User talk:Djsasso/Archive 3

Delete - no action?

I was wondering why you removed my quick delete requests on pages such as Template:2009–10 NHL Western Conference Semi-finals bracket 1/doc? They have been replaced, and are not linked to any pages.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because at the time it was linked from its page. Doc pages should not (though its not required) be linked to doc pages on other pages but should be on their own page. It makes it easier for editors to follow and allows for proper interwiki links because interwiki links go on the document page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify maintenance of the templates. I will go back to one template, one doc. Can you grant my temporary flood for all the changes I will be making?--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NHL standings legend

You removed the template Template:NHL standings legend from several templates, such as Template:2009–10 NHL Atlantic Division standings. Your reason was "should put legend directly on page you are going to use this template on." I seems to me that it is more user frendly to include the legend within the standings template. There may have been some cases were the legend was duplicated, but those were in the process of being removed from the article. Also, I really belive that codes such as OTL, GF, and GA need to be explained.

The legend template had incorrectly included on some of the playoff templates, but they were in the process of being removing.

ack, forgot to sign--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at 2009–10 NHL season and you will see what I mean. The legend is replicated after every single table. And that is overkill, and extremely redundant. This is why you should just put the legend in the section on the page you are going to transclude the template to so you only have to do it once at the top or bottom of the section and not have it show up after each division table. It makes the page look horrible to have it show up after each table. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

National Hockey League categories

Djsaso, I would like to make a category, National Hockey League team seasons as a subcategory to National Hockey League seasons to categorize the team season pages, such as 2009–10 Boston Bruins season. What do you think? --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I hadn't done it yet since there were only a couple seasons so far. But yes, it will become necessary to do that so might as well do it now. -DJSasso (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I don't know who you think you are to delete my articles like that. I'm going to have them appealed. Jimmy Wales (talk)

Hey, DJ, the guy above is a fake. He's an IP pretending to be Jimbo Wales. He pretended to be Peter Symonds before. Reverter (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New message

You have a new message at simpled talk. Immunize (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For updating me to "semi-active" [1] EhJJ^TALK 17:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you certainly aren't inactive at the moment. Feel free to move it to active if you feel that is more appropriate. :) -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans Jörg Butt

Why do you moved the article to Hans-Jörg Butt? His forename is Hans Jörg without a hyphen and it is written in every language (with latin letters) the same! --Edwinvandersar (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But that isn't how its written in common use in english. See the english wikipedia for an example. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they copied wrong from other pages (e.g. German Wikipedia, Hans-Jörg wasn't moved to Hans Jörg until 16 December 2009) like the most other Wikipedias. And why are other people with double-barrelled name written without a hyphen (José Ernesto Sosa, etc.)? --Edwinvandersar (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find English language sources without the hypen then go ahead and move it back. But you will need to source that english media do not use the hypen. My guess is that the german wikipedia copied the page from the english wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I won't find any english-written source with Hans Jörg, but If you go after that you have to move the article to Hans-Jorg [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] or Hans-Joerg [7] [8] [9]. --Edwinvandersar (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten move

Please move SAN disambiguation page to san to have casing exactly as already you did in eta disambiguation page. Note that typing all in lowercase is more easier for users when searching. 83.11.121.223 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is technically impossible for the first letter to be lowercase (the software does not allow it) James (T C) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

But typing it as such in full lowercase works in links, even if not in names, as demonstrated above. 83.11.121.223 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes the system automatically redirects. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

QD ER

The user has 1 edit (it was creating that page). πr² (talk • changes) 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, its a good faith edit. Wikipedia is not paper. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, Djsasso. Please adjudicate between Fr33kman and myself at User talk:Codedon#Trolling. Thanks, Codedon (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/Robert Byrd thread

You slam of me was a bit uncalled for Purplebackpack89 16:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really at all. You constantly post such requests and every time its explained to you that protection is only for extreme cases of vandalism, yet you go and make the same type of request again. There are only so many times someone can tell you something before your requests become disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My requests are not disruptive. I don't make them on pages that I'm not worried about could be targets of heavy vandalism. I don't make them incessantly; I think I've made about four. You're bordering NPA/AGF here; watch out Purplebackpack89 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As I said, you are bordering on being disruptive by constantly asking us to do something that is against policy. Also the key words in your statement are could be. We don't work on what might happen at wikipedia, we work on what has happened. By protecting a page you don't only block the vandals that might come along, but you also block all the good people that might come along because he died and add good faith information to the article. As such protecting a page is something we try very hard to avoid doing because the protect can do more harm than the vandalism can sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

sandbox

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Student tutorial is a sandbox, and is cleaned by a bot. Not many know, as you apparently don't. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I do, I was undoing an edit that someone else did inappropriately. You know better than to go around giving such messages to regular users. -DJSasso (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean that IP? Or my adding of the navigation? πr² (talk • changes) 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your undoing of the IPs edit yes. -DJSasso (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't undo the IP's edit. I simply added the 'nav' bar. πr² (talk • changes) 22:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And re-added all the stuff he removed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, a logical edit conflict. I went to get the nav bar code, and (s)he blanked the page. Logical edit conflict. Sorry, πr² (talk • changes) 22:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

<-Sorry, DJSasso. Misread the diffs. BTW, that wasn't a warning, but a note. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits in Wikipedia space/Civility warning

{{subst:uw-civil2}}

This is increasingly uncalled for, and becoming disruptive in its own right. Two days ago, you accuse me of disruption. Yesterday, you start a big row about Ottava's userspace. Today, you imply I don't know what a DYK is, plus that whole sandbox thing above. Please stop, for the good of the community Purplebackpack89 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

... πr² (talk • changes) 23:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

He didn't start the discussion about Ottava's userspace. The sandbox thing doesn't look incivil; nor does the DYK thing (imo) which looks like him just stating a point. DJ is by nature opinionated and to-the-point but neither implies incivility. Templating him was rather impolite as well, given that what these templates say is pretty inappropriate for disputes among established editors. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

But judging by the thread below, I may not be the only one troubled by DJ's edits lately. Purplebackpack89 17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

message

You have a message at WP:PERM. I'm leaving the rollback right on the account until I have your side of the story. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see he was autoconfirmed. You might want to check the account before jumping on things. You don't need any edits to become autoconfirmed. You only need 4 days. And even if he wasn't, the decision did say admins could use discretion. As well as WP:IAR also would have covered the situation. As long as I believe I am helping the wiki by ignoring a rule that prevents me from maintaining or improving the wiki. Giving rollback to a trusted user to stop vandalism is improving the wiki by helping maintain the wiki free of vandalism. So the situation fits exactly into the purpose of IAR which is to allow us to ignore any needless red tape in the pursuit of making the wiki better. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One. the edit thing should have been changed (policy updated), but I have no clue how to do it. I may IAR and block you for all I care, you can't ignore policy, and exactly what vandalism has he reverted? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No...the proposal was for autoconfirmed. The user was autoconfirmed. I followed the decision to the letter. Using IAR to block me doesn't help the wiki any and would likely have your adminship removed. You can ignore policy please read WP:IAR which is an official policy which explains that we can ignore any rule that prevents us from doing positive actions. Giving rollback to a trusted user so that they may in the future help undo vandalism is a positive action. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote from WP:RBK: "You should have met the requirements for autoconfirmed user when requesting. User rights cannot be given to IP editors." Quote from Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users: "Accounts which are more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed." - that's it. Also, quoting from you, "Saying you don't care what the community thinks and that you won't undo your action is a gross missuse of your tools. The wiki is build on what the community says, an admin who wont do what the community thinks should not have the tools." For about the third time in a week, you can't have it both ways. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Right and that is the case for new accounts, not the case for SUL account. SUL accounts go autoconfirmed as soon as 4 days are up. As well you might want to note Wikipedia:Rollback feature is a guideline which means "Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy." I don't plan on having it both ways. The situation I was talking about in that quote is a completely different situation. Why you are so keen on pushing editors away from this wiki is beyond me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of community consensus is 4 days/10 edits, and I'm sure other users would agree. The guideline can easily be changed, and I'm sure it could even become policy. But that's not the point, you blatantly ignore community consensus, which you are quoted as saying should mean that you lose your tools. The quote I got it from was over something covered in main page cascading, not something officially in a policy or guideline. Don't see the difference. As for your addition, that is community consensus, not my problem if you like it or not. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the decision of the closing admin was that administrators could use discretion. That was the communities consensus. If you don't like it that is your problem. And clearly the 4/10 wasn't their interpretation because two people who supported it both jumped on you when you made your comment to me on the request page. Clearly they thought all that was needed was autoconfirmed. Secondly I didn't ignore consensus, the user was autoconfirmed which was what your proposal asked for. I followed consensus to the T. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that barras (the closing 'crat) defined what types of discretion he was talking about. I don't think he meant discretion to mean: ignore this. As for your addition, check the RBK policy, it specifically says requirements for autoconfirm, not autoconfirm. As for your second addition, RBK policy. If you think you're so right, take this to ST, and see if the community likes your interpretation. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Right and the requirements for autoconfirmed for an SUL user is 4 days. And yes barras did. He specifically said an account of a trusted user, someone with rollback at en is a trusted user. But again that doesn't matter because he was autoconfirmed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

<-Just take to this to ST, we're both trying to determine the consensus, so let's find out what it is/was. I took it to mean admin = trusted user. Rollback is hardly a position of trust, it's given out way too easily. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree with Griffins interpretation of the rule, but was confused when he commented here, as the account was autoconfirmed. I was unaware that SUL accounts are autoconfirmed automatically after four days. If this is the case, I feel the policy should be updated with specific requirements.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, its given out easily because its a harmless tool that does absolutely no harm and can still do lots of benefit. Nevermind that fact that users can create their own rollback tool such like twinkle without even having the rollback feature. Not really sure why you are on such a crusade against it. The whole reason we changed it so admins and rollbackers from other wikis could have it automatically was so we didn't need arbitrary guidelines in the first place which only serve to frustrate people that want to help. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

table

Hello? Please tell me how to make a table. Thank You. Polymathsj (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Help:Tables which should help you out. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still cant function it well. Could you please fix this? Polymathsj (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Polymathsj (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Red links

Hello again. To remove red links, which should I do? Remove [[ ]] or create the page? Polymathsj (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Create the page is preferable. However, red links are ok. They are red so that people who come along later know the page is missing and will hopefully create it. So basically either create the page or just leave it as is and hopefully someone else will. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your advice. Polymathsj (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RFD

I was getting to that :) Hoots (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured you probably were, but another user added it to the wrong page so I figured I might as well move it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. At least it was done twice instead of not at all :) Hoots (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suraj Narredu

According to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/Suraj Narredu the template should be added to Suraj Narredu. Why was it removed?  PolymathSJ ^Talk 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I just figured it out. Wrong page.  PolymathSJ ^Talk 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Images man.

one word, nice. --Ninny (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename User

I submitted my request on EN Wikipedia.  PolymathSJ ^Talk 21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Because I know you deserve it! Please continue your great contributions and diligent editing! Yours respectfully, Belle tête-à-tête 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My userpage

If anyone has the right to edit, I clearly have the right to revert their edits in good faith an unlimited number of times. It's a joke that's been up there for a year and nobody cared. If they had beef, they should have mentioned it a year ago. Compared to some of the political userboxes on EN, that is downright mild. Tele is just trying to make trouble, throwing policy out left and right (often misusing it), and he should be blocked. Purplebackpack89 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD would apply to your userpage as well. 1 bold edit, 1 revert of the edit, and then people discuss. Back and forth reverting by either of you would result in a block for edit warring. Just because its been up for a year doesn't mean it gets a free pass to stay, it just means that no one noticed. For example I didn't notice until now. I don't think its a huge deal to stay up. But I do think you should reconsider if thats the sort of message you want on your userpage. As you can see it can be taken in a bad light. By no means is this me telling you to take it down, just that you might want to think about it. As for him, just disengage with him. If he is just trying to cause trouble he will either get bored and give up and leave, or he will do something worthy of a block. But don't bait him, because that will get you in just as much trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Userspace doesn't fall under 3RR, least not on EN Purplebackpack89 22:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A recently blocked user whose username resembles you-know-who

Please put this notice {{username|your username resembles that of a prolific vandal on enWiki}} onto the user's talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The user no doubt knows why they were blocked. They wouldn't have "accidentally" chosen that name. Kansan (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the clarification anyway. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary as was mentioned. Please let people do their jobs. Believe it or not they know what they are doing. -DJSasso (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Yes, it was an edit conflict. Please see the details on TeleComNasSprVen's talk page.  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another day

another round of welcoming in the new users. Can I have the Flood flag for this purpose? I will also be creating several redirects. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to be creating redirects like all those adminshirt ones you just made then I would think twice. Almost all of them are speedy worthy as unlikely typos. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, we'll bring the redirects to ST in a discussion, and I'll stop creating the ones for the adminshirt template. In the meantime, could you give me the flag? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't give the flag for low number of edits. Unless you intend to do 200 or 300 edits come back and ask. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox Header

Can you please explain this: (actually, its this)?  Hazard-SJ ^Talk

What part of my edit summary confuses you? -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You changed the link...  Hazard-SJ ^Talk 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the page back to what it originally was, yes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOO

See this discussion. And this one. Thanks, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of which are simple.wiki. You really need to get it through your head that we aren't en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, I personally supported the deletion of the redirect, but I don't think it's right to remove it from the sandbox before it had been deleted. That is all, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

For all the wiki policies and guidelines and essays you throw around, have you never read WP:BOLD? -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of the week

Thanks for the answer. Nataly8 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I put in the peer review 5 articles. Did you have to do some comments? Nataly8 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Aang

Hi, I am a new user and I need help with the simplification of the article. Can you help please? Nataly8 (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I a working on it. Thanks.

And..

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your great work as admin. Good luck! Nataly8 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Can you block this user? Nataly8 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Next time, report to WP:VIP. EhJJ^TALK 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

3.000 changes! That's many :( Nataly8 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag?

Sorry to bother you, but can you give the flood flag to me, User:PiRSquared17, and User:Nataly8? We are reverting Hazard's changes, and we are flooding the new changes page. Thanks Simon^KSK 15:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

With regards to your edit summary "Who added all these..." I did not add the requirement... I was only reinforcing what you did. 50 test edits. I'm not sure what gives? Jon@talk:~$ 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No I meant the code for closing the discussions. It used to be all we had to look for was  Done or  Not done. Which is also simple to add. It just took me about 5 edits to figure out how to close this discussion because someone added a edit notice stating we should close stuff that way now. Which is way more difficult than it needs to be. In the end I had to copy someone elses and change the bots name. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Its easy, should take only a few edits to get it. Don't be averse to change! :) Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to change. I am just adverse to change for the sake of change. It comes from being an IT professional, you shouldn't change something unless you have a reason to change something. I still haven't figured it out. But I guess I can just copy other peoples code in the future like I had to for this one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Expand the edit notice, you will see the archival templates and how to use them. They are at the bottom of the edit notice. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. The instructions didn't work. That was the problem and why I was frustrated. Kept leaving bad code behind. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Roses

Hello, DJsasso! Congratulations for your recent marriage. I didn't know you had married until I read your Request For Checkusership. This is for your new bride. :) I sincerely hope you both have a very happy wedded life together!

Belinda has given you some beautiful, lovely roses! Enjoy the scent!

With profound respect, Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek alphabet madness

Hi, I'm trying to clean up some of the madness produced by en:User:Wikinger on the Greek alphabet articles. Are you familiar with that user? He's a banned sockpuppeter over on en-wiki, and all the permanent nonsensical tinkering with the exotic letter articles at the bottom of Template:Greek alphabet is from him. It's all a mess. For now, could you please move Fau back to either Wau or Digamma (any of the two, take your pick)? "Fau" makes no sense at all.

Probably it will be necessary to semi-protect all those articles and the template permanently. That person has been at it for years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you managed to get it taken care of by yourself. I will keep my eye out on them. -DJSasso (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, Clementina was kind enough to delete the old redirect junk to make space for the move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

RfCu

Sorry, I misread it and switch PBP (as usual) with PiR... Sorry, wasn't my intention. it looked like he switchs. /me slaps himself. -Barras (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries I get those two switched up all the time as well. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

hockey/hockey players

hi djsasso i see you like hockey articles and making new hockey players, want a hand? --72.73.79.145 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We are always looking for more editors of any type. Feel free to help out in any way you would like. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Give yourself a Wikimedal

Hi Djsasso, I recently changed December 1st on Simple English wiki, testing the abilities of the editors. You my friend were on top of the "wikiball" as we Wikipedians like to say. Go ahead give yourself a WikiBarnstar for revoking my edit within 3 days. Fastest I have seen. Keep up on your wikiawesomenessKiwislayer (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request for checkuser...

There is currently a discussion as to the outcome, can you comment Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkusership/Djsasso as to your preference. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

RevDelete Reasons

Hey Djsasso, I have a quick question about the RevDelete reasons. For a RevDelete I did earlier I put "Hiding of blatant attack names" as the reason, I've since realized that that is under the "only for use by oversighters" section of the drop down box. I'm just wondering if this is an issue because I'm not an oversight? Thanks. Exert 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be an issue, it just won't do the same thing that happens if an oversighter uses it. It means one of the oversighters will fix it up later, but that's better than leaving an attack name --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it wouldn't be an issue, its still somewhat relevant for rev del. It just says in the summary that its been oversighted which isn't quite true. No worries though, better than leaving it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

When you made this edit, you deleted a user warning I had placed Purplebackpack89 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello! Do you can grant me rollback status to revert a vandalism? I also have this flag on ru-wiki and commons[10]. Thanks! JenVan (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to be autoconfirmed (4 days/10 edits) before we grant you the flag. 6 more edits :) Griffinofwales (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RFCU

I've closed the request as unsuccessful. It has the correct support percentage but not enough supporting votes from editors. It needed 25-30. Jon@talk:~$ 17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation template and "printonly"

Hi DJ, just wondering if you could solve a problem I see with the citation templates. If a title and a URL are given, it appears that, in some situations, both title and bare URL are shown, linked. According to a user over at enWiki, this could be down to a missing printonly class in Mediawiki:Common.css. I see you edited this before. Any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to fix a related (or maybe its the same) problem myself with those edits, but I don't know enough to fix it. If it does just come down to missing a printonly class maybe its an easier fix than it looked. I think I had just tried copying over the entire en version of common.css but it didn't seem to work. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just tried an edit by recommendation of User:TheDJ (any relation?!) at enwiki, didn't seem to make any difference.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Might have to wait for the job queue to update. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

bite

I thought the response was somewhat bitey but I wanted to see what was accepted here. Well, I found the wall :) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. We just have to be a bit more leniant with small issues like that because we have a harder time bringing people to this wiki. This may have been vandalism but since its not outright vulgar vandalism or the like I would personally err on the side of gentily nudging them to what they could do better. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

POINT accusation

That's redonkulous. I nominated it because I thought it wouldn't pass GA in its current state. Purplebackpack89 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked a question. I ask because you have nominated it in the past for what clearly was a point nomination. And now after having one of your GA/VGA requests turned down you have gone on a sudden rush of nominating articles to be demoted. You honestly think it doesn't look like you are clearly trying to have articles removed because yours didn't get promoted? Perhaps you didn't do it for point reasons, but it clearly looks like you did. -DJSasso (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sudden rush? I nominated ONE article that hasn't been up to par in OVER A YEAR. (I didn't nom Nickel Creek). And do you have any reason why it's still a GA? Cuz there are multiple issues Purplebackpack89 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, interesting timing after that failed VGA/GA. Anyway, I've addressed your vague concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit

What was the purpose of this edit? Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Never mind. I see why. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, requests are not considered live until they are transcluded so you can't !vote on them. Since he hadn't accepted yet. However he appears to have accepted now so go ahead and add your opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag

You should use the flood flag for those semi-automated edits, you know... --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope...flood flag should only be used when you plan on doing a few hundred edits. Too many admins give it out for people doing too few changes. I won't be one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Few hundred? The reason is so you don't hide vandal edits from recent changes. Not everyone uses the 500 edits option. What is wrong with giving it out for about 30 changes? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Because people are too worried about the RC. A vandal edit slipping through isn't a big deal as it will eventually be caught. And isn't likely to happen because we have editors who go through every edit anyways. Edits should be as open as possible and using the flood flag hides them. When we added the flood flag it was only supposed to be used in the most extreme cases, however, as time has gone by people have given it out for fewer and fewer edits. I personally go back after I make a run to check any edits made at the same time anyways, so in my case (can't speak for others) none would slip through anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		For lots of work in improving Wikipedia's coverage of hockey. Kansan (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. Thought you explained it much better than I did :) Normandie ^Talk! 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well its been 'archived' now so my link is broken, but you get the picture... Normandie ^Talk! 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I knew what you meant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. Thought you explained it much better than I did :) Normandie ^Talk! 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well its been 'archived' now so my link is broken, but you get the picture... Normandie ^Talk! 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I knew what you meant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings

Hi, can you look on the article again, because you have reverted my edit and I suppose you think that my point was in this case radio drama or audio drama. This is not quite rigt. My problem on this sentence is that 3 times is something to read of a film and this in a way which irritates me and I know what is meant. I suppose these sentences should be made shorter and the films should named without a break for sentences about other adaptations. with friendly greetings, Sönke --Soenke Rahn (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC) PS: on the article "Klaus Ebner" I have had placed the link to the article audio drama. Because I created audio drama, because, in this time it would be more possible in English discussion, that the article radio drama would be merged into this section or both articles would survive seperate. But it looked not very possibly that audio theatre would be kicked. After the move it would be possilble right if you will place later this links again into the articles and take the results of the discussions on it? So what is to read on the erase discussion of tha article adio drams in englisch... is not quit right. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Category deletions

Why do you delete the categories I created, e.g. Category:Provinces of Sri Lanka? TopoChecker (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have explained on your talk page already, we do not create categories unless the top level categories are too large, and in doing so we only create them if there are 3-5 articles to fill them. Because we are simple english wikipedia we try to keep things as simplified as possible. -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I try to add more content, so at first I look to have 3 at least. TopoChecker (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Category renames

I propose to change all Provinces in Xcountry to Provinces of Xcountry. Consistency within the group and with the article names. TopoChecker (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Provinces of Cuba

I propose to use upper case "Province" for all in Category:Provinces of Cuba:

• uppercase used for Argentina, Dominican Republic, Peru and the more far away Iran, Iraq, Afgahnistan, see Category:Provinces by country
• "Somename Province" as used in en:Category:Provinces of Cuba - makes copy editing easier.

TopoChecker (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done This sounds fine, I've moved all the pages to have upper case "Province" per en. Hope you don't mind me interrupting Djsasso! :) Normandie ^Talk! 21:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries I wasn't around. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Service Award

This editor is a Senior Editor III and has the right to show this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain and Cigarette Burn.

Hi Djsasso, I was looking at your contributions to Simple. Did you know your first edits here were made in December 2004? That is a long term level of involvement with the Simple English Wikipedia, and therefore it is a great honor to give you another book! Congratulations, Peterdownunder (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hi DJ. Although I haven't mentioned you by name, I have used your latest closure as an example to support an argument to even out the percentages for bureaucratship. See WP:ST#Criteria for bureaucratship seems inconsistent for the thread. Thanks! PeterSymonds (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Flood.

Hey DJ. I assume you're gonna be flooding for a while, but as you are using AWB the flood flag won't work. You will probably need to log out, and then log back in to make it work. Thanks--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bleh yeah I forgot the two don't play nice together. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

what now?

troy did get a divouse and u earshaded anyway i cant type gd Hux21 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? *beaming eyes* The one and only...Mr. Berty! ^talk~_stalk 17:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Normandy

Was wondering how you found out? As per last time a similar event occurred, I'm not too keen on random checks being done on just anyone. (though it probably wasn't a random check, and you had good reason to believe it was a sock). Just curious. Kindly, Yottie ^=talk= 17:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

He admitted it on his userpage, and I am not a CU so I can't check anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Yottie ^=talk= 17:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi there! I wondered if you could run your bot (again?) to let it go through the new pages? I'm just a bit too lazy and it is an annoying work to add them manually. Best, -Barras (talk) 12:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah if I remember when I get home I will. Been a bit busy the last week so haven't been onwiki much. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not much of a problem. Just noticed it when patrolling. And help (at least with the interwikis) is appreciated. -Barras (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Template

Why did you move my template of Space-Shuttle-stub ? Omkar 19:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They're probably simply too few articles on space shuttles and missions. Oh, and it has to be approved by the Simple Stub Project too. --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

We only use very generic simple stubs on simple.wikipedia. As such a shuttle stub is far too specific. And as mentioned we approve the creation of any new stubs here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Request #2

Could you please place the confirmed user flag on my account or do you have that on simple. I need it so I can upload a few pictures to put on an article I am writing. MauchoEagle (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't upload pictures on simple. We only use pictures from commons here. -DJSasso (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

American English

Thanks for that link there.  :) I thought they were comparing the word "draught" with the word "draft" like being drafted into the military, which DOES have a very different meaning from draught. —This lousy T-shirt (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah in that sense it does. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

De-admining

I noticed you de-admined EchoBravo and Werdan7. Don't they have to go through RfDAs or is there a policy that says you can remove admin rights after [time] of inactivity? --173.49.140.141 (talk) (SEPTActaMTA8235) 14:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed as me. --SEPTActaMTA8235 14:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No admins don't go through RfDAs normally when they are inactive please see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. The one that BG opened was unusual. -DJSasso (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

History

Hi DJSasso, I know we have a lot of 'history' between us in the past. Now I'm back here I really wasn't looking to get into arguments with you. I hoped that we can put all this behind us and move on. I apologise for my attitude on the RfA page, its not what I was hoping for. What do you say to a fresh start between us? *extends hand* Ydennek ^(talk) 11:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Djsasso, Ydennek has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

To be honest I never really had an issue with you at all. It wasn't till near the end of your original stint here when you seemingly went off the rails that I thought there was a problem. I had actually named you a number of times as one of the better editors here. So I certainly have no problem offering you a fresh start as long as you don't return to using socks to try and get your way or whatever. So no worries I harbour no ill will. But I do sometimes have strong opinions and they are never personal so as long as you remember that in discussions I don't forsee any issues. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Things went downhill after my deadminship really... Can you imagine that now after years of editing here, putting huge amounts of effort into this wiki, actually fighting for its credibility and believing in its purpose, that you make one mistake, one single mistake and everyone jumps on the bandwagon (people who weren't even active at the time!) to remove my rights and tell me that they don't trust me anymore. I appreciate that I would have let down the major users here, yourself, TRM, fr33kman, Barras etc, but there was users there that I didn't know, and who didn't know me, who had as much of a right to vote as you or the others. This left me feeling bitter that something I worked so hard to defend had turned its back on me and essentially called me a traitor: "his position of trust within the community has been compromised.", "your actions are against the books", "I don't see a reason why you should have the tool.". I poured my heart and soul (and a lot of my spare time) into this project, as much as you or the above others, to be pushed into the gutter. I wonder if you or the others would react differently to a RfDe with these comments? Again, please don't take this personally, just an attempt at rationalising my actions... Ydennek ^(talk) 13:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand how it can happen and how you can become bitter etc. And I truly mean it when I say it. I don't really hold grudges. If a person stops doing whatever it was they were doing wrong then I don't usually have an issue. I may have to wait awhile before I trust them to the level I trusted them before but if they keep doing what they did to make me trust them the first time then they will get there eventually. BG is a good example I trust him completely. He knows it, we have talked about it a lot. But in his case whether I trust him or not he brings a lot of drama and baggage to any decision he makes. Frankly I think he would get his views actioned on a lot more readily as a non-admin than as an admin. So I feel he is of more value as an editor than an admin. So not really a case of trust there or lack of respect. If you look back at discussions I agree with him a lot more than I disagree with him. So bringing this back to you, I completely understand how things could go haywire for you and am more than willing to give you the chance to succeed. I likely wouldn't give you advance rights back at this point or in the near future just because you have lashed out at the community so bad when things didn't really go your way. And things like socking, I have a hard time with giving admin to anyone who has ever done that. That isn't just a you thing. But as an editor I respect the work you do and am more than willing to let you do that work because that is what we really are here for. If more people worried about the content and less about the meta-stuff then we would probably be better off. As for how I would react who knows I haven't gotten to that point. I would probably just walk away from Simple and stick to English Wikipedia. But maybe that's because I only came here after I was a well established en user. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the U.S.

Your interpretation of policy is way off base. I try to keep this article from becoming biased and craptactular, and you and Gotanda act like it's the end of the world. You seem to forget that there are other policies than ANYONE and summary (the latter of which doesn't apply anyway owing to the length of the article)...things like NPOV and BIAS. If what I propose is adhered to, the article will be neutral and balanced. If not, it won't be...it'll emphasize trivial aspects and will completely lack perspective (and I'm frankly OK with ppl who are going to make a lot of bad edits being scared off). Also, an ownership allegation generally requires substantiation in mainspace edits, which I'm not seeing in this case. This just seems to be another in your well-documented attempt to get me off this wiki. Lay off it. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No not even close to correct. If all you has said was a simple hey guys watch about adding biased edits into the article there wouldn't be a problem. You specifically threatened editors. There is a world of difference. Ownership is not merely mainspace editing practices either. In fact usually ownership issues show up on talk pages more than in mainspace. Now you are accusing me of trying to get you off this wiki? You are ridiculous. You can't take criticism at all and whenever people suggest maybe you are wrong in something you fly off the handle. I think you need to learn to step back from situations you are in and look at them objectively. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not threaten editors. Full stop. Any allegation to the contrary is flat-out wrong Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Just be warned" is a threat. And the tone of that whole message is threatening. If you can't see it then that is exactly the problem I am talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, "just be warned" is a warning. A threat would be "If you make edits to this page, I will immediately revert them and report you to AIV"...and I specifically say that I won't do that Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is basically what you do in the rest of that sentence. Go on to state you will scrutinize them. It doesn't matter if you think its a threat or not, it matters that other people think it is. And all of that is backed up by you trying to assert authority by claiming you are a trained historian etc. All of that makes it threatening to users. -DJSasso (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And I would note almost every point you tell them to follow are just your opinion. You provide no evidence that there is already enough of each item in the article, you certainly don't have sources backing up that the most horrible atrocities are already in it and that that is enough...that is completely your opinion on what the most horrible ones are and that any others would are not important. -DJSasso (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In response to the horrible atrocities question, this is in response to editors (Gotanda mostly, really; Mgokuda recently with the statement that the U.S. started the Boxer Rebellion) who have been trying to skew the article towards saying everything the U.S. did is/was wrong, and giving the bad things undue weight and loaded words. If you describe the U.S.' atrocities (slavery, racism, Indian removal, Japanese internment, atomic bomb, Vietnam) properly, people will figure out that they were wrong without using loaded words. And there's no one source for a number that says "a good history of the United States should have 12 horrible atrocities and be 27.3% about minorities", but there are people who are revisionist and there are people who said the U.S. never did anything wrong. With minorities, there are the people in Texas who believe that minorities did little or nothing, and people elsewhere who believe that American history is primarly that of minority/alternative voices. In both cases, my viewpoint is a sensible middle ground Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This...

Are you sure you got the right talk page? I did not see this in my archive. Jon@talk:~$ 02:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup here it is. It was removed in the next edit by another editor and I then put it on your talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm daft. I did not think to check the revision history.  :) Jon@talk:~$ 01:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

How dare you...

...say I had no policy based reason for wanting GNAA to be deleted. The reasons included "non-notable", "promotional", and "per deletion discussions on EN", like this one, where it was deleted because it feeds trolls. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well when you finally explain and prove that it is any of those things then you will have made a policy based argument. Just stating something fails something and not backing it up with proof is not an argument. Not to mention deletion discussion have zero bearing here. You need to make your own arguments here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
EXCUSE ME?!?!?!? I mentioned promotional and non-notable FIVE DAYS ago, as the difference link CLEARLY shows. it seems clear to me that you haven't read all my comments, and are just using this RFD as an excuse to mock me, as you continually do Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

And you aren't reading mine apparently. I said just stating it doesn't do something isn't an argument, you have to back it up show proof etc. You also need to stop taking every little thing anyone says so personal. Grow up. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The proof is there. ME grow up? I'm not the one who claims everything you do is very poor decision making and grounds to get blocked. A while back, you made no bones about the fact that you wanted me off this wiki, and since then you've been using every slightly controversial thing I do as grounds to make me look like a dolt. Give it up Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Where? I see no proof offered by you in the discussion. I see you state it fails those things and that is it. (literally the end of the sentence) Secondly yes grow up, anytime anyone disagrees with you you throw a hissy fit and act like a little child. I have never said I wanted you off this wiki, what I have said is that I want you to stop acting like a child as you have consistently done your entire time on this wiki. Which is why you have had issues with nearly everyone on this wiki and why you were blocked. Stop doing things that are stupid and people will stop calling you on them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You have on multiple occasions issued borderline personal attacks against me. Furthermore, stating that something is non-notable is all you need to do in an RFD...half the RFDs on this wiki have been "non-notable...Delete per GuyWhoSaysItsNonNotable...Delete per GuyWhoAgreesWithThatGuy...deleted" Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Not getting involved in your debate as I know nothing about it, and frankly, don't want to, but breathe everyone! PPB89: You can't really claim a borderline PA from DJSasso when you start a heading with "How dare you..." - Just a thought to keep in mind. Ydennek ^(talk) 12:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I thought of doing that but I didn't think the community agreed to it. chris†ianrocker90 20:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

zomg! CR90 thanking DJ for something!! The end of the earth must be soon :P fr33kman 20:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Template

I'm am sort of daft when it comes to template and template code, how am I screwing up this references template? Jon@talk:~$ 16:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not that you are screwing it up persay. The two big red warnings at the bottom of the page come from using the short form of a link name ie <ref name="ibtimes" />. These only work if the first reference exists with the actual information. Because this was copy and pasted from en originally and then stuff was cut out the actual reference with the reference information is missing. Just change the first occurrence of the short form with the reference as it exists on en (assuming it still does). Just go to the en article and search for "ibtimes" in the source code of the page. The other one that is missing is called "rohr" so you just need to find those two and copy and paste the full ref information from en and replace one of the short for versions I show above with the info. -DJSasso (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When I define the reference it works, but, it adds cite numbers at the top of the page, now... when I replace the first mention, it does a cite error again. Am I missing something? Jon@talk:~$ 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)