User talk:Djsasso

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archive index - Index of all archive entries.
Archive #1 - Entries archived from January 2005 through September 2007.
Archive #2 - Entries archived from October 2007 through February 2008.
Archive #3 - Entries archived from March 2008 through May 2008.
Archive #4 - Entries archived from June 2008 through September 2008.
Archive #5 - Entries archived from October 2008 through January 2009.
Archive #6 - Entries archived from February 2009 through July 2009.
Archive #7 - Entries archived from August 2009 through 30 days ago.

ntl_team

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

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Djsasso! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 5 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 733 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

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

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

My god, how DARE you create unreferenced BLPs five years ago! Reso lute 02:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Patrice Cormier

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

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

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

No, on 'no captains'

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

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

Erik Johnson

Hi Dj.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image help

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

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

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

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

Recent edits

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

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

Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You break it, you buy it!

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

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

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

Service award update

Hello, Djsasso! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.

Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Elias

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

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

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

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

Carolina Hurricanes

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

Tyler Seguin

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

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

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

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

Tom Martin

Hi Dj.

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

LarRan (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

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

Thanks

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

NHL Entry Drafts

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