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 30 days ago.

No Mojo?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. Resolute 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"[edit]

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" [1] 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)