User talk:Djsasso/Archive 6

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

Thanks for the reminder

Hi Djsasso, thanks for the reminder. I am aware of the policy and its effects, and have no qualms about being desysopped as per guidelines if my editcount does not satisfy the requirement. :)-- Tdxiang 16:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


TDKR Chicago 101 has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

-TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for stating the obvious! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL yeah, leave it to me to be blunt. -DJSasso (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Revert the block text.

Can you revert the Block message back to revision by nonvocalScream (18:49 26 February 2010) please.2600:1006:B102:F08B:1888:CD1A:A374:33E5 (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

No. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Unflagged JackieBot

Any problems with bot's contribution? Jackie (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I will look again, but I don't think so. Just that it was unapproved for its task. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Just small technical corrections from experienced bot master :) If need, I put new request for approve. After end work with interwiki in the many wikies allow such task - edits are rarely and I review it... -- Jackie (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yup I see no problem with the edits themselves. I may approve it as an unflagged bot since it edits so rarely. But I will keep an eye on it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, description of bot work is next (hidden text here contain request, which I wrote for Wikipedia talk:Bots):

Semi-automated mode, autoreplacements such http://http [any] to the http://
http://www.http to the http://
https://http to the https:// or http:// and other technical mistypes (todo page). Edits rate is rarely, as need (check by search - example on the todo page)

Can remove after read :) Its for information. Jackie (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and post that and I will approve it there. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

EmausBot block

Hello. Could you explain, why you have blocked my bot? The rules allow a global bot tasks and the double redirect fixing is one of them. --Emaus (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your bot wasn't showing up as a global bot, just a local one. I appologize. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for doing my new username. Unfortunately, I was still logged in when you did and I made a few edits which have not been picked up. Is there any way to transfer these to my new username to avoid confusion in the future/free up the the DJDunsie username? --Thrasymedes (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope they will remain separate, there is no way to merge edits from two different accounts, however you could redirect your userpage and talkpage to your new name and then people will understand its the same person. Essentially what happened was that a new account was created when you edited again. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ping

Sorry, I wasn't around then - do you still need me for something? Chenzw  Talk  14:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL no that was quite awhile ago. Was just going to get you to delete some pages from that SWAG spammer because I was under the flood flag. I took care of it when I was done. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your comments

Hello. Regarding your comments at my RfA about leaving the Simple English Wikipedia after gaining the admin toolset, I can definitely see your concern, but you may not want to accuse users of planning to do so as forwardly as you are. This can easily be taken by some as an assumption of bad faith, and I will admit I felt a bit insulted when you continued to repeat that same point over and over again. TCN7JM 22:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

RfA is a debate. That is sort of the point. I did not accuse you of planning to do so at all. I made a general statement that it happens with most users who ask for the bit really soon into their time here. It isn't a vote and people are expected to talk back and forth and debate their position. -DJSasso (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Your saying you "would rather that not happen again" looks quite clearly like an assumption that I was going to leave the wiki. TCN7JM 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I suppose you could look at it that way, but what I meant was that I would rather the situation not happen again so its better to do what you can to prevent it from happening again than it is to try and fix the situation after its happened. In other words make them wait to lower the probability of the situation coming true. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I see. While I thought I would have proven myself to not be one of those types of users by remaining an administrator on Wikidata for six months, I respect your opinion. Thank you for your time. TCN7JM 14:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Like I said its nothing personal and you definitely do good work. I just believe the bar to being an admin needs to be higher than it has been in the past because this wiki has suffered a lot in the past from people who were made admins too quickly who definitely shouldn't have been admins. I just like to be cautious. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


How old of a user must you be in order to use Twinkle? Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

There is no age limit. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Im talking about time as a user. Currently it says I am too new of a User to use Twinkle.Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
I forget, but I believe you have to be autoconfirmed. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
How is this done? I realize I may still have to wait, but I am interested in helping wikipedia. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
It happens automatically after 4 days from when you joined the site. -DJSasso (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh I see. Vandalism is pretty high right now. I've reverted over half a dozen in the past half hour.--Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
I have talked about it to other people, and an auto confirmed user has to be four days old, OR have made ten edits. (I have made way more than ten) Is it four days for twinkle by default? Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
Like I said I have no idea. I would just be patient. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Alright so I wait……and wait…and wait…Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

Question at the deadminship discussion

Hi DjSasso, just wanted to point out to you that I just asked a question seeking more detail/examples at the deadminship discussion page. I wanted to point it out here since it's kind of buried in the middle of discussion so I didn't want you to miss it. I'm really curious as to what deadminships I've missed from the past that you felt are examples of why this policy exists since you've brought it up twice this week. Thanks! Only (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, you were correct in that in this case the ones you mentioned weren't applicable, In the RfA I was meaning BG, Kennedy and Nonvocalscream. I think there was a 4th one but I can't recall a name so I could be wrong. I didn't mention names because Kennedy for example became an admin again so I didn't want to drag up old stuff specifically about him. In the case of the inactive admins. Blockinblox was the one who officially had his adminship stripped, and Vector was the reason for the current wording of the policy. The policy in its current form was created so that Vector's flag could be removed without having to go through a DeRfA. It is worth noting I did !vote against the policy in the beginning, but bowed to consensus when they watered down the requirements a bit. So I definitely see your argument. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For Your Hard Work!

RCPatroller Badge.png You Have Received The New Changes Patroller Badge!
For Your Amazing Job Patrolling The New Changes and Reverting Vandalism! -Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 13:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What can I do differently?

I reported my first vandal for blockage today, but I wasn't exactly sure what to do. Did I do it right? Also, what can I do better next time? --Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

background color

How do you add background color? Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

Background color to what? -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you don't spam several users talkpages with the same question? - perhaps ask one person and wait for an answer, or in future help is available at ST. In the meantime, I think that subst-ing other templates into your Sandbox will give you some example code to do what you want. Kennedy (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Woops! Just asked you...ok.Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
To a banner or a talk page. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
See my post above; "I think that subst-ing other templates into your Sandbox will give you some example code to do what you want." Kennedy (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you do that for?

Hey you deleted my personal info why?--MRivera25 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)MRivera25

It is a Wikipedia (safety) policy that you do not state anything personal about yourself. This is why he deleted your personal info. Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 18:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Because of WP:CHILD which says Users who say that they are children and give out personal information may have that information removed. If they keep adding it back, they may also be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
But I'm not a child I'm <redacted>.--MRivera25 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)MRivera25
Which is under the age of 18 in the USA which makes you legally a minor. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a heads up, you may need to take a look at his user page again. --Beefball Talk 17:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again he has put his personal information on his user page. We may have to consider further action especially given his disruptive behaviour on the project and his block on --Beefball Talk 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Notifying for clarification; I blocked user for 24 hours. Kennedy (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ao dai

The correct English-language spelling of this word is "ao dai", as you can see from the Oxford, American Heritage and twelve other dictionaries. The Chicago Manual of Style says to follow the spellings given in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. This dictionary is not online, but I can assure that it gives the same spelling. Is the idea to teach our readers to spell this word wrong? Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We both know your anti-diacritics crusade you had on I will point you to WP:ONESTRIKE. If you continue your anti-diacritics crusade here you will have your ban on en reciprocated here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would you know anything? Nobody tells me. I assumed it was because an editor with too much time on his hands forumshopped complaints against me almost every day for a full year. I tried to reason with you, and you respond with threats. Kauffner (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
It wasn't a threat. I just thought you should be aware of it. I saw the mess of crap you caused over there and I could see the beginnings of it here so figured it was as good a time as any to point it out to you so you aren't blindsided by it in the future. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


To my perception, there is currently a status quo regarding the notability on en.wk. In my opinion there are about 40-60% of the entire en.wk that would have to be deleted because the articles' reference fail to demonstrate significant coverage in independent sources. Would you agree with it?

An example is: Lerata village, It has got only two references, with one of them broken. It was established in 2005, with several editors attending to it throughout the years. No one of them thought to delete it. I have visited the village in around 2007, and it's just a small local village, less than 500 houses. It will never fulfill the notability requirements. On the other hand, I would be objecting to it's deletion, because it might be useful for readers who are making research, or otherwise interested in a neutral opinion about the subject, and I would actually be inclined to enrich the article. (Please do not discuss the Lerata example as I have provided it purely to demonstrate my point.)

At the same time, would it be an article about a commercial company, as Spider for example, it would surely have been deleted, and is even being QDed with 9 working references. It seems that entries about commercial companies are seen in a negative view by most admin. But I think it shouldn't be so, for the guidelines of Wikipedia allow such articles.

If you will review the history of my sandbox and the RfD, you will see that I have applied almost all, but one of suggested changes; and Autonf6 himself edited it even further, being prompted by Chenzw to help with it. I'm still struggling to understand how he could help, and also be the one to QD it. And, I'm still being confused of how he could read and fix it, without such actions constituting review. I'm thinking that 'review' means 'fully read', because there it wasn't stated 'written review'. And I would guess, the reason Chenzw has stated it, is to avoid re-creation of identical or similar copy. Tdfdc (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


Could you tell me why would you have deleted it anyway? Tdfdc (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Because none of the references talk about the company in a way that isn't just routine coverage. Like reviews of products or listing that they were at some expo or another. There needs to be sources from reputable magazines/newspapers talking about the company itself, not their products. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
And what is your opinion about the comment I have left in Chenzw's talk page?
I also think the reasoning you have provided are for RfD, and not for QD. The scope of my discussion with Autonf was only QD. Tdfdc (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Except that it has already been RfDed. At this point its up to you to prove notability to be able to recreate it again, until you do QD applies. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the article, I was referring to the reasoning you have stated. Do you truly think that QD applies? When I have reviewed it, it clearly states: identical or similar copy. If you will compare the article on the date that the RfD was filed, with the article that I have recreated, you can hardly find them identical or 'similar copy'. And that is even without dwelling into the condition for the recreation, that was stated as reviewing by another editor, and without mentioning the possibility of another RfD which Osiris have mentioned. Tdfdc (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just a note: the comparison should not be to the article as of the date the rfd was filed. It should be to the article as of the date the rfd was closed. This is because, if an article is changed during an rfd to address the concerns, and editors agree that the issues are corrected, the article is not deleted. If the article is changed but is still deleted, that means the issues were not corrected. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree. In this particular case, the consensus was reached at the beginning of the RfD for the way the article looked at that time. I have noted to Osiris that the article that was RfD'd and the current articles are different, and he agreed with that point, proposing another RfD. However, even though Chenzw prompted you to help with the article, you have QD'd it, after helping with it. I'm still amused at what you have done.
In all of this I don't see even a slightest ray of AGF. And into this you would like me to invite my fellow audiophiles to contribute? That would immediately create a conflict, instead of a collaborative, based on AGF, involvement.
If I were you, and acted in AGF, I would personally leave a comment on your talk page, and ask why do you think that the article was reviewed, and wouldn't arbitrary assume that there wasn't a reviewing process, especially considering that RfD's wrap-up didn't specify anything like a formal, written review, and I wouldn't QD it. At best, if I wouldn't satisfied with a reply, I would probably propose another RfD. However, being the person that helped with the article, I would probably do nothing of these at all, and let other admins to handle it; especially if I wouldn't have time to invest into finding more reliable sources to help to develop the article further. Tdfdc (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
May I propose you to revert QD and start RfD? That would be a much more polite action, and I could centralize there my reasoning. And, if you could start injecting rays of AGF in your actions towards the article (even if not a sunshine), I would much appreciate it. Tdfdc (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability P.S.

Out of pure curiosity, I have decided to test my impression of 40-60%. I did so by pressing "random" on en.wk. Here are the articles I got: - 1 reference, to website, fails notability requirements.,_Prince_Edward_Island - Got no references, fails notability requirements. - 1 Reference, may or may not 'potentially' fulfill the notability reqs, fails at present form. - 3 References, First reference is being actually another en.wk article:, that itself got no references. Other two are ISBN references. Even if they are valid, 2 references are not enough to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Though potentially it is most likely complies with the notability requirements, in the current form it fails.

I have repeatedly clicked 4 times on random article button. I give you my word that I didn't omit any articles. Tdfdc (talk) 13:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting AWB permission

Please take a look at my request here. Please direct all your future messages there. Thanks. - Jayadevp13 17:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

See my reply to you there. - Jayadevp13 04:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete Review

There is an ongoing review process in which you are participating. Kindly review the last two sections regarding reliable sources that were introduced (sections) after your participation in the survey.Tdfdc (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


What I am trying to do is find out if there is a sufficient number of stubs for the creation of these stub tags. These pages do not interfere with the operation of Wikipedia and, as I said, once I am done with this I will nominate these pages for deletion. If these pages had not been deleted back in February, then most likely I would already be done and we would not be having this fight. (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said on Auntof6's page. We don't sort stubs here like you are trying to do. You have been asked in the past not to try and sort stubs like that here. We only create stubs when people are actively trying to work on a project involving those specific stubs. Please stop sorting stubs. We actively discourage sub sorting here. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Language stub sorting

We have another user doing the same kind of stub sorting into language stubs. What would you think of deleting the language stub template and taking it off of articles? It wouldn't be too hard to do, since there aren't that many pages using it so far. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I had been thinking about deleting the redirect the other day when we were talking about it. I would just delete the redirect and replace the stub with the plain stub template. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have since done it now. I am also pretty sure its the same person based on how they worded their unblock message even if the IPs geolocate differently. -DJSasso (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I also thought it was probably the same person. Later today I'll do the same for some of our other redirected stub tags. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't do it for any that have a very large number of redirects. Only for the smaller ones. I know there are probably some out there with a few hundred linked to them, might as well leave them unless he starts using them as well. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted everything that has less than about 20 links to it and fixed their links. There are a few with 20+ links that will need to be cleaned up. I would leave any that have a large number alone. Canada for example has about 680 so it will probably become its own stub soon. So there is no point undoing it only to redo it again in a few months or whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Augusto De Luca‎

This account was globally locked for creating userpages across 500+ wikis, promoting the images of a certain photographer. The pages have been deleted on many wikis by stewards and local admins. --Rschen7754 19:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, this account is now locked, there are a few sockpuppets whose sole aim is spreading ADL's names an pictures on *hundreds* of wikis. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes I am aware, that being said it was on a User page so there is more leniency since theoretically it could be this person. I will delete it though since its been locked. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


I followed the instructions, it just used the wrong template. Was looking for the right one, and saw you fixed it for me. Enfcer (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries. :) -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


About this change: the instructions say such people "can be granted rollback without these requirements", not that it's automatic, yes? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, technically that is true. Essentially we reserve the right to reject it if there is an issue. But generally the point of that line is that it in those cases it is fairly automatic so we don't have to sit around discussing users where we already know they understand how to use the tool. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Towns in Wales

Many thanks for helping with the map on the infobox. Can you advise me please should I apply to bot around 700 of these articles on towns and large community councils in Wales? The above is a template. This has been done in five languages, so far. Many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The community here no longer allows bot created articles, especially of places. We had issues with people doing it in the past and the community is very strongly against it. If you wanted to move them over you would have to do them by hand. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Resurrecting articles

Not sure if it is worth the effort, but I noticed there was a mass deletion of pages added by Special:Contributions/, and I had cleaned up 4 or 5 of the articles. Is it easy to bring them back? If not they'll be recreated eventually. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I can take a look. Won't be right away because I will have to check them all unless you remember what the names of the articles where. -DJSasso (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I restored any where you added information or copyedited other than just redirecting. And I didn't restore one that didn't have an article on en. I do suggest however that you now try to make sure you can prove they are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering I noticed that the template {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} needs updating, so I created the sandbox of it at here. So I was wondering if you could check the code, and such to make sure it will work, and if there is anything I need to simplify as such I did bring this over from I did it because I noticed in the area you have to use the convert template, for the area and there is no place to add footnotes within the infobox. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Adminship update

I'm updating my accounts - you can go ahead and remove my admin flag here, as I'm not likely to become active here any time soon. Thanks. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, have switched you over to a rollbacker. Hope to see you back sometime. Thanks for your service. -DJSasso (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Regarding use of QD:G12 for failing to provide attribution. I think it's a good idea to put the attribution template there for new editors and inform them of the requirement and how to do it. But in chronic cases where an editor fails to comply I think G12 seems to be warranted. Otherwise it's simply an endless clean-up detail after editors that refuse to attribute. Case in point is User talk:Fixer88. Even after being blocked for failing to comply with the attribution policy (September 2013), the user continues to ignore additional warnings. At the time it slipped my mind that the article TAME you removed the QD from was by this same editor—if that makes a difference. At any rate, what to do with editors who won't comply? Thanks Rus793 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse

The above user was trying to vandalize over the articles, although he is already blocked and stopped vandalizing. Please see this ANI tread. 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:81A4:BBE1:D67D:EB2E (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

If he is already blocked what is it you want me to do? -DJSasso (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just revoke talk page access for him so he won't use the unblock template to continue vandalizing each time we edit. Do you have administrator privileges to do this? 2602:306:CC2E:EFB0:7535:6F29:8182:3FDC (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An important message about renaming users

Dear Djsasso,

I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.

As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.

Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.

The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.

Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.

In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.

Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.

If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.

Thank you for your time. -- Keegan (WMF) talk 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!


It appears to me that an editor we have here may be the same as one or more that were found to be sockpuppets at enwiki. I'm unsure whether to post details openly here or email you. Please advise. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You can send me a message if you want to be discrete along with whatever evidence you might have and I will take a look. Otherwise you can post it on the request for checkuser page. -DJSasso (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I just sent you an email. However, it looks like it might have gotten rejected. Let me know if you don't get your copy. I can post it here if necessary. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Try sending again. I was changing email hosts recently so might have been a hiccup. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I just tried again and it failed again. Looking closer at the web site that explains why the email failed, it looks the problem is on the sending side, not the receiving side, and happens when the "email user" function is used by someone with a Yahoo email address on their Wikipedia account. It says Yahoo "recently" changed a policy (but there's no date to indicate when the change actually happened). I don't have a non-Yahoo email address to use. I could post here, but I'm mentioning three Simple users and I'd rather not do that openly. Maybe you could try emailing me, and I could reply to your email, or maybe you have another suggestion? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I got your email and replied. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I sent you one yesterday too along a similar topic, did you receive it or shall I resend also? :-) Goblin 12:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Mh7kJ!

I got yours, but yours might take a bit to look at because their history is long since expired so I will have to use behavioral evidence or talk with some other CUs who might know some of their info. -DJSasso (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Great. There's no real rush, of course, and I didn't think that there would be much technical evidence available, but I still thought it would be worth a look. Thanks. Goblin 15:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Auntof6!

A new editor has been making edits similar to these. I just emailed you the name. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please subscribe to the global renamers mailing list

Dear global renamer,

You have not yet subscribed to the global renamers mailing list. Considering the diverse background of all renamers, and with the intention to create an efficient platform for direct internal assistance and discussion, we strongly encourage you to do so. Please subscribe here and send me or Trijnstel an email to confirm it is you requesting it. Should you have any questions or comments, please let us know.

Thank you, Savhñ 23:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi. Can you please look at your inbox? I've send you an email. Trijnstel (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

About your block

I went over his block and sent you an email. Did you not get my email? --Bsadowski1 17:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I did now. I will unblock. -DJSasso (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Ooh, ooh, was this about me?! :) FYI, Djsasso, I've filed a report at WP:AN about Stylefume, who is the actual problem. Let me know if I can help in the future, but I'd probably recommend dropping me a line directly at EN, since I'm probably not going to lurk here much. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Your Montreal Canadiens fan user box

Hi, DJ. I noticed that your page User:Djsasso/NHL-Canadiens is the only thing in Category:Wikipedian Montreal Canadiens fans. Nothing appears to be that userbox, but if you're going to keep it, could you change the code so that the category is only used when the template is transcluded and doesn't categorize the template itself? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It should categorize itself. All userboxes should categorize themselves. That being said since its not being used anymore I will just delete it.-DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you care to do the same with User:Djsasso/NHL-Flames? The reason I've asked about these is that I try to keep Special:WantedCategories as clean as possible. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi DJ,

You can remove my tools at any time. I'm still around, but not around enough to keep tools. I miss you! later, --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

BTW I'll not be asking for them back, I've done that to many times already. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 03:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Only seeing that now, I've already removed the admin rights as per your pointer on IRC last night. Thanks for your work here and sorry for stealing your work, Dj. -Barras talk 12:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to ask for them again if you ever do get time. You were/are valued here. And no worries Barras, was going to be a light workload on the 1st anyway. Only 2 this year...or I guess likely 1 now unless he gets super active in the next 2 days. -DJSasso (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Please restore me to the AWB list

I was on it until this edit. Cheers! BD2412 (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that you can't have it. But do you really need it? Generally on this wiki we only give AWB to people with specific task in mind and an estimated end date. You have only made 25 edits in total on this wiki in the 2+ years since you had been granted access. -DJSasso (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
If I have it, I will use it to fix disambiguation links. Of course, this is a neverending task. BD2412 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Is there somewhere else that I need to bring this request to have it acted upon? BD2412 (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Well as I told you, we don't allow AWB to be used for tasks like this. AWB use here is only allowed in very rare cases. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This project is rife with errors that can only confuse readers (like links pointing to disambiguation pages rather than articles), and AWB is an excellent tool for fixing a large number of these kinds of errors quickly. It seems odd that a project would prefer to make it difficult to fix errors that are likely to be generated regularly, so if this is the policy, then the policy needs to be changed as soon as possible. In any case, if you will restore my AWB access on a temporary basis, I will use it to fix the current set of links to Bass, Model, and Nucleus, which are some of the disambiguation pages that I regularly maintain on Wikipedia. Cheers! BD2412 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) DJ, I don't want to override you, but I think giving BD2412 AWB access would help us immensely. I worked with BD2412 a lot on disambiguating on enwiki when I was more active there, and I believe BD2412 would be responsible with it. We need a lot of disambiguating here, and it's so tedious that it doesn't get done much without the use of tools. AWB has an excellent feature specifically for disambiguation. I believe that BD2412 would work within reasonable limits (such as doing mass disambiguating only when an admin is available to give and remove the flood flag). I ask you to please reconsider your denial so that this willing editor can help us with this. After all, he/she was given the access in the past for the same purpose with no problem. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Just a minor correction, they never actually used it when they were given access before so I don't actually know there was no problem. If you want to give it to them you are free too, however, I don't like the idea of giving AWB to an editor who isn't a regular editor here for a task we normally don't give it out for. But I am only one admin, feel free. But the first time he floods the recent changes with edits it will be removed and he will be warned. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Djsasso, please assume good faith with respect to my intentions and my capacity to conform my conduct to the rules of this project. Cheers! BD2412 (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I have not been assuming bad faith. Its a powerful tool that almost everyone, including admins have screwed up using on this wiki at some point or another. And with our very small user base it is very difficult to recover from such situations. For example most people just start going on it flooding the recent changes on it. Not realizing that when AWB is used they need to have the flood flag, and every single edit has to be gone through by the admin granting the flag one by one. Thus, granting it to someone who has almost no editing history here is something I don't choose to do lightly because a person who doesn't edit here isn't likely to know our editing policies. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think all AWB edits are gone through one by one. I'm spot checking BD2412's edits, but I am certainly not looking at every one. I know this editor's work on enwiki and it is good. Before giving AWB access, I explained about the flood flag and that the access was being given only for disambiguating. I think that is enough for this specific task. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

If you grant flood flag you are expected to check every edit (not necessarily AWB). You are expected to be the eyes for the community who won't see their edits on recent changes. Edits without the flood flag don't matter as the community can see them and object/revert if they see them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, for flood flag maybe. I thought you were talking about AWB edits. BD2412 is doing changes in smaller batches so as not to need the flood flag. Still, at some point we get to where we trust certain users. I realize that you don't know this user, but I do and I trust him/her. That should be all that is required. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The point where we trust the user with flood flag, is when they are made admin. As for AWB yeah, that is why I said if you trust them give it to them. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I note your opinion, but I don't share it. I'm not saying we never need to check. It's a judgment call. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is actually something the community said we had to do when we started giving the flood flag to non-admins, originally we only gave it to admins. It was part of what differentiated a user getting a flood flag and a user getting a bot flag. One had oversite by an admin and the other did not and required a bureaucrat to approve. I will have to look up the discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be helpful. It would be good to have a list somewhere of this kind of thing so that it doesn't depend on the administrators of longer standing (I didn't want to say "older"!) remembering them. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Your change (2 years ago) to Template:Infobox hockey team

This is about this change you made in December 2012. It is apparently causing a call to a template we don't have, Template:Infobox hockey team using CAN eng. Is that a template you intended to create? If it isn't going to get created, can we remove or comment out the code at the end of the template that's causing the call? I found this when looking at Special:WantedTemplates -- it's the first one on that list. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I am reverting your reversion

I am reverting your reversion of the italic at the P vs NP article. Please be civil: Your reversion has no edit summary, and was without other explanation as to why my seemingly mild (vs. encouraged bold) edit is contrary to policy or technical requirement. Please explain why my edit, the edit of an educator, was unacceptable. You can do this in a Talk section, or in an edit summary. But reversion without edit summary or Talk comment—while all too common at the en.WP—is contrary to the spirit of this enterprise. Thank you in advance for your collegial interactions. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your greeting, with my first edit at Wikipedia. One of the links you provided (indirectly, in the greeting, via the Rules link), was to the following "Behaviour guideline": [1]. Whether I should or not, your manner of dealing with the aforementioned edit is to feel "bitten". Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

meta spam??

What is a meta spam id? I pick it up from the revison history of Agender. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure. I think I would need more context. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It's a tag which was applied to the edit by a global edit filter. Chenzw  Talk  15:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


This page has references to the Link FA and Link GA templates that were just deleted. I see that you were the last person to change this page. Should the references to those templates be removed? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Canada stubs?

Really? Without the discussion we always insist on, and with only three entries in the category? That last is easily addressed, I know, but I refer you back to the lack of discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is actually over 1000 that should be showing up in it and are not, but I am actually just trying to fix a problem with the stubs not showing properly. This was a test of trying to fix it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I think they didn't show up because the template was created and applied without being approved. Then instead of replacing it in the articles and deleting it, it was kept but changed to use the North America stub category. As far as I know, the type hasn't been approved, so there shouldn't be a category even if a lot of articles have the template. It's not right to insist that new types be discussed, then have admins create them without discussing. If I'm wrong and this was discussed, I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
They didn't show up because of a bug with the job queue. A lot of approved stubs are not showing up on pages or categories, there was a post about it a month or so ago. As I said I am trying to fix it so I needed to do it with ones that were not already in place to see if the system populated the category like it should. If people don't want it when I am done trying to fix things we can easily change the redirect back. -DJSasso (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Open block request

Hi, Djsasso. There's an unblock request for a user that you blocked with the reason "clearly being disruptive and indef blocked on another wiki". I don't see anything disruptive in the user's edits, so I was wondering if you can explain what the issues were. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That was 3 years ago so truthfully I can`t fully remember. I believe it was likely to do with socking and oversight issues based on what I am seeing on their English history. They were a globally blocked account soon after my block. That being said since I don`t fully remember the details and I should have probably put a more detailed message on their talk page and since has unblocked them I won`t stand in the way. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


Dear sir, I wanna ask you that fetching and adding titles for bare links in references will be helpful for wikipedia. You can see here. If it will be helpful then Tulsibot will do so. -- Tulsi Bhagat (Talk) 08:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of rights

That is alright, I am no longer an active user, and don't use the robot anylonger... 2001:4644:CFCB:0:BDED:7F20:28AA:A1A3 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

wiki 1.26 needs change to gadget definition file

wiki 1.26 requires a change to


to support gadgets. The enwiki version, which is working fine, has this entry in the above file for GoogleTrans:

  • GoogleTrans[ResourceLoader]|GoogleTrans.js

(the above bullet is actually an asterick)

Endo999 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum﹫ Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help


Thanks for your input on my RFA. Do you think you would be willing to support in the future? eurodyne (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)



I'm hoping you can point me in the right direction. I have been working on some edits to a page, but another user is reverting the edits in a manner which i believe to be indicative of profound institutional racism. I made comments on the talk page to this effect, but the page was reverted anyway. I do not feel i have the technical expertise to effectively combat this, but it disappoints me to see this type of activity on Wikipedia, and I would like to pursue this in the most appropriate way possible. Can you advise me on what I should do?

Thank you so much!

Evanclifthorne (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, would you like ... some cake?

Please help


There are a couple of out of control editors trying to prohibit the addition of local media to the list of local media for Greensboro, NC.

The talk page speaks for itself. They are applying uninformed opinion, misinterpreting WP guidelines, making threats and personal attacks and being reckless and arbitrary in their actions. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)}

(talk page stalker) This is Simple English Wikipedia. That is happening on English Wikipedia, which is a separate Wikipedia from this one. You would need to ask for help there, not here. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Please block

Please block user Mynameismaxxd. Cosmic16 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Already is. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is your only warning. If you are a member of this wiki during the holiday season again, you may be be given this holiday card without any more warnings:

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Krett12 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 02:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please Block

Hello, I wanted to ask you please block users and, both for vandalizing more than once after being given a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You are asking on the wrong Wikipedia. Those IP addresses have never made any edits here. I think you meant to put this on English Wikipedia (this is Simple English Wikipedia). --Auntof6 (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably asked because I am an English admin. Happens now and then. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Ugh just realized this was months ago.... -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of permissions

I noticed that you removed me from Rollbackers saying "They can be, doesn't mean they will be". I assume that is in regards to gaining rollback rights because of my status on enwiki. I have not misused rollbacker in any way and have used it to revert vandalism on multiple occasions. Is there a specific reason I should not have access to rollback rights. I have only gotten more and more experienced. I have had rollback for over a month. Thanks! Music1201 talk 22:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Just that you shouldn't have been given them in the first place. And you have barely used them since receiving them. They usually are not given out until people have a few hundred edits to look at. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
But why didn't you remove the permissions until just now. I was granted rollback over a month ago and typically you are not suppose to revert another admins action unless you consult with them first. I am also trusted with rollback on English Wikipedia and Wikidata. Music1201 talk 16:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Especially given how closely related Simple English is to English (as a language), attempts resembling hat collecting is frowned upon. Precedent exists where the rollback right was removed at least one month after the initial granting of the rights: removal of rights from Gwynhaden, with reference to Commons:Administrators/Requests/Gwynhaden/2; and removal of rights from Cyfraw. Administrators are free to use their own judgement with regards to the granting (and removal) of rollback. Chenzw  Talk  03:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Because I didn't look over the list of of people who were given it until then so I didn't notice it. I probably would have done it the same day had I noticed. In this case I didn't think Chenzw would have a problem since he didn't seem to want to grant them anyway. If he has an issue with me removing them I am more than willing to discuss it, but based on his comment above I am thinking that isn't the case. -DJSasso (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your comments on bundling things at RfD

I'll take the bundling comment as your opinion. We've had quite a few bundled requests for templates where all they had in common was that they were navboxes and the reasons for deleting were the same. These templates all present information graphically, which ties them together as much as being navboxes would. Users are free to weigh in separately on each, as they have often done. Pinging StevenJ81, since he also commented. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

These felt more disparate than navboxes. I wouldn't have noticed the commonality of all being graphical if you hadn't mentioned it, while navboxes are navboxes and infoboxes are infoboxes. As long as you saw a point in common, I guess that's fine, but this one was just less obvious than many. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I mentioned it right in the request: "four unused graphics templates". --Auntof6 (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I couldn't see how they were related at all. Still not sure I really see them as related. But yes it was an opinion. It just makes things much more complicated when its not an all or nothing thing which often isn't the case with things that aren't closely related. To be honest I don't really think navboxes should be either unless they are all related in that they are all navboxes for the same thing like say they are all team roster navboxes. (ie same subject area). The whole idea is to not make users have to weight in on each separately as it can make the discussion messy and hard to follow. By listing unrelated things separately it makes the discussions on each one easier to follow. However, when they are all closely related and the discussion is most likely going to impact them all then yes bundling works well. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

SNCF Class BB 7200 on EnWP

Not sure if you are interested but since we were discussing the topic, when I was looking for stubs on Locomotives I found this one that needs some cleanup. en:SNCF Class BB 7200. It looks like someone did a translation from French and then didn't proof read it. It's pretty close and not a bad translation but some of the syntax ain't quite right. Reguyla (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Stanley Cup playoffs

Turns out we have a redirect for Stanley Cup playoffs to Season structure of the NHL and a completely different article for Stanley Cup Playoffs. Clearly we need some kind of merge, I'm just not sure which is the best option. Can you take a look? Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

At the very least the lower case one should be redirected to the upper case one. On the topic of merging we could certainly merge, is split but we don't need to be until we have more content. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to review why I was banned on EnWP

I just noticed the discussion you had on EnWP at WikiProject United States and just wanted to say you need to review the facts of the statements you made because clearly you don't know what you are talking about. Yes I was blocked while contributing to WikiProject United States but I was banned for criticizing administrative conduct but only after they attempted to do so multiple times in a row until they got what they wanted (for a minor talk page comment warning a user not to argue with an admin I might add). It's ok if you don't know the facts, its not ok to make them up because you dislike me. Reguyla (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes that was the straw that broke the camels back. But what started the whole situation was the uncivil conduct surrounding WPUS which led to you criticising the admins handling of it eventually making the comment which caused the ban. As I said it wasn't the only thing, but it directly led to it. I can almost guarantee you that had you not gone wild converting over WPUS wikiprojects you probably wouldn't have been in the arguments that led to being told to cool it with the tagging/merging which led to your seeming hatred of admins. Because after all the trouble that erupted from that you went on a crusade against admins which ended up with you being banned as you well know. -DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh please, I was never uncivil with WPUS. You are confusing me with someone else. All I did is ask projects if they wanted to work together and collaborate and a few article owners like US Roads blew up. I never forced anyone to do anything. If the project wanted to great and if anyone objected in the project it didn't happen. Hell most of the projects were completely dead and still are. I did however have a problem with projects not allowing the banner to be put on articles at all. And again, I wasn't banned for any of that anyway as you infer, I was banned for a talk page comment after several people forum shopped and repeatedly resubmitted over and over until they got what they want. It also wasn't why I had a problem with admins. That is because over and over again they violate policy and do whatever they want. Which is, as you well know, against policy to do, yet was/is allowed. But anyway, we aren't going to agree so there is no point in arguing about it. Especially since I do not want to get blocked here as well for whatever BS reason you want to use to justify it. I just wanted to clarify that you are not making truthful statements and I would ask you to stop doing that. If I am as bad as you and others claim the truth alone will be enough. There is no need for hyperbole and fairy tales. Reguyla (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)