User talk:Djsasso/Archive 11

Hunter Brothers
Do you remember the Hunter Brothers when they played in the WHL? They are a music group now. I added the hockey to their wiki article as I didn't think any of them notable enough for a separate article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure that I do remember them, but I am getting old so my brain is going. I just did a quick look and JJ Hunter just barely passes WP:NHOCKEY but whether or not he actually passes WP:GNG I didn't look. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that J.J. would be a borderline article. It's best left as part of the group I think. I had forgotten about them as players until the music group passed through my home town on Sunday. Flibirigit (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of Hunter brothers... ie. Dale Hunter, Mark Hunter, and Dave Hunter what's the criteria to have a Hunter family article, similar to the Sutter family etc. as opposed to just being noted at List of family relations in the NHL? Flibirigit (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally sources that talk about them as a group of brothers as opposed to talking about them as individuals. Could think of it like a Musical band. A bunch of solo artists might be notable and then they form a band, but sources don't write about the band itself, then the band isn't notable on its own because notability isn't inherited. There might be sources out there for the Hunters, people probably just haven't gone looking. The Sutters had so many brothers in hockey that they were talked about as a family often. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That might be a future project, but it may end up being a summary of the London Knights history where they work together.Flibirigit (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Ice hockey stats
Please read and comment at --> Template talk:Ice hockey stats. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

New Haven Eagles
I see that the New Haven Ramblers articles was merged into the New Haven Eagles article a long time ago. The associated player categories are still separate:
 * Category:New Haven Ramblers players
 * Category:New Haven Eagles players

I forget how we merge them. Flibirigit (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We would actually keep the categories separate because the players played on the team under those specific names. The page and the categories are treated differently. -DJSasso (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

User:80.249.188.32 and disruptive editing
It's not at all clear on what grounds you've temporarily banned my IP address. Nevertheless, I'd like to know whether I'm compliant with the rules now. AndreyOlisov (talk) 4:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You were blocked for evading a block of your original account User:Max Arosev. You cannot edit Wikipedia as long as that block is in place as you would be violating WP:SOCK. If you wish to appeal it you will need to log into that account and request it there. As such the account you used to post on my talk page is now blocked as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

reestablishing the page Vince-Gordon
Hi Djasso. I wrote to WIKIPidea, as the page I made for the late songwriter, musician and rockabilly guitarist Vince Gordon suddenly was gone. You can see the message I wrote below. I got a good answer from the volunteer response team: That I can ask you to to restore the article to your Draft space so you can work on the issues, before moving it back to the main space. I hereby do that: Will you please restore it? Vince Gordon was not only a rockabilly guitarist, writer, singer, and composer, He was also an expert within rockabilly. He is cited in many books - one of them being a book regarding ELVIS, where he has commented on guitars, He recreated the Scotty Moore sound, which he was acknowledge for from the big master himself. Others have wrote that his writings and compositions gave rockabilly a new age. I am new here, and I am leaning. Please help med recreate it. Thank You and I will try to see, where he also should be listed in relation to rockabilly.

I found of wikipedia and have now also tried to contribute by putting on a page for the late rockabilly guitarist, singer, and writer Vince Gordon. Vince has also contributed to many books about rockabilly and the late Scotty More, himself, had put a notice on his page due to the fact that Vince Gordon recreated the Scotty Moore Sound.

I have put a greet effort, sources and so on to do it write - and suddenly it all was gone. I have this message for TonyBalloni - now I do not go to my editor room and read messages every day. And I do thing - that if every one can contribute with ones knowledge - one have to be given a chance to answer - and also an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosdahl-2017 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article since you have contested the prod deletion. However, this does not mean that it can not be nominated for full deletion still. If you wish to work with TonyBalloni to fix the problems he saw in the page that may help from keeping it from being deleted again. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I have been working with the page - and others have been written about Vince Gordon also in the talk. But today a person named Patar Knight deleted it - XFDcloser - I do not know what it is. There was also now a column about notabile work - eg repeating the scotty moore sound and we have just prepared some of the other work he had done - and now it is gone. I can not find this persons talk Patar Knight - please help. I have also been writing that all Rosdahl-2017 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)rosdahl

Budweiser Gardens
Please check out Talk:Budweiser Gardens and the edits made by User:Gregorich. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Evgeny Steiger
Should probably be speedy deleted, the player that Dolovis meant to create was Yevgeni Shtaiger. Which later he did, so really it is a duplicate article.18abruce (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

David Branch
I finally got around to fixing up the David Branch article, so it's not a list of suspensions fans complain about! If you have any thoughts, please comment at Talk:David Branch. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello! You can join a discussion here: Cskamoscow100 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Had a feeling you were a sock of Max. That was quite the boomerang. -DJSasso (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Cskamoscow100
Looks like this user is a sock of the above account. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I figured that as well. I am going to see if they keep editing, apparently that guy hops around on IPs a lot so it may be a bit of wack a mole stopping him. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI
Hello D. You blocked on the 13th. I wanted to let you know that they have returned as. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update. kindly applied a block. I hope you have a pleasant week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

arosev is busy again/still
check 18abruce (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh, I will have to watch to see if it keeps going and then report it if it does. Some of their edits are pretty insidious. Its not always blatantly obvious POV stuff so you have to check carefully. Sometimes they change words like "Clean athletes..." to "Certain athletes..." implying not necessarily clean even though clean was the exact wording used in press releases. They clearly have some sort of hate on for Russia. The best was the adding WHA and NHL to the national teams that the Russians played against in an attempt to imply that the Russians only won the one they did because they were playing WHA players. -DJSasso (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If it is worth your time, he is determined as ever at Ice hockey at the 2002 Winter Olympics. His usual indirect approach with sources that do not confirm some point he is trying to make.18abruce (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately I wasn't around much this weekend and today. -DJSasso (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Got looked after, no worries. Is is fascinating how the edits don't appear to be way out of line, but the sources attached often do not substantiate the claim at all.  It really is a shame because some of the work is good, but none of it can be trusted.18abruce (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah its one of those things, you would like to leave them but you can't trust anything so you have to revert it all. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * here he is again Special:Contributions/188.170.82.121 up to the same shenanigans.18abruce (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Haitian ice hockey players


A tag has been placed on Category:Haitian ice hockey players requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, as a category that is empty, is not currently in a deletion discussion (or was emptied outside of that process), and is not a category redirect, a disambiguation category, a featured topics category, or a project category that by its nature becomes empty on occasion. This category may be deleted if it has remained empty for at least seven days.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AaronWikia (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
Hi mate, I couldn't remember who made the point as I was writing, but my last comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League addresses one of your points. To summarise, I disagree that the phrase "2018 Minnesota Vikings season" is natural speech, but I'll let you respond at the talk page thread. Cheers. – PeeJay 18:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

IHL before the 1979-80 season
Per WP:NHOCKEY/LA, the IHL prior to the 1979-80 season only meets Criterion #3, not #2. --SP17 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Unified Team national ice hockey team
Can you also make/fix, please?Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, totally forgot about that one. -DJSasso (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

List of NHL franchise post-season appearance streaks
Can you try talking to Rttamg? I've tried numerous times to explain to them through edit summaries and one time on their talk page that there are some articles that we do not update in season and they just continue to ignore the warnings, delete notes and have been completely unresponsive. Deadman137 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Boxing SNG
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding Resolution on edits for the WP:NBOX criterion #3. 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 this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wikipedia:Notability (sports)".The discussion is about the topic Notability (sports). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --RonSigPi (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Emptying categories
I'm sorry, but the three-revert rule (3RR) that violates editors get blocked for 24 hours. How am I supposed to read the instructions and follow the rules? AaronWikia (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

ISL Online
Hey Djsasso, I would like to know why you deleted the ISL Online page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseChella (talk • contribs) 16:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for speedy deletion for failing to show notability and being promotional spam. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I am currently in a journalism class about non-bias reporting and part of our assignment is to create a wiki article from a neutral point of view. I left out some references to stay neutral which probably affected notability. Do you have any suggestions on which parts sounded like spam, so I can correct it? Thank you for all of your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoseChella (talk • contribs) 20:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A7 deletion of Jason Young (actor)
Hi. I must seriously question the A7 deletion of Jason Young (actor), as the article did claim that the subject is an actor/singer with four released albums. This should have met Credible claim of significance (and actually the subject does meet WP:MUSICBIO, since those albums are with a major record label, but that isn't directly relevant here.) I think the article should go through A full AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no problem restoring if you object. I don't really feel it made a credible claim as non-notable actors and non-notable musicians with multiple albums are a dime a dozen. Had it said something about being a major label recording artist or something of that nature, then I would not have speedied. -DJSasso (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

You're reversion of my edits
I'm curious why you reverted my edits. The template automatically determines the class and importance for some namespaces like Category and template so there is no need for them there at all. Also, if you look here it says NA importance "Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.". So I would inerpret that to indicate that they should be NA as opposed to something like Low or Mid. Frawgy (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes as it says generally, but not for all projects. The US project does put them in separate categories. Not sure why they have on that page wording that would indicate they shouldn't be. I have no strong preference either way. Only reverted because I know they do have a category structure built up to rank the importance for them and many articles tagged that way so just removing them did not seem appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply but I don't think that's right. I see some are in there, but when I look at the statistics table on the WikiProjects page it seems like 99% are in the NA column. That, along with the verbiage on the assessments page, makes me think they shouldn't be marked like that and were probably done by accident...along with the thousands in the invalid parameter and invalid tags categories. Frawgy (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's cool by me then, it was just the unexplained removal I had issue with. You've explained so I am cool with it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note
When deleting something involving a minor (or personal info, or any of the other OS-worthy edits) you should not use the OS-only deletion reasons, because it draws attention to the deletion itself. Same with revdel (use RD5). Cheers, Primefac (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is my bad, I am an OS on another site so it happened out of habbit. I would normally try to use another one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense! Primefac (talk) 13:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

ZEP-RE (PTA Reinsurance Company)
I noticed you speedy deleted this page. While the article was not the best AfC submission I've seen I believe the organization is unique and notable. It is a reinsurance business operating across many countries in Africa is not going to get a lot of popular press but as a creation of the heads of state of COMESA  and owned by a group of countries surely this organization is notable. Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I restored it. One of the concerns was that it seemed like the article was obvious advertising. Perhaps you could try and make it seem less so or they might still take it to Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thabk-you. Legacypac (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Bob Nicholson
I recently overhauled the Bob Nicholson (ice hockey) article. I'm wondering if you would be able to provide some constructive criticism for the article. If you could, please post at Talk:Bob Nicholson (ice hockey). Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Inactive bot on Latvian Wikipedia
Hello!

As a bureaucrat on Latvian Wikipedia (lvwiki), I was checking the activity of the bots, and noticed that yours had been inactive from at least September 2013. It is not reasonable that an unmonitored account keeps a bot flag, as it may be more easily hacked. If you have any future plans for bot running or want to keep this flag for some other reasons, please make a note at this table. You can also contact me directly via my user talk at User talk:Edgars2007.

If you have no objections or we won't receive any response for a month, we will remove bot flag. Thanks a lot for your previous contributions! -- Edgars2007  (talk/contribs) 08:52, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Recently Deleted
Hello, I recently created an article called New Empire Industries which is a company in Lincoln, NE that manufactures firearm components. I admit that it was a work in progress as I was collecting additional information so there may not have been enough there to justify it as verifiable. Is would welcome your feedback on what I can add / improve to the article to keep it listed. Thank you for your time. Djg1973 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djg1973 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot activity on the Dutch Wikipedia
Dear,

Your bot account hasn't made any edits on the Dutch Wikipedia for at least three years. In accordance with the local bot policy the bot flag will be removed in three months. To avoid losing the bot flag, you can confirm you want to retain the bot flag by going to this page.

With kind regards, Kippenvlees1 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your speedy deletion of Portal:Prisons
Please explain why you believed Portal:Prisons qualified for a WP:P2 deletion. Looking at Category:Prisons alone, it seems to me the topic base is quite substantial. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it met the first half of P2 in that it was only a stub header. Notice the or in P2. -DJSasso (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Prison is a stub? Because that's what would constitute the header article for that portal unless I'm missing something. May I ask who tagged the portal for deletion? 78.28.45.127 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd read "stub header article" in WP:CSD as referring to the article on the portal topic, not the header of the portal itself, which by necessity is short. Compare portals which we probably agree shouldn't meet the criterion, such as Portal:United States, Portal:History, Portal:Physics. I don't see that Portal:Prisons met that half of the criterion since prison, the header article, is not a stub. Huon (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At a glance it seems to me the portal was deleted not because the subject base was insufficient but because the portal itself was an empty husk that only consisted of a stub summary of the main article with very little added value or content. Basically it was a bunch of redlinks (to its own non-existing sub-pages!) and had been one for the past five years. In fact, all the sub-pages the portal ever had still exist, and there's very, very few of them. If there's an interest in creating a meaningful portal I'd be willing to undelete the main portal page; otherwise we should delete the sub-pages too. Huon (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly, it was because there was literally nothing on the page. I take header article to mean the main portal page was a stub with nothing on it. I am surprised those subpages are there. Could have sworn I had deleted those when the main page was deleted. Must have been called away in the middle of it. I have no issue with someone recreating a new portal but there was literally nothing there but redlinks to uncreated sections. No content at all. Which means it would meet P1 via A3 even if you take a different reading of P2 than the nom and I did. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Are you going to restore the deleted page? 78.28.45.127 (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to work on it? If you do I will otherwise as mentioned it meets P1 as a valid speedy. --DJSasso (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "As mentioned," yes, by you whom previously maintained the page was deletable under P2. Pardon my skepticism; it stems largely from my inability to view the deleted page and in no way constitutes any form of commentary on your ability to interpret our criteria for speedy deletion. Now, I see two possible ways for my concerns to be alleviated: either I can take this to WP:DRV and have the page temporarily undeleted as part of the process which would allow me to examine it, or you can simply restore the incorrectly deleted page. If we go with the latter, I wouldn't mind if you were to tag it for speedy deletion as per WP:P1 if you truly believe it applies. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Haitian ice hockey players
Djsasso, you asshole! Disruptive editing for no reason?! AaronWikia (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been warned multiple times to not remove articles from categories and then try and delete them through speedy deletion for being empty. Continuing to do it will cause a block. You have been warned about this many times. -DJSasso (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Admin, banned him! He's a spoiler and a disruptive editor! AaronWikia (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey, if you do not revert this, I'll have the Admin banned you for life! AaronWikia (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so you are aware this is also disruptive and harassing. Are you trying to get blocked? -DJSasso (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Disruptive and harassing". Do you think I'm a hacker? GO TO HELL! – AaronWikia (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

user: 94.228.253.161
take a look here and see if it reminds you of someone. A lot of edits that don't match the source, or sources that can't be checked.18abruce (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is definitely someone who shouldn't be editing. Blocked him on that IP previously. See Sockpuppet investigations/Max Arosev for their ongoing history. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Rollback
Re this... I assume it was a mistake? Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Stray mouseclick I am guessing. I didn't even notice it happened. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've done that myself before. A screen full of [rollback] links, you just have to be careful, sometimes you hit one by accident. All the best! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Deprodding of Cara Morey
I have removed the tag from Cara Morey, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! I've added some improvements, she is the head coach at a leading American university and there is more information about her out there. Cheers, LovelyLillith (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

...Wha?
I believe that descriptions such as [|this] and [|this] is inappropriate. Do you mind explaining why you keep changing the descriptions to literal descriptions of the human being itself? Seems uncalled for.  Wiki Pancake  14:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Such as "A Caucasian ice hockey player in his thirties. He is skating relaxed on the ice while looking to his right. He wears a white and red jersey, along with a white-visored helmet." You know what you're talking about yes?  Wiki Pancake  14:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are getting at, the descriptions didn't change, all that changed in them was the spacing. And the spacing was in the ALT text which is what ALT text is, literal descriptions, it wasn't the caption that the spacing was added to. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but I have no idea why this is happening. I believe that AWB may be causing these issues, or there's something wrong with Wikipedia entirely. This is the edit right before yours: if you see the caption in the preview during the edit (the player in the blue jersey), it says: "Samuelsson with the Canucks in 2010", which is an accurate description. However, once your edit (which is the edit right after that one) goes through, the caption changes to.. "alt = A Caucasian ice hockey player in his mid-thirties. He wears a blue jersey with white and green trim and a blue, visored helmet. He looks forward with his mouth slightly parted in a relaxed stance." Why is this happening? It's either because of KobertBot or by your AWB edit.  Wiki Pancake  13:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Look at the previews for both the edits and hopefully you'll understand. It is indeed quite strange; I have no idea who directly pasted in the descriptions; the diffs do not show who added the weird descriptions, they just 'appear' there between KobertBot's edit and your edit. In other words, KobertBot and you both have not changed the description if you look at the diffs, but between your edit and KobertBot edit the description does change. This also happened in the article Manny Malhotra.  Wiki Pancake  13:25, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the same line twice with the two parts highlighted to show you the differences.
 * Highlighted part is the caption (aka normal description)
 * MikaelSamuelsson.jpg |alt=A Caucasian ice hockey player in his thirties. He is skating relaxed on the ice while looking to his right. He wears a white and red jersey, along with a white-visored helmet.]]
 * Highlighted part is the alt text
 * MikaelSamuelsson.jpg |alt=A Caucasian ice hockey player in his thirties. He is skating relaxed on the ice while looking to his right. He wears a white and red jersey, along with a white-visored helmet.]]
 * The text is in both of the diffs you showed me. It has been there a long time. They are not weird descriptions, they are alt text. That is what alt text is supposed to look like. I think you just don't understand what alt text is. The caption is right before the alt text in that line and is the "normal" description you would expect. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That being said I did fix an issue which should stop the problem you are seeing. Looks like the file links don't like spaces for some reason. I will have to see if it did that to any other edits. Those edits are from over a year ago. Surprised they were only just noticed. -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ...I understand now. The problem was that the alt text was mistakenly showing up as a caption, I assume the fix you mentioned was adding a space so that the alt text wouldn't stay as a caption? Thanks,  Wiki Pancake  12:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Socking?
Does the behaviour of Quickmale look familiar? His interest in this article and Barbara New looks decidedly similar to the work of the IP you reverted as a sock.. Cheers. Sharonaj (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah looks like someone else got him. I was busy this weekend so didn't see your message until now. Sorry about that. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament
I published the Quebec International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament yesterday, and I thought you might be interested. If you have any suggestions or feedback, I am open to constructive criticism. Flibirigit (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute in regards to the procedure of updating NHL team statistics within team articles
Hello Djsasso, I was wondering if you would be able to assist me with an ongoing dispute that I am involved in with another user in regards to the proper procedure of updating the player statistics section within an NHL team's article. I will explain the situation. Since the beginning of the 2018–19 season, there has been this other user who updates the players statistics section on all seven Canadian 2018–19 NHL team season articles. I find that their contributions are suspicious. To elaborate, the user that I am talking about will update the information, however, the information that they add does not match the information from an official source. I confronted them about this, and they claim that they calculate a goaltender's stats instead of referring to an official source. I told them to refrain from doing any manually calculating to prevent errors, but they refuse to listen to the information that I provided them with. Another issue that I have come across, is that the same user tends to not reorganize the players according to who has more points. For example, one player would have 23 points, while another player would have 24 points. The user would have the player with 23 points positioned above the player with 24 points. Meanwhile, this should be the exact opposite. I questioned them about this issue, told them to stop leaving the order of the players out of order, and to reorganize it by a player's total points. The user continues to refuse to listen to the advice I have given them, and still continues to update the statistics section by their own satisfaction. Other users have complained to this user in regards to both of these issues on their old account's talk page, and the user still refuses to listen. This has been going on since October, and it's very frustrating knowing that this user continues to edit based on their own satisfaction, despite being told the proper procedure of updating this specific section of the articles numerous times from myself and others. I will provide you a link to this ANI report, discussing this issue. However, no advances have been made to resolving this issue. Do you have any suggestions on how to end this issue? If you have any questions, or would like for me to explain something more clearly, feel free to ask. Thank you. Yowashi (talk) 06:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I will take a look into it when I get a chance. If what you are saying is true then that is likely disruptive editing. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Djsasso, it appears that NicholasHui has not taken their short block seriously, as they are still making disruptive edits to NHL articles. Their latest contribution came on the 2018–19 Montreal Canadiens season article. There is also another issue on the 2018–19 Ottawa Senators season article as well. There is an IP user that live updates the scores in the regular season game log section. I know this because Ottawa's match against Tampa Bay on March 2, had not concluded until 21:49 EST via NHL.com's game summary. The IP user updated the game log a minute before the match was over. I warned this user a while ago in one of my edit summaries as well as the user's talk page, as they had done this before prior to today. The message I posted must have been removed by them, as it was gone the next day. – Yowashi (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

New mailing list for Wikimedia Canada
Good day, this message is to inform you that Wikimedia Canada has created a new mailing list operated by Mailman. This mailing list is for all discussions related to the Wikimedia movement in Canada, in both English and French. Announcements from Wikimedia Canada will always be bilingual, but you are welcomed to discuss in any language of your choice. The old google group will be abandoned. To join this mailing list, please go to. To send messages to the list, write to general(at)discussions.wikimedia.ca. Also, please forward this message to anybody who may be interested. Thank you and do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. JP Béland (WMCA) (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Revert of Fred9890's Edit
After you've read the email... Obviously, I figured out how to write to you via your talk page. I still don't see a way to upload the PDF I wrote about, because it isn't "my work," and I want to show it to you privately. I look forward to your reply. Fred9890 (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

old friend
It appears our old friend Max Arosev has been quite busy again, I could be wrong. But take a look at 2019 IIHF Women's World Championship, this user, and the activity here for example.18abruce (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh....he has a million IPs I have found with his edits. Thanks for letting me know. I have placed some blocks. Undoing it all will be another matter entirely. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * And now here, good lord.18abruce (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, he certainly loves to evade his blocks. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

[[Bučič]]
I have several issues with your argument on where to target that redirect. First, "Bučič" differs from "Bučić", and there is no other subject with the specific "č" variation; possible confusion between the diacritics is not likely enough to need disambiguation. Second, yes, Tomáš Bučič will likely be deleted soon, but how does that matter here? Finally, if the redirect targets a disambiguation page, Template:R from surname should be removed because said target is not a biography, and the template should only used when targeting ones that are. (The page can still be categorised normally though.) Geolodus (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say the difference between č and ć is very likely to cause confusion. It is no different than when we point different versions of a first name to a disambiguation page. If anything diacritic differences are more likely to be confused especially for English speakers. As for the page being deleted, it matters because the redirect would just then be pointed to that page anyways when the other page was deleted. The template I have no problem if its removed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am actually unsure of this now (neither agree with you nor my previous opinion). On one hand, there is still nothing else with the "č" variant, but on the other, we still have a practice of merging pages of variants of names with different diacritics. However, as for your second argument, "will probably be deleted soon" is not the same as "has been deleted"; I will definitely agree with your targeting if the deletion does happen (my "nothing else" argument is double-sided). Either way, I'll remove the redirect category as there is no opposition to do so now. Geolodus (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:FOOTY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Djsasso. I've added a link to this FOOTY discussion as a courtesy because you were one of the participants in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 66. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

You are insane
I’m not “Max Arosev” nor do I have any relation to “Max Arosev”. Stop reverting decent edits (at least check what you are reverting, many of these edits are helpful), and focus on something more productive. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.170.83.55 (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Block evasion
Hi Djsasso. Last month you dealt with IP 188.170.83.226 who was evading a block. The same user is back with IP 188.170.82.41, per the same edit on this article. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Check out user:Navratiti, I think its the same guy because he is repeating the same edits. Trackinfo (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

arosev again
this ip 188.93.243.189 appears to max, look here for example. However there is also a big mess that has gone to ANI as well that I can't make any heads or tails of.18abruce (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It appears that is a dumb shit pro-russian stooge who wants to hide the truth about his beloved homophobic right-wing plutocracy. I think I’m gonna report this editor to the administration. My name isn’t Max (never was), dipshit, but I promise you I’m gonna fight your pro-Russian bullshit everywhere. One day your sorry ass will answer for all your right-wing bias. Fuck Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.188.114 (talk • contribs)

Boxing at the 1980 Summer Olympics
I added the chapter about the Western teams, that did not participate in the event due to the boycott. Then arosev attacked it via sockpuppets, without any discussion of the subject, while the United States Olympic Book is quite a reliable source in my opinion. 93.73.36.17 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary
The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Haitian ice hockey players
You reverted my recent contributions as you did in Category:Haitian ice hockey players that did appear inappropriate. Why are Canadian players not “Haitian” descent nor played on “Haitian” national team? AaronWikia (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You added "were from" but you don't stop being from a place, and we don't add players just by having descent from a place. They have to actually play on the national team for that country if they were not born in that country. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

W. A. Fry
When you have a moment, could you please run a script on W. A. Fry for mdy-dates and Canadian English? Many thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There ya go. -DJSasso (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Park City Ice Arena
Per your de-prod at Park City Ice Arena, Park City, Utah, is a town, not a city, and it is a rec rink. It currently has maybe seating for 100, up to 200 if they move bleachers in for times like when the LA Kings hold a training camp. "Likely to meet" is not the same as meeting GNG, all coverage I found was from the local paper. Would you rather I take it to AfD? Yosemiter (talk) 14:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You just in this message posted enough sources to show notability. The vast majority of public buildings inherently meet notability in that many tourist guides, city brochures, atlases etc etc. will cover the building. Remember newspapers are not the only sources good for notability. And a side note, I would note that the very first sentence of the Park City article says it is a city. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop Edit Warring!
Do not edit war. I have read all the RFCs and other discussions that have been here. You have been told it already times and times before. There is no consensus on using the Soviet Union on Baltic States. Template:Infobox Person clearly says about birth place that For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state Soviet Union never had any sovereignty over baltic states. You can read here State continuity of the Baltic states ''sovereign title never passed to the Soviet Union, which implied that occupation sui generis (Annexionsbesetzung or "annexation occupation") lasted until re-independence in 1991. Thus the Baltic states continued to exist as subjects of international law or here Occupation of the Baltic states The Baltic states themselves, 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. There followed occupation by Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1944 and then again occupation by the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1991. This policy of non-recognition has given rise to the principle of legal continuity of the Baltic states, 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.'' Klõps (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Baltic_states-related_articles RFC one where there was no consensus to switch to using Estonia leading to status quo which is place name at time of birth. And here is a specific one on hockey players where there was strong consensus to use the SSR. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey/Archive55 There have been many other discussions which have held both of these up. Defacto Estonia was part of the Soviet Union and that is what we use. -DJSasso (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So your RFC is without any consensus. Give me links for these many which have reached the consensus you claim to have. There is none, I know. All You have been told is to drop your sticks and walk away. The infobox still says For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state. Soviet Union never had any sovereignty over baltic states (per sources above). So SSR should not be used. Klõps (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I can also give you some links to discussions, , , , , Klõps (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes the first RFC was one trying to change it away from using Soviet Union and it had no consenus. (Which is why the MOS page is now blank as it didn't reach consensus to switch from the standard) The second discussion had a very strong consensus which is why no hockey players use just Estonia which was why I was undoing the changes by Happy2me to the hockey pages and noticed they had made some others which I reverted back to their original state since there has never been consensus to use Estonia. Just a few editors which have been trying to overrule the RfCs that have happened by using Fait accompli by changing them them faster than they can be reverted since they likely care more than most editors. The RfC I link too also comes after your links so its the more recent state of affairs. -DJSasso (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Link one (Centralized discussion 2008) literally starts with sentence cite: ...changing Mart Poom's infobox from Estonia to Soviet Union So it's about changing away from using Estonia not the other way around. The standard has always been NOT to use Soviet Union.


 * The Ice hokey project discussion does not give You any right to claim consensus. I read it and it's horrendous. It ends wiht users calling it Gozer the Gozerian or just a black hole of discussions. There are editors trying to debate and others who as they start the thread state that their argument is a fact. The discussion dies out with the Soviet Unionists repeating the same things over and over and over. I have been arguing with goodday myself and I know that arguing with him is pointless, he takes every discussion into oblivion. Klõps (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lurker here suggesting you look into a mirror. As it happens, Wikipedia is a private encyclopedia that is not bound by international law to impose revisionist/partisan solutions upon its Manual of Style.  I don't know where you get the notion that "the standard has always been NOT to use Soviet Union" when the standard has always been pretty much quite the opposite: that birthplace is listed under the de facto polity in place at the time.  Like many another nationalist Wikipedian, you might find that offensive, but to quote WP:CENSOR, "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."   Ravenswing      02:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Jeepers, Klops. If you're going to mention me? at least ping me. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society
Dear ,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 11:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Jeremy Bracco
This article is a former AFD that was just created over again when NHOCKEY was met. I was wondering if the former article history can be restored? If there is not point don't worry about it.18abruce (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep It can. -DJSasso (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Andrei Savchenko
No worries, if I didn't notice somebody else would have, or you would have fixed it yourself.18abruce (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Joe Carveth
Hi, I think you created the entry for this player, and I'm wondering how you found his date of death to be August 15, 1985? Any info appreciated as I'm trying to confirm this date and find out more about his life after hockey. Thanks.Researchguy (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't really create it myself. I deleted the original version which was a copyright violation and just recreated the article as a short stub without the copyright violation. Based on what the text of the article was taken from it was from the Hockey Hall of Fame profile for him. But the specific URL doesn't exist anymore and having gone to the new location of the page it just has his stats now and not the bio so I can't really help you. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
Tell your friend Flibirigit and your American masters that this Russophobic BS that you are pushing has been exposed and soon will be known to everyone.

Special:Contributions/Kuflase
Take a look at this user if you have time. Resumed edit wars that were believed to be Max Arosev but other olympic edits seem to conflict with his typical leanings.18abruce (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah it definitely appears to be him. I have blocked him. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear that he has shown up as Lgkek now.18abruce (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits.
You have reverted many of my edits recently (9 articles so far). I feel targeted and hounded. Well, I just want to say that I'm not interested in any further discussions. I give up! I will not edit these articles anymore. FrinkMan (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You aren't being targeted or hounded. It is normal to revert edits when someone makes mass changes to many articles without discussing it. I would note I was not the only one to revert you, after the first person reverted you, it should have clued you in that your edits were controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

reflist-talk
Thanks for that on Talk:Russian Five. I was not aware of that template. And I was thinking to myself, what does one do if there's more than one section on the talk page that lists references? JimKaatFan (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. Most people don't realize it exists until they have seen it. It doesn't get used alot. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It works even when used in multiple sections; the references are listed with the one in the same section. reflist-talk just wraps reflist with a box to make it look a little different; reflist just wraps the

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tom Fitzgerald (journalist)
I have started a conversation at Talk:Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award. I hope you might be able to help or have access to other information. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!
 Happy Adminship Anniversary! Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Belarussian incidents
When you get time, recent edits at René Fasel and International Ice Hockey Federation need to be looked at for neutrality and relevance. Please respond on those corresponding talk pages. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert
Hi. Why did you make this revert ? Bob K31416 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Must have been a stray mouse click on my watch list. I didn't notice doing that until you mentioned it. Reverted it back to what it should have been. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Moka Mo
Saw your ping about block evasion. I'm not familiar enough with their general editing style to confirm. If you're confident enough, does their current block need to be extended?—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I mostly was putting it there for anyone else coming along in the future. Just pinged you since you were the original blocker. I am confident enough because they were continuing the same hockey edits they had been doing just before you blocked them. No need to extend the original because likely the IP blocks would block his account anyway for that time period. -DJSasso (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Sevim Gözay, please edit and add to the main page ...
 * I think you have the wrong person. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration for IIHF
Although I have not listed you as a party, you are hereby notified that I have requested arbitration.

Feel free to contribute there as you see fit. --Jabbi (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021
You reverted my recent contributions as you did in Helen Murray, Anjali Thakker and Simon Wilson (ice hockey) that did appear in Category:New Zealand ice hockey forwards. Liz requested for speedy deletion of this "empty" category. Why is this empty? This cannot be empty! Can you please put these back where they were? AaronWikia (talk) 16:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason they were put back in the parent category is that you shouldn't split up a category that only has 3 articles in it. Especially when all 3 of those articles are going to go in the same subcategory, and in this case you ended up making it two subcategories deep even. We don't subdivide beyond the country when there are so few articles in the category per WP:SMALLCAT. So in this instance you created two subcategories with a low potential of growth. -DJSasso (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi DJSasso

On Talk:International Ice Hockey Federation you make serious claims against me such as saying that I seem to be:

"part of a campaign to spread this information to as many places as possible to get as many eyes on the actions of Lukashenko etc as possible"

and that my:

"attempt to obscure the fact that you are acting in bad faith is pretty thinly veiled."

Your accusation is then a serious one of tendentious editing. However, I have clearly sought the input and consensus of other editors and asked for contributions towards achieving a balanced entry. The last attempted to reconcile the viewpoint stated by yourself and others. I received no constructive feedback to my attempt.

In other words I have proactively tried to establish consensus and made edits in good faith in accordance with the consensus.

I will leave it to your own discretion whether or not you wish to respond here with any actual evidence of your above statements. This is however a warning to you not to continue with accusations such as the ones you've already made without supporting them. --Jabbi (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you complained about this to someone else and I don't wish to waste more time with your tendentious editing and filibusters, I will copy some quotes they showed you which very easily show your bias and pov issues. Frankly you should be topic banned from the topic of Lukashenko. "'It is a matter of grave importance to Belarus, a country of ten million where there is a serious political situation.'" "'this is a matter of grave importance because ice hockey is one of Lukashenka's well known pet hobbies (he built a bunch of stadiums around the 2014 tournament and has used many photo ops to show his interest), therefore this is a spotlight issue regarding his international standing.'" "'The reason it is controversial is because Lukashenka is not seen to be the legitimate president of Belarus and rule by force and coercion, this was the same in 2014 and again now.'" "'On a personal level, I have a strong opinion on Lukashenko.'""'IIHF's repeated collaboration with Lukashenko's regime is a controversial issue'"
 * As mentioned by him there are a large number of pages you tried to insert this information into. You have opened 7 different sections in 5 months on the IIHF talk page alone about the same minor event when consensus hasn't gone your way which is the definition of tendentious editing and that is not even bringing into account the ridiculous arb case you tried to open. And your POVFORK of Europe's last dictatorship is also a nice example. Or your sanctioning for BLP violations. I'm sorry but there is plenty of evidence to back up what I said. -DJSasso (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but you are simply wrong. The arb case was a bit ridiculous granted, but that was me trying to put the matter through the proper pathway. You are clearly very uninformed about Belarus. The 7 different sections have brought us to a point were there is agreement on how to formulate a Controversy section. That is clear improvement. One of the quotes above is inaccurate, but you don't you don't seem to care much. There is nothing incorrect in those quotes, I will happily start an arbitration case against you and citing them if needed. Europe's last dictatorship isn't a povfork, there is no consensus for it to be a povfork, this is your unfamiliarity speaking yet again. There is consensus for a redirect because the term in itself is not notable enough. I am saddened at your apparent lack at grasping these things despite being an admin? Is that correct? I am clear here. Cease your allegations, or bring up a case to sanction me for editing anything Lukashenko related. If you make further allegations about my integrity I feel I will need to complain. --Jabbi (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Complaining about personal attacks while making them, shows the weakness of your argument. I think the issue is you have wrapped yourself up in this topic far too much that you can't even see how much your edits are slanted with a POV. I have no issues with you personally, you are probably a fine person. But when it comes to this topic, you are very clearly biased. I don't expect you to admit you are, but I suggest looking inward and pondering that thought. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the conciliatory tone of your message. I do not want to make this personal either, I am sure we'd get along over a cup of coffee or under other less adversarial circumstances. Regarding the current debate, about the intersection between ice hockey and authoritarianism, I am very conscious of not conflating the general, value laden issue around Belarus or Lukashenka's presidency with that of IIHF's pronounced and repeated collaboration with him. I am choosing my words very carefully. Rene Fasel is on record stating his personal preferences, his ambitions, and therefore IIHF's ambitions, towards holding the recent tournament in Minsk, and his personal relationship with Lukashenka. All of which make him/IIHF an active participant in legitimising Lukashenka. These are objective facts that should be documented without prejudice, simply recorded to show the political trajectory Fasel took during his presidency. These are facts, supported by sources, they are not conjured by my imagination. I have not wanted to discuss any supposed or imagined injustices with regards to Lukashenka, but only to what degree the IIHF and Lukashenko have collaborated, which is to a very considerable degree, which is controversial. I understand that you, and others, believe me to be biased. But do consider that what is not said is sometimes of importance than what is said. Finally, I suggest you try a little mind experiment whereby the 2021 tournament was not supposed to be in Belarus but rather in the USA and that Fasel had a personal relationship with Donald Trump, rather than Lukashenka, imagine then that after a recent election, Fasel refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Biden, but rather wanted to push ahead with what him and Trump had agreed. Now, this might sound absurd, but it is hardly much more absurd than what has been happening with Trump recently. You can imagine how the controversy section would read then. --Jabbi (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Cocktaildb recipe
Template:Cocktaildb recipe has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. —¿philoserf? (talk)

Question about New Article
Hi Djsasso, there was a notification that appeared about a recently created page being connected to the WikiData. But I don't believe the page had been reviewed yet. Can you confirm if it has been reviewed yet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Page_(lawyer) Multi7001 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Please be more careful
Hi Djsasso! Just wanted to let you know that this edit removed the reference template at the talk of the page, I assume because there was no justification for removing the template and because it wasn’t mentioned in the dit summary that this was an accident. Please be more careful next time. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It was removed because there was more than enough references on the page to justify not being tagged. -DJSasso (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats not how that tag works... If there is still a single unreferenced line on the page it can’t be removed. Much of that page is unreferenced so there very clearly are not enough references. For example the entire Logos and uniforms section is unsourced. When undertaken knowingly and not accidentally this behavior is disruptive, please let this be the last time. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is actually how that tag works, any tag may be removed if the person removing it feels like the issue is solved. Just like anyone is free to tag it if they feel there is an issue. Tags are not badges of shame to remain there until some perfect article exists. Also not every line is required to have a source, only things likely to be challenged. I suggest you do some more reading on policy before you accuse someone who has been editing here for almost two decades of editing disruptively. Overtagging, as you did earlier in the edit history of that page is also considered disruptive editing, and I would suggest you cease doing so. Disagreements on if there are enough sources is fine, accusing someone of being disruptive when there is a difference of opinion however, is not. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel like the issue is resolved? Also *I’ve* challenged the text, so technically it *needs* a source (its not just likely to be challenged, it has been challenged). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment about challenging the text was in regards to your comment about every single line needs a reference. That simply isn't true. If you are expecting that every line in an article will have a reference then I have news for you, almost every article on the wiki even FAs would need the tag. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you agree then that every line of text needs a source if its been challenged? Remember you removed a tag from challenged material not unchallenged material. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that you believe it needs a tag, I didn't believe that the referencing was so poor that one was warranted so I removed it because borderline necessary tags hurt the article more than they help because people are often scared to remove them even when sources have been added by them or others, so they very rarely go away once added to a page which makes the pages look worse than they actually are. If it was a specific citation needed tag for a specific line I likely would not have removed it as it would have been clear there was a controversial line that was being challenged. But a whole page one on a page that was mostly decently referenced except for that section you mention, no I didn't think it rose to the need of having a tag on it which it my opinion was a bigger issue than the a section that didn't have references, especially one that didn't have anything that was likely to have controversial sentences in it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "If it was a specific citation needed tag for a specific line” you just characterized that as overtagging and reprimanded me for it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No I mean the Template:Citation needed on a specific sentence which is a small inline tag not a big box. What I commented on as over tagging was putting 5 large general tags on the page that all essentially said the same thing when one would have done. In fact its why another editor removed them and put the single one in the first place, as the tagging you did caused a notice to go up at the hockey wikiproject that you were going around over tagging. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats interesting, I don’t remember being tagged in any such discussion. I’m confused now, because you don’t agree that one would have done it... You removed it when it was condensed to one after all. If I had tagged each sentence with a I would have been hauled to ANI for supposed tag bombing... Aren’t we supposed to use section tags when so many individual Cn tags would be annoying? I believe the figure generally mentioned is no more than two or three individual Cn tags before upgrading to a section tag. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The difference is one is saying "This is bad" without giving specifics so looking at it, I didn't see an issue and said "This is ok." A citation needed template would have said hey this specific sentence needs a cite and I would have said, oh ok and either found one or left the tag. But yes, if you think the only other option was to tag every single sentence with the citation needed tag that would have been overkill as well because as mentioned before, not every sentence needs a reference. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider this a teaching moment, if you were me how would you have tagged the page? Assume that you yourself are the one challenging the material and as such it *needs* a citation per WP:VERIFY. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If there was a sentence that I didn't believe to be true or believed others wouldn't think it true then I would put the citation needed on it. If there were a couple as you say 3 or 4 then I would have done the same thing with them. If I believed the sentences likely to be true and believed others would think the same I wouldn't have tagged them as I wouldn't have believed them likely to be challenged, as such wouldn't require a source. If there were a large number of issues, I would probably start a talk page discussion on it in addition to tagging with the more general tag and point some of them out so people coming along later can see the actual specific issues I had with the article. Drive by tagging doesn't really help articles if people don't know the specific issues you see. Just a general "This is bad" or "This needs more" isn't constructive so it makes it hard for people to act on it, it can come across as tagging for the sake of tagging even if meant in the best of intentions. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m still here so its clearly not drive by tagging, for more complicated tags I do that but for self explanatory tags like for instance cn and unsourced section theres no requirement or even an expectation to open a talk page discussion. I do appreciate you taking the time to explain how your editing process works, I guess I’m just naturally a more “challenging” thinker (that may be interpreted as a self-burn if it gets a chuckle). I have to push back a little on the idea that the general tags aren’t constructive, if that was the case then they wouldn’t exist. You can argue it isn’t as constructive as another path, but I’m not really seeing anything to support the idea that it isn't constructive at all. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I should be clear, I do not in any way think you were doing anything in bad faith. We just were looking at the page differently, which is why I didn't revert you when you reverted me. Because in the end of the day we were both just trying to do what we thought was best. Whether or not the tags should exist is a whole can of worms that I won't get into. It is a perennial debate on whether they should exist or not, there seems to be three schools of thought, one that they should, one that they shouldn't and one that they should be put on the talk pages not the main article. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I’m not wild about how we use tags but I’m going to stick with policy and guideline for now as it seems that the perennial debate has for now been decisively won by one of those sides. Just to be clear when I reverted you I thought I was reverting a mistake as there was no mention of that change in the edit summary but all of the others were described, if your edit summary had described that part of the edit I would have opened a talk page discussion there instead of the partial revert. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also full disclosure I fall into the camp of “we should be using a shitload more editorial marks, we’re called editors not writers” but I also think that our editorial marks should be smaller and more discrete, more along the lines of cn than the section or page tags and that most editorial marks shouldn’t be visible unless you want them to be (I don’t think they serve much purpose for casual non-editor browsers). In general I don’t like the top of page “something non-specific is rotten in Denmark" notices. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you pretty much sum up my feelings on it. They should be more discrete like the cn template. And like you they should be hidden unless specifically turned on or they should be on talk pages out of immediate view. They serve a purpose but I feel like they often make relatively decent articles look like garbage for a sometimes very minor issue which only serves to discredit what Wikipedia is doing, as most readers (as opposed to people who actively edit) are unlikely to care about what most tags say in terms of fixing the issue. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand a lack of tags can make a page with deep and serious issues appear to be endorsed by the community and accurate. That to me carries greater repetitional risk than a decent article which is overtagged. The amount of times I’ve had a non-editor friend say “look what it says on wikipedia!” and had it be both completely wrong, entirely unsourced, and completely untagged is non-trivial. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't necessarily think a box would actually help with that, but it may, there are definitely good arguments on both sides. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Empty categories
Hello, Djsasso,

Just a reminder that empty categories are tagged CSD C1 and sit for a week in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion and, according to instructions, will be eligible for deletion after that tag has remained in place for seven days. It is not uncommon for categories to be temporarily empty and need to be removed from this category before the 7 days have passed. There is really no point in deleting categories before they are eligible for deletion. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought they had sat for 7 days. Apparently I can't add 17 + 7. Sorry about that. -DJSasso (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ordering categories
Hi. Please do not order categories alphabetically as you did at Gunnar Galin. See MOS:CATORDER. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of MOS:CATORDER is it you think prevents it considering it says "alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful". The hockey project as part of their page style alphabetizes categories in articles that fall under it. I mean it isn't something I would fight about or anything, but MOS:CATORDER does allow for it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." This was also recently discussed at WP:FOOTY: Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!
 Happy First Edit Day! Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Welsh ice hockey defencemen


A tag has been placed on Category:Welsh ice hockey defencemen indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkl talk  16:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Djsasso!


Happy New Year! Djsasso, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

  Ravenswing     16:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


 * Thanks. Hope you do too! -DJSasso (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)