User talk:Djsasso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



This talk page is automatically archived by Cluebot 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 December 2007.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from January 2008 through May 2008.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from June 2008 through December 2008.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from January 2009 through October 2009.
  • Archive #5 - Entries archived from November 2009 through August 2010.
  • Archive #6 - Entries archived from September 2010 through April 2011.
  • Archive #7 - Entries archived from May 2011 through December 2011.
  • Archive #8 - Entries archived from January 2012 through March 2013.
  • Archive #9 - Entries archived from April 2013 through January 2015.
  • Archive #10 - Entries archived from February 2015 through 30 days ago.

Hockey on the ice as ice hockey[edit]

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

I also wonder. Doesn't Djsasso have any source to support this? Röd Boll (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Err ... how about common sense? Ravenswing 12:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
No, that's not a factor in this case. Hockey on the ice is not a descriptive sentence when used as an old synonym to bandy, it's a compound word, a term for a certain sports code. I want to know if it really has been used the same way for ice hockey. Djasso says it has, but when asked, has not presented evidence for this. Röd Boll (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Whether one is a compound word or not doesn't actually matter. And for the record "hockey on the ice" is not a compound word, football would be a compound word for example. It is very much a descriptive sentence. One that has very obviously been used for ice hockey and is still used for ice hockey. As such is an ambiguous term. Here is one example from 1843. Here is a better to read article that talks about it as well. The pertinent quote from the last article would be "The first recorded uses of the word "hockey" in what we know today as Canada, are credited to members of the British Armed Forces in their travels abroad. Arctic explorer Sir John Franklin noted that his crew members, who included Royal Navy men, exercised by playing hockey on the ice at Fort Franklin, Northwest Territories, in 1825. Eighteen years later, in 1843, a British army officer recorded in his diary that he had learned to skate and play hockey on the ice at Kingston, Upper Canada." -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Here is another. If you click on the actual photo it mentions that the subject was playing hockey on the ice. Which is clearly ice hockey based on the stick he has. And these are just very quick google searches. If I were to actually go find scholarly books I could find hundreds more but I am busy at the moment. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
And another from 1900. Clearly not bandy due to the number of players on the ice. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hell, here is a modern day use of the term to mean ice hockey. Want more? -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
No, thank you. I just don't understand why you couldn't give these links when originally asked for them. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:55, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File:USA Hockey.svg[edit]

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

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

File:Hockey Canada.svg[edit]

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

FFD discussions like Afd discussions are not set in stone. Just like an article can be recreated, someone can later come along and re-add images. If you feel that there is still a consensus to delete them feel free to open a new discussion. That being said there was very little participation in that discussion and based on the discussion at the other page you are in, I am guessing there is little consensus for their removal. I am not challenging his close so your link is not applicable. He made a fine close, my edit is that I don't believe there currently exists a consensus any longer, if there ever truely was one as such I am boldly readding the images as I am able to do. -DJSasso (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion was closed by Explicit in good faith based upon a consensus established in previous FFD discussions and the administrator's interpretation of relevant policy. The file was then removed by Explicit from the articles after his close. If you disagree with the close or would like clarification, then it is up to you to discuss it with the closing administrator. FFD is the community venue for discussing file relate matters and the closes of FFD discussions are a consensus. Continuing to re-add files removed as a result of a FFD discussion is likely to be considered a violation of WP:3RR, but removing them is not per WP:NOT3RR. If you don't believe a consensus exists, then discuss things with Explicit and explain your reasons why. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
8 months after a deletion discussion is considered more than enough time to recreate/readd something that was removed in discussion. No one is obligated to go back to the original closer of such an old discussion to ask them to reconsider their close. If he closed the discussion only a week or two ago or something like that, then yes of course I would go to him. Continued removal would be edit warring as well. If you think there is still a consensus for them to be removed them feel free to FFD them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus may change, but there is no expiration date on FFD closes and they do not become invalid simply because an editor does not agree with them or feels enough time has passed since the discussion was closed. It is up to the editor wishing to use non-free content to justify its non-free use, not the other way around. Since the file was removed as a result of a FFD discussion, it is up to you to discuss things and justify why its non-free use is now NFCC compliant. Anyway, I have asked Explicit to clarify his close. If he agrees with you, then he will revise his close accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say there was an expiration date. I said that there is a point where the closer does not need to be consulted on their close. If an article for example is deleted a year ago and it is found out today that the player is indeed notable the article can be recreated immediately and does not need to go through DRV or have the closer reconsider. An editor can just do it. FFD or any of the other deletion mechanisms on wikipedia operate in the same way. Multiple discussions with considerable more editors than in the deletion discussion have indicated their consensus that sport federation logos are completely NFCC compliant in these uses, as such the material situation of the image has changed allowing any editor to readd it in the same way the material information about the article in the example above had materially changed. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be snarky, but it does seem that you are suggesting that FFD closes are only valid for a certain period of time or at least until someone decides to re-add a file removed per the FFD discussion. I agree they are not set in stone, but there is a way to discuss/challenge/question them as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Explicit closed the discussion on January 23, 2016 which means that a little more than 5 months have passed since then, so we are not talking a year or years after the fact. The arguments made in the FFD discussion were made in good faith and reflected similar closes made in other NFCR/FFD discussions going back as far as August 2014, so a consensus on such logo use had been established via FFD. While it's true that there is an ongoing discussion at WT:NFCC regarding the use of such logos, it is still unresolved and I do not think it is close to a consensus yet. It may turn out that community will decide that such usage is NFCC compliant, and if that's the case I believe the close will be retroactively applied. However, this does not mean that simply discussing whether this usage is OK means that previously properly closed FFD discussions per WP:FFDAI are no longer applicable. Non-free use is not automatic and it is the burden of those wishing to use it to establish that the non-free use of a particular file is justified. If a file has been removed from an article because of a FFD discussion determined that its non-free use is not justified for said article, then it is the burden of those wishing to re-add the file to show otherwise either by discussing things with the closing admin/editor or establishing a new consensus via FFD. It should make no difference how much time has passed since the FFD discussion was closed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to add underlined sentence. -- 00:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)]
(edit conflict) DJSasso, I'm afraid your comparison to an article about a player to a media is well-intended, but misguided. In your hypothetical scenario, the article was deleted as non-notable, and was recreated a year later after the subject became notable. It would not qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 because the circumstances have changed, and you are correct that a DRV would not be required in this case. However, for the image, the circumstances remain entirely the same. Consensus is not permanent and it can change, but through a community-based discussion. The idea that the result of a discussion at FFD (regardless of the user turnout) can be ignored once a couple of months fly by creates a slippery slope, and just opens the door to abuse. This would require users to go through the process of re-establishing consensus that was defied without discussion, continually, for the course of the oncoming years. Hopefully, you can understand how this process would ultimately be unhelpful in the long-term. You don't disagree with my closure, and that's fine, but perhaps revisiting the issue by nominating the file and arguing for its inclusion in other articles at FFD would be a better way to approach the situation. — ξxplicit 00:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Another round of whack-a-block evader[edit]

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

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