BOOMERANG (and then re-read this discussion) and provide a diff where I've ever accused anyone of bad faith or of assuming it in others. I apologize if it seems that I was attacking or accusing you of anything, but hopefully if you look again you'll see that this wasn't the case. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In the future, you may want to do a more thorough job of reviewing your own edits. "A quick look at your recent contribs shows betrays your purpose here, even ignoring the fact that (1) consensus is not a vote, especially not a canvassed vote" [2] I agree that you did not use the word "sinister" or the phrase "by way of canvass," but claiming that you weren't impugning my motives or making an accusation of canvassing is either deliberately misleading, careless or indicative of a short memory. Your choice as to which you would prefer. Ravenswing 08:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see my words as something beyond what I've said, but I don't see my wording as either misleading or careless. I did not say you were canvassed, but asking others to edit on someone's behalf did occur (again, not by you), and that wouldn't be the first time that a consensus was seen as "canvassed" and brought into question; that was my point. The way you entered the discussion, it appeared that you were commenting as though it were from an impartial standpoint, and that was not the case. Again, I did not accuse you of coming to the discussion from being canvassed or of having some sinister purpose (by that or any other word), but I apologize if that's how you saw it and got offended by that. However, with respect for Djsasso I think if this discussion is going to continue it should happen somewhere other than his talk page, so that they aren't bombarded with unnecessary notifications. - Aoidh (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. The thread is "Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey". Permafrost46 (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the reason you weren't notified earlier is that there was a typo in your username. Permafrost46 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of others who should probably be notified. Other than me and you he only picked editors who agreed with him. There is an IP that should be notified and probably anyone in that discussion at WT:HOCKEY. I guess I should notify them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Good idea to invite others, Ravenswing, Resolute are the ones that come to mind. Permafrost46 (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Writing a ping message as we speak. -DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

2000 Women's World Ice Hockey Championships Pool B Qualification

I noticed that the same thing happens in the following years page, I am pretty sure the page creator did not really understand what the IIHF was doing. If a simple redirect is appropriate I will proceed that way, just seems a waste of space for something that already exists.18abruce (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh I agree with you. I just meant its probably less hassle to do a redirect and only bring it to Rfd in the future if someone objects. This one might as well run its course since its already up. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticizer emboldened

FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, in which you participated, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi#Request per WP:NPA.

Suggestions/advice appreciated. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

estonian vandalism

Aleksei Terentjev, Mihkel Võrang--210.124.124.36 (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

HRM sockpuppet

Hi Djsasso, happy to see someone else noticed this guy is back. See my message under Talk:Halifax,_Nova_Scotia#Hatnote_Conflict. Regards, Citobun (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't too difficult to spot. It would appear that the new "entity" is quiet for now. Regards, Aloha27 (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Birth locations

Let's have a look at the substance. Latvia's occupation by Soviet Union (1940-1991) was a clear breach of Geneva Conventions and has never been recognised by most countries. Therefore, it would be absolutely misleading to state that the location of birth of Latvian sportsmen and other well known people is Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, reading about "born in Riga, Soviet Union" or "born in Riga, Latvian SSR" is very annoying to nearly all Latvian citizens using Wikipedia. The evidence that some of Latvian sportsmen have actually participated in USSR national teams does not justify the fact of Latvia's occupation by USSR. Please take note that as regards Latvia's neighbour country Estonia, none of Wikipedia articles state that Estonian people were born in Soviet Union. Have a successful studying of the history of three Baltic states and thanks for understanding! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LV1050 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that it may or may not have been a breach of the Geneva Conventions, it was at that point occupied and part of the Soviet Union. Annoying as it may be. It is factual. We go by facts not nationalistic desire. Estonia articles do actually list that they were part of the Soviet Union, however they do sometimes get changed back to Estonia by a couple of editors who like to push their point of view that they should be Estonia and not Soviet Union. -DJSasso (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, let's have a compromise. People which really have collaborated with authorities during Soviet occupation (e.g. participated in USSR national teams) might have a reason for a birthplace "USSR". However, younger people which were born in the 80-ties obviously have not had any relation with the regime, so their birthplace is Latvia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LV1050 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Women's hockey in the introductory section

Hi there, wondering why you believe it is not appropriate to mention the CWHL alongside the NHL in the introductory paragraph. Cheers. CourtRiv (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so either. The CWHL is a modest amateur league that largely plays in community rinks and training facilities, and receives far less press and notoriety than almost any fully professional men's league, as well as many major junior or collegiate loops. Since Wikipedia reflects notability rather than equality, that must be the standard. Ravenswing 21:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much what he says. It is simply not notable enough for the lead paragraph. -DJSasso (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a fair justification. Cheers! CourtRiv (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

LANGVAR changes

The editor has made a number of other similar edits. Please check his edit history. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I am taking a look. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Canadian soccer league system was another particularly bad instance. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Quebec hockey

Hey, I was wondering if you could move Quebec Junior AAA Hockey League to Quebec Junior Hockey League for me. It is a redirect page and I can't do that. They just announced the league name change to fall in line with the rest of Canada. DMighton (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Have no problem doing it, but do you mind cleaning up the incoming redirects first? -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure! DMighton (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

All set! DMighton (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thx! DMighton (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Radim Vrbata

Could you lock down the Radim Vrbata page? There is precipitant IP hopping vandalism going on. Thanks. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 19:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Your bot on English Wikipedia

A proposal to de-authorize a group of idle interwiki bots on the English Wikipedia is currently in process. A bot account of yours has been included in the list. If you are no longer using this bot, no action is necessary by you. Should you wish to revive your bot in the near future, please remove your bot from the list here: en:Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Bot_that_are_inactive_for_the_last_2-4_years_and_may_lose_bot_flag. Thank you for your contributions. For the en: Bot Approvals Group, Magioladitis (talk) 18:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Help

Looking for help here: [3] ... A User:Tiroth is blanking material from the page without giving an edit summary... has engaged another user in an edit war, where the other user (a newb) is attempting to revert his vandalism... I do believe that Tiroth has violated WP:3RR and is purposefully engaging in either both POV-pushing or edit-warring... he also personally attacked the newb's page for trying to engage him [4]. I really don't know what I can do about it, could you help? DMighton (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I have stopped the edit war for now and have both users possibly talking it over. I think there might be a chance to clear this up diplomatically. DMighton (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Bot flag on frwiki

Hello,

As a bureaucrat on frwiki, I was checking the activity of the bots, and noticed that yours had been inactive for at least 6 months. Morover, the interwikis are now centralized on Wikidata. It is not reasonable that an unmonitored account keeps a bot flag, as it may be more easily hacked. Do you wish to keep the bot flag? If this is the case, please tell me so (preferably on my talk page on frwiki, otherwise on my talk page on this project). Without any answer from you, the bot flag will be removed in one month.

Thank you for your comprehension, Litlok (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please

see. Iank Peldeva 30All (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Trevor Kell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trevor Kell 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/Trevor Kell 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. Coycan (talk) 19:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Bobby Bolt for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bobby Bolt 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/Bobby Bolt 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. Coycan (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2014 (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 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. Coycan (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryan Bennett (ice hockey) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryan Bennett (ice hockey) 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/Ryan Bennett (ice hockey) 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. Coycan (talk) 16:26, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Tim Branham for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Branham 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/Tim Branham 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. Coycan (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Political Cricketer

To prove the users Phaneendra M and Political Cricketer are same, I'm posting a comment here as you asked in the simple wiki's changing user name page. Change my user name in simple wiki from Phaneendra M to Political Cricketer. Political Cricketer^talk 06:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Inactive bot on Japanese Wikipedia

Djsasso/Archive 9さん、こんにちは。

ウィキペディア日本語版であなたの管理するBotが1年間以上稼働していません。

もし、Botフラグを維持されたいのであれば1か月以内に最低1度だけBotを動かしてください。このまま1か月稼働しなければあなたのBotはフラグ除去申請が提出されます。

Hi Djsasso/Archive 9,

I noticed that your bot on japanese Wikipedia has been inactive for more than a year. If you wish to keep its bot flag, please use once within a month. If you no longer need it, the bot flag will be removed.

Regards, -- Banku on ja.wikipedia 05:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

wp:burden

Hi DJ. I noticed you've been re-adding material that was deleted per wp:v, without supplying inline RS cites directly supporting the text as required by wp:burden. I was wondering if there was a wp-guideline reason for that that I'm missing. Tx. --Epeefleche (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure you are missing the part of the section that says "Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article." It is inappropriate to strip most of the content out of an article and then nominate it for deletion. As such the material is restored so an informed Afd can happen. -DJSasso (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not missing that. The deletions are in accord with wp:v. The restoration without inline RS cites directly supporting the text is in direct contravention of wp:burden. And AfD !votes -- properly made -- are made on an RS-supported basis (whether reflected in the article or not). I see nothing in what you wrote that allows restoration by you of such text, without supplying inline RS cites in accord with wp:v. And I would think wp:admin would lead to you exemplifying editing in accord with wp:burden. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Well feel free to interpret it as you like. Stripping out the majority of information in an article in an attempt to sneak it through Afd when it was easy to prove it met WP:GNG if you had followed WP:BEFORE is completely inappropriate and a long term editor should know better. As such your edits were revered so the article could be properly evaluated. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Please AGF. Please don't accuse other good faith editors of "sneaking," when all they did was edit in accordance with wp:v. That is completely disrespectful. Please don't chastise editors for deleting material tagged for references, months ago, where none have been provided. And as you no doubt know, given your experience, wp:before is what one does before an AfD nomination, not what one does before tagging and/or deleting material that does not supply a wp:v RS ref to support it. I see you create entire articles without any ref whatsoever -- that does not shift the burden for searching for footnotes for your wholly uncited material onto others. Epeefleche (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

In regards to wp:before I was talking about your Afd nomination, you clearly did not follow it or you wouldn't have nominated the article. It is one of the most major malls in the entire province of Nova Scotia nevermind Bedford. Extremely easy to find sources that meet GNG. That is what I meant by failing to follow wp:before. Secondly I think you will find that the article you commented on about references did in fact have references. External links are considered valid references though not always for notability. So you might want to brush up on your referencing and nominating requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And please don't -- as you did here -- edit in direct contravention to wp:burden. By, as you did here, restoring material tagged months ago, unreferenced, deleted as such in complete accordance with wp:v ... which is without question a direct violation by you of wp:burden. There is zero excuse for you to do that. You have presented none. And doing so is not only wholly inappropriate, in that it violates wp:burden, it is a direct violation of wp:admin ("Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies"). That's not a matter of interpretation -- sysops should not edit in that manner. Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

And again wp:burden does not say it can not be readded, just that it should not be readded. In this case where you stripped the article of 2/3rds its content prior to nominating it was one of those times it was appropriate to restore so that an appropriate Afd could occur. -DJSasso (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario

Having closed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12#Category:Ice hockey people from Detroit, and implemented the closure, I started to get worried about the size of Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario - currently almost at 1,200. A currently open discussion, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 13#Category:Ice hockey people from Markham, Ontario, proposes upmerging more articles there. Being that you participated in one or both of these discussions, you may be interested in a related discussion at Category talk:Ice hockey people from Ontario#Splitting of this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cool

You turned the red link for Dorothy Wise in Jean Balukas to blue!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow you noticed that fast. -DJSasso (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

UHL article

Since June, there've been eleven bits of vandalism from the anon IP, working from 32.218 IP addresses, insistent on changing the United Hockey League to a "mid" level minor league instead of the low-level supported by the seven inline citations hanging off of it; you've reverted one yourself. (This doesn't count the number of ones before that from 64.252 addresses.) Given the persistent vandalism, what's the chance we can get the article changed to autoconfirmed-only ... or even better, to rangeblock 32.218 from the article? Ravenswing 16:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I could probably play wack a mole with the particular IP range. But protecting the article itself, being that it appears to be a single user and its not super frequent (ie not multiple times a day) there probably isn't a reason to protect the page. But it is on my watch list so I will keep an eye on it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

May I usurp a blocked account at Simple Wikipedia?

Hi Djsasso, I noticed that my account at Simple Wikipedia has been blocked. I assume this was done preemptively since some disgruntled children presumably created imitation accounts to commit vandalism in my name, for example this account. As you will note I've never been blocked and I am a prolific vandalism fighter. Is there any way I can get that account unblocked? ~~Do I have to post an unblock request on that talk page?~~ Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Strikethrough. I realized that was a dumb question. I'll post my unblock request there. If you're around, I hope you'll review it. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't unblock that specific account because it was a proper block. However, if you wish to Usurp that account you can make a request in the following location meta:Steward requests/Username changes. I will let someone else handle any possible usurpation request because I am the one that blocked that account. -DJSasso (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what you mean by a "proper block". I don't see any pernicious edits in the edit history on that account, and I can access the account, change prefs, etc, because I am logged in there, so any suggestion that I should usurp the account is confusing to me, because I already have full access. Unless you can demonstrate that account was used to create vandalism (perhaps to create articles that have subsequently been deleted?) I don't think the block is needed any longer, and I don't understand the hesitance to lift it. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry you are messaging on multiple wikis at once which has confused the situation. In your message on simple you mention that the account was a knockoff account of yours. Which is what I mean by a propper block, it was matched to sock puppets so it was blocked. I will deal with any further discussion about it on the appropriate wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Got a favor to ask ...

I was going through the history on my user page, and was reminded of this edit: [5]. Now the mutt was indeed indeffed for being a troll, but what I didn't know then was that abusive edit summaries could be redacted. Could I request this now? Thanks muchly ... Ravenswing 08:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem. The edit summary is redacted. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly! Ravenswing 21:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

A little help?

Heya was just wondering of your opinion on how to advise a user to streamline their edits?

User:Wcreed88 is obviously a big Missouri Mavericks fan and adds good information, however by looking a player pages associated with the team has a tendency to over reference, redlink and change format of references to a way more confusing ref list section?! eg. Ross Ring-Jarvi.. or here's a before and after of Colby Cohen, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colby_Cohen&oldid=633029578 to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Colby_Cohen&oldid=633540693 (sorry was unsure how to link revision history)..Also there's an issue in linking player pages straight to Jersey database (John-Scott Dickson) i have no idea on the stance on that?

Was just curious if this can be approached or not, i'm not versed in this stuff at all so any help would be appreciated. Thanks Triggerbit (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Triggerbit and Djsasso:

Triggerbit, let me first thank you for your kind words about the content in the articles I manage. I really appreciate it.

Having religiously edited Wikipedia pages for the Missouri Mavericks since 2010, I have become set in my formatting style and, other than a few minor things which I have stopped doing per instruction from the Wikipedia community, I have received no push-back.

Djsasso, could you please provide a ruling opinion on whether or not each of my below editing methods are acceptable or not? If you could please, I, and I'm sure Triggerbit, too, would really appreciate it.

Let me explain my rationale behind my editing style on Wikipedia, why I do it, and why, if allowed, I want to continue to do it in the future.

1. As seen in the most recent edit I did for the page Colby Cohen at 16:20 on 11/12/2014, is it ok for me to list every professional team the player has ever played for in the Infobox? If not, which teams am I allowed to list? Per feedback I got years ago when I became an active editor, I do not include Junior/Amateur Hockey teams in the Infobox.

2. Over-referencing: I will acknowledge that I cited the information about the weight and height for Colby Cohen in my edit version of Colby Cohen at 16:20 on 11/12/2014. I generally don't do that with my edits, though. The reason I did on this article, is because there was a disparity in information across multiple websites about Cohen's weight and height, so I just cited one of the sources which had the information which was reported by the most sources.

3. Red-Linking: I acknowledge that I may be in the wrong and I will accept being corrected, I don't think that there is anything inappropriate about the Red-Linking in my articles. As can be see, the majority of the Red Links are for players who don't have any Wiki pages anywhere.

Whenever possible, if there is not an English-language Wikipedia page for the player, I always try to find another Wiki page for the player with which I can establish a link, regardless of if it is in another language (I've linked with the German, French, and Finnish Wikipedia sites) or on Wikia.

For those other items/subjects which don't have any Wiki pages anywhere and I do leave with red links, I do so in case anybody ever does build a page, so the link is already there. As you can see in the Current Roster section for the Serbian Hockey team HK Partizan, which should be noted hasn't been updated since March 5, 2012, 13 of the 18 players listed have red links.

Though I may be wrong and am willing to accept it if I am, I feel that my including Red Links in my articles when I edit is allowed in the spirit of the guidelines of Wikipedia:Red link→When to create red links, which state "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia...".

4. Using the "Ref List" to centralize my sources and using condensed tags within the article: In my opinion, my style results in less coding in a cleaner format. With my style, there is no need to fill out the complete source information syntax for each individual citation I make, which saves time, centralizes the source information within the article, and takes up less memory on Wikipedia's servers, because it doesn't have to store the redundant syntax for each individual citation when they all reference the exact same source.

5. Inter-Wiki Linking with JerseyDatabase.com. Per a ruling by Administrator "PiRSquared17" on the "Meta-Wiki" section of Wikimedia on November 30, 2013 in response to my proposal, JerseyDatabase was approved as a valid and appropriate wiki-based website with which Wikipedia articles could be linked.

Thanks for your help and feedback.--User:Wcreed88 (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI possibly involving simple.wiki

I'm notifying you of this SPI; although there has not been recent abuse on simple.wiki (Feb. 2014), the user has been there under two account names, and has edited the same topics as on en.wiki; I'm just giving you a little heads-up in case it spills over back there, and/or you want to do something preventively. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

So, this guy ...

66.94.205.235 doesn't seem like a vandal. He's made some productive edits. But he's made a ton of boneheaded ones, a bunch of wrong ones, and a bunch of blanking, too. This looks like a bit of a competence thing, but a look at his talk page and plainly several editors (myself included) have tried to get his attention and failed. Since it's plainly not a vandalism-only account I can't take it to AIV ... any advice? Ravenswing 04:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Even though they have good edits they are over shadowed by the bad. The possible competence issues wouldn't be so bad if they didn't ignore everyone who messaged them. As such I have blocked him for 31 hours to see if that gets their attention. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thankew! Let's see if this gets the idjit to communicating. Ravenswing 14:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You were right.

Your attempts to impliment the compromise-in-question, is also being reverted. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't even really implementing anything I was just reverting someones changes back to their original version, not even my preferred version. -DJSasso (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant, you were right, that there's still resistance on Wikipedia concerning the Baltics 1940 to 1991 status, in birth/death places. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

TBH, I'm curious about the IP who suddenly appeared & reverted you. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Inactive bot on ru.wikipedia

Dear botowner!

From behalf of bureaucrats of Russian Wikipedia I want to notify you, that we are discussing removal of bot flag from your bot in local ru.wikipedia: link. We nominated for removal all bots that were inactive for the latest year: if you have any future plans for bot running or want to keep this flag for some other reasons, please, tell us: discussion. You can also contact me directly via my user talk - ru:User talk:Rubin16.

If you have no objections or we won't receive any response for a week, we will remove bot flag. Thanks a lot for your previous contributions! rubin16 (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sent via MassMessage. For opt-out, edit delivery list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Back in the USSR

I'm not in a mood to argue but Your comment for the undo in which you state: "sorry there is strong consensus is to use name at time of birth. and no consensus has ever been achieved that Estonia was not part of the USSR at that time." (That's what I call POV pushing)

It's just silly and shows that You don't have enough knowledge about the history of Baltic states. Please take a minute and read this Occupation of the Baltic states. Especially this part: "The Baltic states, the United States and its courts of law, the European Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Council have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991." Do we need consensus on facts? --Klõps (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the arguments many times in the past. I am aware of the various arguments, whether or not the governments recognized the legitimacy or not does not change the fact that during those years the Soviet Union swallowed up Estonia and made it part of their country. There is political wrangling and then there is reality. The reality and historical fact is that for those years Estonia was part of the Soviet Union. I saw someone I forget who mention in one of the many discussions on this in the past that when you sent a letter you didn't address it to Estonia you addressed it to the Soviet Union. So its reality vs. political declarations. The wiki deals with historical fact, that fact on the ground was that Estonia was part of the Soviet Union in those years. And anyone outside of Estonia would have called it such, even if their governments didn't recognize it as such. There is the principle of WP:COMMONNAME on the wiki. And Estonia during those years was commonly called/known as being a part of the Soviet Union. -DJSasso (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Geez, you think you would follow your own advice[6]. De facto control of a territory does not change anything, what next, people born in Golan Heights were born in Israel? The common name for Estonia has always been "Estonia", even in the USSR. Heck, Soviet passport holders had "Estonia" annotated as their nationality. --20:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My advice was to not go changing them. I did not say not to undo POV edits by nationalists such as yourself. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You have some heavy attitude problems. Clearly with your aggressive comments and constant changing of Estonia to Estonian SSR You are representing pro Russian nationalist POV... it wasn't Republic of Estonia In these places, but just Estonia as the common name. --Klõps (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, I could care less about Russian nationalist crap, as a matter of fact I condemn Russian imperialism. What I hate is watching Nug and his band of POV pushers get into edit wars over and over with editors over this as such I envoke WP:BRD in an attempt to either stop the POV pushing or to get the POV pushers to have actual RfC discussions, which they usually refuse to do and often keep edit warring instead. I am guessing the reason they don't is because most of the ones I have seen have gone against their POV or at the very least ended as no-consensus. What I am acting against is POV pushing that I see as ruining the factual integrity of the wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And that's the catch, You fail to understand what term occupied territory means. Instead You keep on pushing Your POV and change the consensual neutrality to non neutral term. Why won't You try to move Burma to Myanmar and then come back to Estonian articles. --Klõps (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I, like DJSasso, feel very sorry for what happened under Soviet occupation, but we can't change history. Yes, Estonia was called Estonia prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, but it's not incorrect to be calling that land, what's Estonia today, the Estonian SSR at the time. For neutrals like me (being neither Russian nor Estonian) it very much does seem nationalistic. Thank you DJSasso for restoring the status-quo on Riin Tamm, even though you were reverted, as no doubt I will be too next! Jared Preston (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Jared, actually the status quo of Riin Tamm was changed in March 2014 with this edit[7] to the birthplace that remained unchanged since December 2012 when the inbox was originally added[8].

But I got to say DJSasso's winge is a load of disingenuous BS, invoking WP:BRD, yet there is no sign of him initiating a discussion on talk as required, then diving straight into WP:Personal attacks, abusing those who disagree with him as "nationalist POV pushers", he doesn't know what my personal politics are and I find it somewhat offensive. DJSasso is by far the worst offender in perpetuating an edit war that was already in full swing before I came along:

It is not an issue of POV but a matter of style. Getting all worked up over so-called "POV-pushers" is probably more a matter of psychological projection. The inbox guide states:"Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state", not "Place of birth: city, administrative region, de facto state". If we are really concerned about "factual integrity of the wiki", then we would agree that a sovereign state is a nonphysical juridical entity and that the consensus in reliable sources is that sovereignty was never transferred to the Soviet Union. "Place of Birth" is geographical notion, and indicating the political entity where a BLP was born adds no value if it isn't relevant in some way. We don't have Michel Foucault's place of birth as "Poitiers, French Third Republic", that would be just silly. --Nug (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I would note the starting of the discussion is required by the person making the original change to find out if there was consensus for the change they were making, in those instances that would be H2ppyme. I haven't hid the fact that I put it back to the state it was in prior to H2ppyme's mass changes. If any of those who reverted me had wanted to do anything other than edit war they would have started the discussion. They especially wouldn't have jumped into the reverting fray and only compounded the issue like you did claiming edits were vandalism...or stating you had consensus when you know you didn't. Your continued jumping into every page and revert warring away with anyone that disagrees with you along with the fact you have basically laid out your politics in many discussions doesn't exactly make your politics secret. Someone has to keep you from edit warring and bullying your way into a edit consensus (through Wikipedia:Fait accompli) that you seem to be trying to achieve since you haven't been successful in actual consensus discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

And it's not just DJ that holds to this position. Baltic POV warriors have been pushing this line for the better part of a decade, but however much the revisionist line gets trumpeted, the fact on the ground is that the Soviet Union was internationally recognized as a sovereign state legitimately controlling the Baltics, and as the internationally recognized de jure ruler, we list (say) "Estonian SSR" as the subnational entity extant. We might not like that Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were occupied territory, but our political preferences don't change the MOS. Ravenswing 23:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ravenswing, you may be a one time hockey journalist and sportscaster and thus have deep knowledge of the sport, but with respect to the status of the Baltic states you are gobsmakingly clueless. Your view that "the Soviet Union was internationally recognized as a sovereign state legitimately controlling the Baltics, and as the internationally recognized de jure ruler" is a fringe viewpoint not found in reliable sources.

The Baltic states,^[1]^[2] the United States^[3]^[4] and its courts of law,^[5] the European Parliament,^[6]^[7]^[8] the European Court of Human Rights^[9] and the United Nations Human Rights Council^[10] have all stated that these three countries were invaded, occupied and illegally incorporated into the Soviet Union under provisions^[11] of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, first by the Soviet Union, then by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944, and again by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991.^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19] This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity, which holds that de jure, or as a matter of law, the Baltic states had remained independent states under illegal occupation throughout the period from 1940 to 1991.^[20]^[21]^[22] Most Western governments maintained that Baltic sovereignty had not been legitimately overridden^[23] and thus continued to recognize the Baltic states as sovereign political entities represented by the legations appointed by the pre-1940 Baltic states which functioned in Washington and elsewhere.^[24]

The mainstream view is that the Soviet Union did not gain sovereignty over the Baltic states. That is a fact. So can you WikiProject Ice Hockey people please, please, stop this misguided and wholly pointless disruption to WikiProject Estonia articles. It would be most appreciated. --Nug (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

^ The Occupation of Latvia at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia
^ "22 September 1944 from one occupation to another". Estonian Embassy in Washington. 2008-09-22. Retrieved 2009-05-01. For Estonia, World War II did not end, de facto, until 31 August 1994, with the final withdrawal of former Soviet troops from Estonian soil.
^ Feldbrugge, Ferdinand (1985). Encyclopedia of Soviet law. BRILL. p. 461. ISBN 90-247-3075-9. On March 26, 1949, the US Department of State issued a circular letter stating that the Baltic countries were still independent nations with their own diplomatic representatives and consuls. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Fried, Daniel (June 14, 2007). "U.S.-Baltic Relations: Celebrating 85 Years of Friendship" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-04-29. From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands.
^ Lauterpacht, E.; C. J. Greenwood (1967). International Law Reports. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62–63. ISBN 0-521-46380-7. The Court said: (256 N.Y.S.2d 196) " The Government of the United States has never recognized the forceful occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics nor does it recognize the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist republics. The legality of the acts, laws and decrees of the puppet regimes set up in those countries by the USSR is not recognized by the United States, diplomatic or consular officers are not maintained in either Estonia or Latvia and full recognition is given to the Legations of Estonia and Latvia established and maintained here by the Governments in exile of those countries
^ Motion for a resolution on the Situation in Estonia by the European Parliament, B6-0215/2007, 21.5.2007; passed 24.5.2007. Retrieved 1 January 2010.
^ Dehousse, Renaud (1993). "The International Practice of the European Communities: Current Survey". European Journal of International Law. 4 (1): 141. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-12-09.
^ European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C. 42/78.
^ European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States
^ "Seventh session Agenda item 9" (PDF). United Nations, Human Rights Council, Mission to Estonia. 17 March 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-01. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 assigned Estonia to the Soviet sphere of influence, prompting the beginning of the first Soviet occupation in 1940. After the German defeat in 1944, the second Soviet occupation started and Estonia became a Soviet republic.
^ Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden – Boston: Brill. ISBN 90-411-2177-3.
^ "The Soviet Red Army retook Estonia in 1944, occupying the country for nearly another half century." (Frucht, Richard, Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 978-1-57607-800-6, p. 132
^ "Russia and Estonia agree borders". BBC. 18 May 2005. Retrieved April 29, 2009. Five decades of almost unbroken Soviet occupation of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ended in 1991
^ Country Profiles: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania at UK Foreign Office
^ The World Book Encyclopedia ISBN 0-7166-0103-6
^ The History of the Baltic States by Kevin O'Connor ISBN 0-313-32355-0
^ Saburova, Irina (1955). "The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States". Russian Review. 14 (1). Blackwell Publishing: 36–49. doi:10.2307/126075. JSTOR 126075.
^ See, for instance, position expressed by the European Parliament, which condemned "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues." European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C. 42/78.
^ "After the German occupation in 1941–44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991." KOLK AND KISLYIY v. ESTONIA (European Court of Human Rights 17 January 2006), Text.
^ David James Smith, Estonia: independence and European integration, Routledge, 2001, ISBN 0-415-26728-5, pXIX
^ Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112–115. ISBN 1-56324-360-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
^ Van Elsuwege, Peter (April 2004). Russian-speaking minorities in Estonian and Latvia: Problems of integration at the threshold of the European Union (PDF). Flensburg Germany: European Centre for Minority Issues. p. 2. The forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940, on the basis of secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is considered to be null and void. Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law.
^ Quiley, John (2001). "Baltic Russians: Entitled Inhabitants or Unlawful Settlers?". In Ginsburgs, George (ed.). International and national law in Russia and Eastern Europe. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 327. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
^ "Baltic article". The World & I. 2 (3). Washington Times Corp: 692. 1987.

Why did you redirect all those NHL templates?

If there was discussion, and there should have been one, I'd just like to read it. Redirecting templates isn't usually done. They are put up for merging or deletion....William 21:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Its been a project in the making for years at the hockey project for most navboxes. It's just very slow going as work on converting them only tends to happen when people have the urge to clean up large numbers of articles. We don't use navboxes for things like positions/titles or awards because they are against Navbox guidelines which say to use succession boxes for such uses. I will have to take a look tomorrow for recent discussions on the subject as its getting really late here. Redirecting is pretty standard for how its been handled for many years, especially in situations like this where the data that was kept on the old template is located on the new template. By redirecting it tends to make people realize that they were purposefully redirected as opposed to never having been created. -DJSasso (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

1- Where is the specific discussion? Please send a link.

2- NBA, NFL, and MLB teams all have Head coaches/managers navbox. As do many university sports teams.

3- I'm aware coach and GM listings are in the team navboxes. If that is a reason to get rid of these templates, then those templates need to be put in the GM and coach articles instead of just removing the GM/Coach navboxs and replacing them with nothing. While not sports, last year a navbox of Microsoft executives was merged into the Microsoft navbox where they were already listed. That took place after a TFD.

At the moment I'm inclined to revert under WP:BRD and then send it all to TFD....William 12:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said I will get you some discussions it was after midnight when I saw you message last night so I wasn't able to. I will get some links when I get home. There are many. As for point #2, we do things alot differently than a number of the other sports projects. Some are more lax on following the navbox guidelines. The reasoning wasn't that the info is on the team navboxes, the reasoning is that the succession boxes were already on the page. As such they were made redundant as succession boxes are preferred for positions over navboxes. That of course only covers the coach pages, the team related pages etc have the information covered by the team navbox, so they are redundant in the sense that those pages already have those links in a navbox. But like I said I will get you the links when I get a home from work. Navboxes have been discussed ad naseum at the hockey project so it won't be hard, there is actually one comment on the talk page about it at the moment in fact, which is what reminded me that I hadn't cleaned up any in awhile so took care of a few more while I had some spare time. Just a quick one that I know off the top of my head is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive39#Navboxes. It might be the biggest. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I decided to grab a few more since I was here. I believe we probably started converting all such position based navboxes with this discussion. But we have held up that discussion in many others since then such as 1, 2, 3, and 4. Granted not all of these are specifically about coach templates as I just grabbed the first few that came up in a search. If it would make you feel better I can revert the redirect and just nominate the templates as redundant or unused if you would prefer. I certainly wasn't trying to be controversial. Its just typical cleanup that hockey editors do as busy work when we get time. There is no policy that I am aware of that does not allow for redirecting a template, I agree any controversial merges and redirects should go to Tfd, but as you see generally these haven't been regarded as controversial so I hate wasting peoples time at Xfd for things that will just get deleted/merged/redirected anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

gl:Wikipedia:Bots/Peticións de aprobación

Ola Djsasso.

Comunícoche que, debido a túa inactividade como bot, propúxose a revogación do teus status como tal.

Podes ver a votación en: gl:Wikipedia:Bots/Peticións de aprobación.

Saúdos. --. HombreDHojalata.^talk 22:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)

Howdy Djsasso. An Afd (which we both were a part of) on that article was closed as having no consensus for any change. Yet, an editor went ahead & changed that article to a 're-direct', thus ignoring the Afd's result. I won't delve further into this dispute, but I'm concerned about that editor's action. Just thought I'd let you know. GoodDay (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Your revert is fine. If they do it again, take it to ANI but don't revert war with them. An admin will take appropriate action. -DJSasso (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances, I would agree with the ANI route. However, my probation & block-log history cripples me from taking such actions. Anyways, just thought I'd let you know what's been happening. GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Cirex

Regards DjSaso I was looking for an active administrators who can help me with this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cirex Has been several weeks backlogged, I took my chances if it get not approved. Same article is on other 5 wikipedias... Please, hope you can help! :) Thanks in advacne Bnotepr (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

[OPL-1] The Occupation of Latvia at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia

[2] "22 September 1944 from one occupation to another". Estonian Embassy in Washington. 2008-09-22. Retrieved 2009-05-01. For Estonia, World War II did not end, de facto, until 31 August 1994, with the final withdrawal of former Soviet troops from Estonian soil.

[3] Feldbrugge, Ferdinand (1985). Encyclopedia of Soviet law. BRILL. p. 461. ISBN 90-247-3075-9. On March 26, 1949, the US Department of State issued a circular letter stating that the Baltic countries were still independent nations with their own diplomatic representatives and consuls. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[4] Fried, Daniel (June 14, 2007). "U.S.-Baltic Relations: Celebrating 85 Years of Friendship" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-04-29. From Sumner Wells' declaration of July 23, 1940, that we would not recognize the occupation. We housed the exiled Baltic diplomatic delegations. We accredited their diplomats. We flew their flags in the State Department's Hall of Flags. We never recognized in deed or word or symbol the illegal occupation of their lands.

[5] Lauterpacht, E.; C. J. Greenwood (1967). International Law Reports. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62–63. ISBN 0-521-46380-7. The Court said: (256 N.Y.S.2d 196) " The Government of the United States has never recognized the forceful occupation of Estonia and Latvia by the Soviet Union of Socialist Republics nor does it recognize the absorption and incorporation of Latvia and Estonia into the Union of Soviet Socialist republics. The legality of the acts, laws and decrees of the puppet regimes set up in those countries by the USSR is not recognized by the United States, diplomatic or consular officers are not maintained in either Estonia or Latvia and full recognition is given to the Legations of Estonia and Latvia established and maintained here by the Governments in exile of those countries

[europarl.europa.eu-6] Motion for a resolution on the Situation in Estonia by the European Parliament, B6-0215/2007, 21.5.2007; passed 24.5.2007. Retrieved 1 January 2010.

[7] Dehousse, Renaud (1993). "The International Practice of the European Communities: Current Survey". European Journal of International Law. 4 (1): 141. Archived from the original on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2006-12-09.

[8] European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C. 42/78.

[ReferenceA-9] European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States

[un-10] "Seventh session Agenda item 9" (PDF). United Nations, Human Rights Council, Mission to Estonia. 17 March 2008. Retrieved 2009-05-01. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 assigned Estonia to the Soviet sphere of influence, prompting the beginning of the first Soviet occupation in 1940. After the German defeat in 1944, the second Soviet occupation started and Estonia became a Soviet republic.

[malksoo-11] Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden – Boston: Brill. ISBN 90-411-2177-3.

[12] "The Soviet Red Army retook Estonia in 1944, occupying the country for nearly another half century." (Frucht, Richard, Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2005 ISBN 978-1-57607-800-6, p. 132

[13] "Russia and Estonia agree borders". BBC. 18 May 2005. Retrieved April 29, 2009. Five decades of almost unbroken Soviet occupation of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania ended in 1991

[14] Country Profiles: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania at UK Foreign Office

[autogenerated1-15] The World Book Encyclopedia ISBN 0-7166-0103-6

[16] The History of the Baltic States by Kevin O'Connor ISBN 0-313-32355-0

[17] Saburova, Irina (1955). "The Soviet Occupation of the Baltic States". Russian Review. 14 (1). Blackwell Publishing: 36–49. doi:10.2307/126075. JSTOR 126075.

[18] See, for instance, position expressed by the European Parliament, which condemned "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues." European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C. 42/78.

[19] "After the German occupation in 1941–44, Estonia remained occupied by the Soviet Union until the restoration of its independence in 1991." KOLK AND KISLYIY v. ESTONIA (European Court of Human Rights 17 January 2006), Text.

[smith-20] David James Smith, Estonia: independence and European integration, Routledge, 2001, ISBN 0-415-26728-5, pXIX

[Parrott_1995-21] Parrott, Bruce (1995). "Reversing Soviet Military Occupation". State building and military power in Russia and the new states of Eurasia. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 112–115. ISBN 1-56324-360-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

[22] Van Elsuwege, Peter (April 2004). Russian-speaking minorities in Estonian and Latvia: Problems of integration at the threshold of the European Union (PDF). Flensburg Germany: European Centre for Minority Issues. p. 2. The forcible incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1940, on the basis of secret protocols to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, is considered to be null and void. Even though the Soviet Union occupied these countries for a period of fifty years, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania continued to exist as subjects of international law.

[quiley-23] Quiley, John (2001). "Baltic Russians: Entitled Inhabitants or Unlawful Settlers?". In Ginsburgs, George (ed.). International and national law in Russia and Eastern Europe. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. p. 327. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)

[24] "Baltic article". The World & I. 2 (3). Washington Times Corp: 692. 1987.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]