User talk:Djsasso/Archive 8

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

Contents

Template:Col-end

Stray DIV, can you unprotect this template so a repair can be made? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that div is there to close the one in Template:div col but yeah I can unprotect it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Unicode naming

I consider letter names deviating from Unicode ones as multivariant/confusing. All glyphs being proper Greek letters are under *GREEK*LETTER* naming wildcard and are only bearing one name variant per letter. I mean them all from https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf - their unique names sum up to 32 letters. Collation is according to: http://www.unicode.org/Public/UCA/latest/allkeys.txt 54.74.166.184 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

more common names

Please, can you move Qoppa to Koppa (letter) according to w:en:Koppa (letter) at en-wiki? Unicode itself says Koppa, see official pdf, article too primarily says Koppa in itself. According to Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nikolai_Yezhov&type=revision&diff=6337433&oldid=6337421 Please make space to page move of Qoppa into Koppa according to article content and then move Qoppa to Koppa to match spelling with w:en:Koppa (letter). Unicode itself says Koppa, see official pdf, article too primarily says Koppa in itself in BOTH enwiki and simplewiki. 54.82.127.171 (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Follow English Wikipedia does not apply to article titles. Those can very much differ here. That guidelines is about guidelines. If the policy doesn't exist here we make en's policy a guideline here. I am unaware of a policy that requires us to move that article. I will however look into moving it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of it all, Unicode calls this letter Koppa and not Qoppa. 54.82.127.171 (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, but we are also not Unicode. -DJSasso (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Pagemoves

You moved letters from alpha to omega, according to plain English Wikipedia, but plain English template links additional letters to following English pages:

Can you assign them same names here? 54.82.127.171 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Cat

Why do YOU REMOVED THE PICTURE ON Cat that I added??? Roj Serbest Kerîm Talk with me 13:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Can't connect Rudaw Media Network

Can u connect it to the real site link? Roj Serbest Kerîm Talk with me 16:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

update of attribution template

For what particular reason are you updating the attribution template on certain Wikipedia articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So that the English one matches the other languages in a more uniform way. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@September 1988: you might want to read the recent discussion on Simple talk (click link) -- (talk page stalker) Deborahjay (talk) 11:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Movies by language

Are you taking into account that the category can just be removed if the language is specified in an infobox? --Auntof6 (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Same for the year category, although I know that's not what you're working on. --Auntof6 (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
At this point no, because the code in the infobox takes that into account. Well the new code will once I figure out why it wouldn't place some categories on the pages. Either way having both isn't an issue as the system knows to ignore one anyway and sometimes you might want to manually have one on for alphabetizing reasons. -DJSasso (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
But I will probably make a pass checking for that after the initial pass anyway. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Periodic tables

Might be a good idea to import

from En wiki. It's better than the hand-made one we have and less vulnerable to changes by users (page Extended periodic table). Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC))

@Macdonald-ross: There I think I bought everything for it over. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Season's Greetings, Christmas Card from 320 Ranch.jpg
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Djsasso, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga

Hello Djsasso, I was trying to import en:Template:Infobox animanga and some related templates but was not able to. Most of our articles at Category:Anime still lack the necessary infobox templates. So, can you please help in importing those templates? --BRP ever 04:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I can take a look in the next couple days. Still a little busy from the holidays. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I took a short look at some of them and it will take a bit to do. Once I can sit down and focus on it I will start bringing them over. The biggest issue with them is they do a lot of automatic category adding, which isn't always an issue, but it seems in the case of these articles alot of them might end up being single item categories so I will have to go through and figure it out. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I brought over a bunch that should help for now, haven't put them on pages yet. But should be able to help you out. -DJSasso (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I am listing the necessary categories here to work on making enough items for the categories.--BRP ever 02:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @BRPever: Please try to make that a priority. All those redlinked anime and manga categories have been clogging the wanted categories page. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy 2019 Djsasso! Angela Maureen (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

Would RevDel be appropriate for the recent vandalism on your talk page? IWI (chat) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

You could certainly make a case for it and it would be understandable if anyone did it. However, I tend to stick very closely to the if it can't be oversighted then it can't be RevDeled rule. And something like this wouldn't be able to be oversighted as it is just run of the mill vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, it’s pretty severe. IWI (chat) 14:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleaners

My thinking was, since the word links directly to the verb, it would be easier to understand. IWI (chat) 15:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Country data New York (state)

You recently imported a new copy of this template. It appears to be a duplicate of Template:Country data New York. Should we redirect one to the other (and adjust the interwikis in Wikidata)? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

extending orphaned articles limit to 8,000

Can you please have the orphaned articles limit extended to 8,000? 'Cause looking at the number of orphaned pages when the limit is 5,000 is not enough; there are probably more than 7,500 orphaned articles on the Simple English Wikipedia at this very moment. Angela Maureen (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what limit on orphaned articles you are talking about. -DJSasso (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @September 1988: Are you talking about Special:LonelyPages? I think that limit is on many special pages, and I don't think we can change it. Does being able to see 5000 of them not give you enough to work on? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: The 5,000 limit restricts the ability to see how many orphaned pages there are besides the ones that are already listed. There are many other orphaned pages in addition to those articles. Angela Maureen (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
See meta:Help:Special page. Pages like Special:LonelyPages are limited to 5000 results. It's not something that can be adjusted. Only (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Only. @September 1988: I suspect it's to limit how much in computer resources has to be spent scanning the database to produce the special pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

how could I attribute pages using new attribution?

Hey Djsasso: How could I attribute pages with new attribution? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The instructions are on Template:Translated page. But I should note the old template isn't gone yet either, so you can still use it. It will just likely get replaced at some point so you might as well read the instructions and learn the other template. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Chenzwbot

Our bot has... taken a holiday? I heard you might be able to help give it a swift kick. I'm not sure if you'll be able to help, but I wanted to check with you first. Operator873talkconnect 04:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I kick it by emailing Chenzw. I can take a look at it on Friday. I am out of town at the moment and dont have a computer. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Sent him a message. So hopefully he can do what is needed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of FLVTO

Sir, will you please undelete the page of FLVTO? Also, can you give me the reason behind the deletion? Omri Levin (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Help with editing an article about the composer

Hello!I ask for help in editing an article about the composer Rudolf Schumann, help me to make the article good and help with a good translation. I took information from other Wikipedia in other languages. Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shumann_Rudolf 91.205.239.8 (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Importing

May I ask why, when you import pages from the English Wikipedia, you often import only the most recent change? This, especially when done more than once to the same page, tends to make a mess of the history. Pppery (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

That is how we import here, for precisely that reason. Importing the entire history can cause mixing of edit histories from here and en which can make a much larger mess, so we only import the most recent edit history for attribution. This is especially true when importing templates because they often require importing other templates at the same time and the risk of too much edit history spam is much higher. -DJSasso (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Template:Tfm/dated

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Tfm/dated, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2019/Template:Tfm/dated and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Pppery (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Your comment on Simple Talk

I know that, among my strengths, despite what Auntof6 once said, eloquence is not present. Occasionally, and much to my dismay, my fellow Wikipedians and friends have come to me and asked why I was upset or may have mentioned I was a bit harsh in a response. I've never meant to be flat out rude or mean to anyone on any project. Indeed, I have taken a hardline a few times and stood for something, but being flat out mean is just not me. Perhaps that is the case here with your statement too... but the result is still that I feel deflated and a bit hurt by being made to fit into your "this is what you are" box. My mother seemed to sound like a broken record when I was growing up. She always had an anecdote or wise proverb to pass on. One that sticks with me to this day is, "It takes all different kinds." Naturally, you'll have to forgive her "Texas-ifying" the Queen's English. Of course, she was referring to different personalities, but I've found this powerful statement applies to just about every situation. It's great you and others are dedicated to 90% content, 10% sysop actions. (No, I didn't calculate the actual percentage.) I also think it's fantastic there is a small group of very dedicated editors bent on expanding and improving the encyclopedia. If we have transient accounts which come to simple and want to play whack-a-mole, that's great too! Net positive to the project because we are fighting vandalism. Perhaps someone finds IRC and decides to bring their talents to a much smaller project because they can really make a difference here. I welcome and encourage them to join us. Occasionally, we may find ourselves lucky enough to gain an editor with a powerful talent for writing code, be it for interface projects, bots, or off-wiki support of on-wiki missions. These are the few editors I honestly wish we could pay. Our Twinkle hasn't even been updated in about 5 years.

Regardless of my musings, the point is this project is not a club. You shouldn't pre-judge someone because they show up here from enwiki and do this or do that. It takes all different kinds and we need all different kinds. You may be interested to know the bot framework which I have offered to simple.wiki began when I was another drop in the ocean of en.wiki. I have been off and on various IRC servers for the last 16 years. I created my Wikipedia account in December of 2008. For many years, I was only a reader. Then I started clicking undo more and more. I discovered I enjoyed protecting the content which wasn't a big surprise considering my life's work in Law Enforcement. But, let's be honest for a moment, an API query I performed a moment ago informs me there are 140,448 active accounts out of nearly 36,000,000 total accounts on en.wiki. What is another grain of sand on a beach?

I was languishing on en.wiki and actually took a several month wiki-break. In my mind, I knew whether I edited or not, the beast grew. Whether I volunteered to help, the beast grew. My input didn't affect much and didn't mean much. Of course, this was my point of view then... and I'm not trying to disparage the flagship project. But one day, I was brought to simple by Vermont. 19:24 UTC, 10 June 2018 I made my first edit on this project. Yes, I play whack-a-mole and spambot combat. Yes, I RfA'd too early. Yes, I'm eager to help build the project with my skill in writing code. No, I do not contribute to content because I'm not good at creating content. Why is that a negative?

I did not come seeking approval for an IRC bot. Nor do I plan to seek any type of approval for what any of my 4 currently running bots are doing for various projects on IRC. I came here to obtain ideas about how I could help the project using the framework I have spent months of time developing, asking nothing in return. I'm building an on-wiki bot that has taken a few breaths of life, but is not fully formed yet. Once it's completed, it will (hopefully) compliment the IRC bots and together, they will be greater than the sum of their parts. It's a strange analogy for this project, incidentally.

Lastly, I agree with one thing you said. We see far too many established or otherwise good editors come to simple, then abruptly leave. I will take this opportunity to suggest the more tenured editors of this project take a moment to consider the situation. Everyone was once an IP editor. Everyone's account was once new. Every sysop's mop was once clean and unsoiled. Perhaps the issue isn't people disappearing without cause, but they leave because of the unwelcoming atmosphere. I'll even hazard a suggestion that being blatantly ignored would be more welcoming at times to some editors. Maybe there was an IRC incident that pre-dates me being active on freenode with Wikipedians from this project. If there was, I certainly don't know about it. Maybe your personal experience wasn't very good. I'm not sure and it's not relevant in this moment. What is relevant is that off-wiki work to support on-wiki results is crucial and equally as important as content. A vandal fighter is equally as important as a Good Article writer. And I think we, as a community, can improve how we receive new editors, especially from other projects. I have personally observed our project lose great editors and others refuse to even venture here from other projects because of our lack of hospitality and warmth. I'm not saying you are the cause, Djsasso, nor am I intending to be disrespectful of you or anyone else on this project. All I mean to say is please let me be the last person you pre-judge and cram into a previously defined box. There's very little that would make me leave this project. But being told you're a passing phase, not ultimately a serious member of this community, and you will eventually leave the project will definitely push anyone in that direction which is so sad because, well... we need all different kinds. Operator873talkconnect 06:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I disagree with a chunk of this. A vandal fighter is not as important as an article writer. I would go so far to say that people that only focus on vandal fighting and treat it like a game (which most vandal fighters do) actually harm more than help. But you are following a very well trodden path, doing all the things that those trying to collect hats and feel super important do without actually helping the purpose of the wiki which is to write wiki articles. The problem with IRC is that chatting on IRC causes drama spill over onto the wiki which causes bad decisions and bad editing. There was a time believe it or not where probably 90% of the regulars on the wiki were on IRC. And it caused so much damage to the wiki that most people stopped using it. The only people that use it now tend to be those that didn't really understand the purpose of the wiki and treated it more like a social media or a club and were in it for the adulation. Your comment of "Whether I volunteered to help, the beast grew. My input didn't affect much and didn't mean much." is precisely the point, you shouldn't expect your input to mean much. In the large scheme of things even on simple.wiki it won't. No ones does. You are right this project isn't a club, but expecting adulation for what you do and using IRC which by its very definition acts like a club is making the wiki out to be a club. The excuse that you aren't good at doing content is just that an excuse, if you speak english you can take what someone else wrote on en.wiki in a subject you are interested in and convert it to simple. You don't even need to be creative to do that. To be honest, we very much need people to stop coming here just to be vandal fighters. We don't at all need those. And to be honest they contribute to the bad reputation here as a wiki where people just come to fight vandals. It scares off people who would come here to do content. I have had many many people on en tell me they don't come here to do content because of all the people that just come here to play wack a vandal and treat vandal fighting like a video game where getting flags etc is akin to leveling up. It is a serious problem here. We currently have maybe 4 editors that do actual content work. Not busy work like re-categorizing or vandal fighting. It is a serious issue here. And I should point out before someone thinks I am being hypocritical, I include myself as someone who isn't really doing much here anymore, though that is due to the fact I can only log on from work these days now that I have a kid I have no time to be on during other parts of the day. And I would point out I specifically commented in my comment that what I said wasn't throwing any shade your way, we take what we can get as we are all volunteers. But that doesn't mean I am not going to keep hammering home to people that everyone needs to focus less on the "busy" work and more on the content, myself included. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
On an unrelated note our twinkle hasn't been updated because this wiki doesn't really have the same infrastructure in the background that is needed for it. It is actually why I started going crazy recently trying to get templates and modules matching en.wiki. Twinkle on this wiki was never actually meant to be something we advertised for people to use. But at some point someone added it to the actual tool list. But for all intents and purposes it is in Alpha here. We did just enough to sort of make it work here because those vandal fighters I mention above here kept bitching about how we didn't have it here. Every now and then I think about trying to update it a bit, but it would take rewriting almost everything from templates to css to make it capable of matching en.wiki and that just really isn't a priority when we can barely keep the important stuff going. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hi, can you provide me the content of the article which you recently deleted Russell Surasky, so that if he meets the notability requirement some time in the future, I can recreate the article? If not, can you tell me where I need to ask to get back the content of the deleted page? Thanks. AnniCool (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion at WP:Deletion review currently. Only (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox religious building with unsupported parameters

I restored this category that you deleted. As mentioned on the page, it might be empty some or all of the time, so being empty is not a reason to delete it. It looks like the template still assigns the category as needed. Did you have some other reason for deleting it? --Auntof6 (talk) 10:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes because it is unlikely to ever be needed again, it is one of the reasons why I ask you repeatedly not to create the categories on the wanted categories page so fast, because as I clean them out they are unlikely to ever be needed again on this wiki as they only existed on en.wiki to facilitate the transition of parameters from one name to another (which usually has already been done on en.wiki so people copying infoboxes here from there won't be copying over the bad parameters). And once those categories are emptied there usually isn't a point to them anymore. The other reason I ask you not to is because once you create them they become harder to see that work needs to be done on cleaning them. As long as they remain on the wanted categories page its easy to clean them out and they never need to be created. I am aware of the message on them, being the one who generally uses that template the most. The deleting it was a hopeful signal to get you to stop with the rapid category creation and it got your attention as expected. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 (change conflict) I don't remember you asking me not to create the wanted categories too fast. I, too, sometimes just take care of the issues without creating the categories. However, as long as there's a template that assigns the category, I think it's reasonable to have it. If you delete any more of these, maybe you could use an edit summary other than "empty category", just so it's clearer. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Block tag

Hey... on Tony85poon’s block you posted the temporary block template with the “When this block ends...” language. Don’t know if you want to revise in light of it being indefinite. Only (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I still tend to use that template because indefinite doesn't mean forever, just means the ending hasn't been determined yet. So the block can end. -DJSasso (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Sock causing severe disruption

of Dopenguins, 87.245.125.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). IWI (chat) 19:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Another admin has since blocked them. IWI (chat) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Just a tip for the future, for stuff like this, if there is no admin around probably just ping us and stop reverting instead of warring because back and forth reverts won't really help anything and technically could send you over 3RR yourself. (and I just mean for these relatively "normal" edits. pure vandalism go ahead and revert) -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Link between IPs

Hi Djsasso. Any link between ip 176.224.116.76 (blocked) and ip 176.19.190.93? Similar editing patterns (changing dates on similar/same pages). Hope you're well. --Yottie =talk= 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah based on editing behaviour and where the IPs both geolocate to I would say there is a good chance. He has stopped editing for now so I won't block but if they continue I would say they are blockable. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Admin request

Can I join the admin team? I'm interested in reverting vandalism. 212.50.184.130 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

You would have to have an account and be editing here for a long period of time before that would be possible. You can revert vandalism without being an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay! I am going to make this wiki project proud. Where shall I start? Galbatorix123 (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Marmalade (Candy)

Hi. this is not Gummy candy !, maybe not recognized this in English. the right name is: Fruit Dough !!! פארוק (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is just a type of gummy candy. Even the picture you had in the article was a jelly candy. There are many names for these in English, gummy candy, jelly candy, jujube etc. The one name I can't seem to find anywhere is marmalade or fruit dough. But based on the article your wrote and the picture you included, you are talking about gummy candies. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
maybe you don't understand. this is not like Jelly and not from industrial materials. this candies are more softer than jelly. פארוק (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes in English we still call those gummy candies. They are just fruit ones. ie fruit gummies. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
i learn about this and i think you wrong. פארוק (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

how can I become a good editor in Wikipedia

Hello! I am the user 17chseld 110. I knew that u are a good editor on Wikipedia because your name repeats on the view history of the lighting Theif again and again. I would like to ask about your experience on edits some good stuff on Wikipedia. 17chseld 110 (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edits are flooding recent changes....

Seems that your flood flag has expired.... :)FR30799386 (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I know. Thanks. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

changing sports to sport on articles

For what particular reason is sports being changed to sport on location articles?

Angela Maureen (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I assume Angela is referring to renaming of categories from "Sports in" to "Sport in". I'd like to know what's going on here, too. Was that change discussed anywhere? I notice that enwiki uses "Sports in". --Auntof6 (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Enwiki uses "Sport in" (ie en:Category:Sport in Europe by country). The only one that doesn't appears to the the US category which I am guessing just hasn't been noticed or fixed likely because of the number of categories. Sports in is improper grammar because we are talking about sport as an overall topic not individual sports. I have been intending to fix it forever but it was so many categories to fix. -DJSasso (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Enwiki uses "Sports in" for the United States, probably because that's the terminology in the US. In any case, this change should have been discussed, or at the very least announced in time for people to comment. I'm sure it would do no good to ask you to change them back until it can be discussed. I'm very disappointed by this unilateral action, just as I have been by some of the fallout from the template updates you do. Please don't continue this pattern with any other changes you have in mind: if you're making any change that's likely to cause disruption or surprise, let us know first! --Auntof6 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Well its all well and good that you are disappointed by the template updates I do. Most of those are fixing fallout from the many many unilateral things you do without discussion and the best part is when you then get in the middle and mess up the cleanup from those updates which makes things harder and often are the reason for the fallout in the first place. A category name change shouldn't cause any disruption or surprise (in fact I see you do them all the time without discussion). You are just upset because I am moving categories you created. -DJSasso (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
That's beneath you. I have no idea whether I created any of the categories in question: I don't keep track of what categories I create. If you have a problem with things I do, then bring it up at the time. The subject at hand is the sports categories, which I admit I muddied by bringing up the template changes. Let's leave those aside here.
I agree that category name changes shouldn't cause disruption or surprise, but I may not mean that the same way you do. I mean that categories--especially whole sections of the category tree--that people are used to shouldn't be renamed with no notice. People are used to using "Sports in" for these categories: when the names change with no notice, that can cause disruption and surprise. How were we to know that you planned to do something you considered a fix when we had no idea anyone thought it was broken?--Auntof6 (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Please stop changing the US categories. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

See en:Sport#Nomenclature. Most, but not all, of the articles on enwiki relating to North America, the Caribbean and Central America use sports. The article on Asia as a whole also uses sports, but probably more individual-country articles from Asia use sport. In any event, certainly with respect to the US, sports is the standard usage even for the concept noun. Canadian English is more ambiguous, but the article on "Sport in Canada" was moved to "Sports in Canada" in late 2017; apparently, "sports" is now more common there. The rest? No real argument with "sport". StevenJ81 (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah the US will get switched back. The categories for all the rest match the category names on en, which is to our benefit when people move articles over. Sport would be the common usage in Canada, but we always have the problem of being split between the UK usage and US usage for most stuff so people argue back and forth about the various differences. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. With respect to Canada, the article "Sports in Canada" is in the categories "Sport in Canada", "List of sports teams in Canada", and "Sports venues in Canada". Confusing. If we have those other categories, then by your own reasoning, keep the names consistent with how they appear in enwiki. And this might be a rare example of where a redirect in Category space can be useful, though it would have to be checked and cleared periodically.
Anyway, best to announce you're doing something of this magnitude before pulling the trigger next time. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Not really, I still maintain this was/is a minor change. As for those other categories, yes it can be confusing but when talking about teams and venues it becomes plural because it is referring to teams from multiple individual sports and not the overarching concept of sport. -DJSasso (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

about linking to un-simple words

Wouldn't it be better to replace them with simpler ones, like in the mainspace? Computer Fizz (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

There isn't always a simpler word that conveys the same meaning, we do the same thing in mainspace. -DJSasso (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of "no sources" tag

Hello. Can I ask why you have been removing the "no sources" templates I left on a few articles? These articles still do not have sources. Among other things, the maintenance tag adds the articles to a category. This is very helpful in working through which articles to add sources to. In this case I was thinking of looking for sources myself later so was tagging them so they would appear in the category. Also the tag alerts the reader to the fact that there is no source, and that the information may be unreliable at present. Maybe I don't understand the process here. But over on EN wikipedia, removing the maintenance template would never be appropriate unless a source is added. Most likely we have a different standard here on simple. I'd love to learn about it if you have an explanation. Desertborn (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Because we aren't as mature a wiki as en.wiki the vast majority of our articles lack sources. As such articles here marked as stubs are generally assumed to be lacking things such as sources. This is so we don't end up with tags on all of our articles which in turn can be seen as more harmful to the wiki if all our articles end up with large tags at the tops of articles than the lack of references on the articles themselves. BLPs do sometimes get left with both tags but as far as I recall none of the articles were blps. That is not to say you can't tag them if you wish, its just that they may also end up being removed. This state of being has evolved due to editors coming over from en.wiki and mass tagging articles here. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I should note I was coming back with sources as well, which have now been added. I had to step away from my desk before I added them. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I was going to use the category as a sort of "to do list" but I can make a list in my userspace instead. Desertborn (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
That is fine I can avoid removing yours, was just worried you might on the verge of spamming tags so wanted to catch it before it went too far. I don't remove them all that often, only when I happen to notice a bunch added in a row. -DJSasso (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

What are modules?

You keep importing them and I've never seen them before. Nor are there any help information on them. Are they just like backend code or something? If so, why can everyone edit them? Computer Fizz (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

They are basically code written in a language called Lua. See en:Wikipedia:Lua. In this case I am just converting over Location maps from the old version which is no longer supported on en to the new lua version so that ours will continue to work. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Greetings,

I'd just like to bring your attention to some mistakes you've made while moving articles to incorrect name :

For example

  1. Philippe I, Duke of Orléans is INCORRECT. As a "Son of France" (AKA son of a monarch) he was actually Philippe of France. Plus his title was what's called an appanage (awarded to him by the state and not a sovereign title, thus there's no need for ordinals (I) He just happened to be the first Philippe of the Bourbons of France to be Duke of Orléans. Please could you move it back to it's correct title. The enwiki page is also wrong and people seem to be either to bureaucratic/stupid to read between the lines and realise that such a title is wrong. I also fail to see why people think it's ok to destroy/ruin/edit things they know nothing about. So yes, please move him to Philippe of France, Duke of Orléans, that is the legitimately correct name. Thanks. 79.75.28.235 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

changing publisher and web to magazine and news on certain pages

Hey DJSasso: Why are you changing the words publisher and web to magazine and news on certain articles? Angela Maureen (talk) 07:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Because on those pages, the templates were filled out incorrectly. -DJSasso (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Block

Please block User:FR30799386. Vandal only account. Keeps on blanking my userpage. Check his contributions. 194.168.89.195 (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

IP users don't get user pages. He was making a valid edit. Though he should have just put a quick deletion template on it. If you wish to have a userpage you will need to create an account. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Should have looked at your block log first. A well known sock. Well you are blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I guess me being benevolent and blanking the page instead of nominatin' the page for deletion was a wrong decision. Actually, I just lost it when that guy nominated my userpage for deletion, triggering the editwar over the WP:VIP page and all that. — FR 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, might just recommend you take a breath next time. If a report is about you, just leave it there, us admins will realize if its a bad report. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Redirect on Template:Checkuserblock-confirmed

Hey Djsasso!

I had made that template as a block template similar to Checkuserblock-account not as a userpage notice. Examknowtalk 19:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I should redirect that other one as well, we don't use it either. We don't really use block notices for that, we just put the sockpuppet template on the userpage/talk page -DJSasso (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
okay I just know that they use those templates on enwiki Examknowtalk 19:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you are going to find you can't carry over much knowledge from en.wiki to here. We operate a lot differently. DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah figured that out pretty fast (the hard way in a lot of cases) Examknowtalk 19:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by IP User 46.60.254.19

Hello, Djs. The IP (school?) User 46.60.254.19 is repeatedly writing nonsense content on Phosphorus deficiency. I see you've added a May 2019 warning to that User's Talk page but the problem continues. I need to move on... is there an effective next step to apply? Thanks for any advice for my toolbox. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries I am watching. -DJSasso (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Birth year category header

You recently imported the current enwiki version of this template. It included changes meant to support a revamp enwiki did to year category names, a revamp that added "AD" to some year category names (for example, a category would be named "AD 1" instead of just "1"). (See en:Talk:AD 1 for the discussion at enwiki.) The result of the import was categories being assigned that we don't have here. Are you thinking we should do the same revamp here? In the meantime, I have reverted back the the last version that did not add the "AD" to year category names. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No it likely got imported because other templates needed it, so it grabbed the most recent of it and I didn't notice. A revert is fine. That being said, we probably should change those categories to match. -DJSasso (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention your other mistakes :

  1. "Marie Émilie de Joly de Choin" should simply be Marie Émilie de Joly, Choijn was her father's title, thus again, nothing to do with her name. The frwiki seems to have a habit of joining titles on the end of article names (I assume just in an attempt at differentiating between all of the Louise's and Marie's or Charles' atc. Please move that back to it's original and correct name.
  2. Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon, Duchess of Orléans there is no need to her her title (by marriage) in the article name to be fair. There is no need to complicate or trivialise things plus Louise Marie Adélaïde is hardly a common collection of forenames. Please remove thgw title from the article pagename. Less is more at times. Like I've said I do not understand why people on wikipedia feel it's ok to destroy things they cleasrly know nothing about. Please move them. 79.75.28.235 (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I am also curious to find out why articles with simpler titles are being moved to ones with a title that is less likely to be found. For example I see that the article Bill Blair has been moved to Bill Blair (politician), even though there is no other Bill Blair on Simple. Ottawahitech (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are other Bill Blairs, even if we don't have articles for them here. We might create a disambiguation page for them, even if many of the entries are redlinked, and we would need this one to be qualified.
  • Articles transwikied from enwiki may contain links to the qualified title. Those links could end up red here even though we actually have an article for the person.
Questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Auntof6 yes I get your point but you're totally missing mine. The article names a wrong. It's that simple. Someone move them back top their original, thus correct names. 79.75.28.235 (talk) 09:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
No they actually aren't. You have been told this by many people. It is why you are blocked on multiple wikipedia projects. -DJSasso (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually your response proves my point that you have nooooo idea what you're doing entirely. Your arrogance is a perfect example of everything wrong with Wikipedia. You have no knowledge about the things you move, which is just silly and borderline destructive. Blocked in part, yes, because of arrogant self entitled, uneducated bullies like YOU. Pity really. It's almost amusing that you refuse to move them back (I imagine it's more because you know I'm right, considering you know nothing about said people/articles) Child. 79.75.13.56 (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Before you continue ranting at the wrong person, I think we're talking about two different things here. My post was not about the renames of articles about nobility, and I have not renamed any such articles. My post was only about qualifying a previously unqualified title (and I didn't move that one, either). Any more incivility from you, and you will be blocked. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: He was ranting at my reply above. Ottawa just has confused things by hijacking the thread. (I have adjusted the flow of this section to make it clear) -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@auntof6: This is not an easy topic to discuss, especially not on a wp: user talk-page. I cannot see mention of it on wp:move. Where is it documented? Thanks for your time. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ottawahitech: Where is what documented? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@auntof6 the documentation I am looking for is how to choose an appropriate title for an article. Thanks for making me think about what it is that I really want to know! Ottawahitech (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article titles but WP:COMMONSENSE also comes into it, not everything will be over documented, sometimes you just need to use common sense. Our name for an article should almost always match the en.wiki unless a word used is not simple. In the case of Bill Blair, any articles linking to him that were imported from en.wiki would end up pointing to an article that didn't exist, or ones intending to point to a disambiguation page would point to him by mistake, or if en.wiki had a different primary topic the links could end up pointing to the wrong article all together. -DJSasso (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@DJSasso: Thank you for providing the two links above. I especially liked wp:Common Sense, which explains things simply and is very short. By the way, I apologize if you prefer to have this discussion elsewhere -- please tell us if this is the case.
As far as relying on common sense: yes it is important. But, in my opinion, documentation here is equally important. If we want to appear inviting to everyone, including those with little experience in wiki-maters, it is important to have good documentation. What do others think? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Documentation is good, but too much documentation isn't simple and becomes bureaucratic. We try to have our documentation as concise as possible while still getting the important information across, we won't ever have every possibility listed. It isn't possible, and it often just leads to wiki lawyering. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Greetings people, sorry for the late reply, this is all rather confusing now to be honest, there's too many people talking. I understand the "disambiguation" point, but then like I said Louise Marie Adélaïde de Bourbon as an article name is unique enough in itself, there is literally no need to have her married title with the article page name. It's just trivializing things. Similarly the aforementioned Marie Émilie de Joly de Choin, whose father's title was Choin, and she was styled/known as "Mademoiselle de Choin" thus nothing to do with her name. Hence "common sense" Choin and Penthièvre were TITLES. Not names. It really is that simple. Why do people feel the need to complicate things? There's no need to do so. Please stop being so puerile and do the logical thing and move them to the correct names. 148.64.29.167 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
What you seem unable to understand is that article titles are not just about their names. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
No, you are cleasrly unable to understand that the titles of said articles are WRONG. You've copied enwiki blindly, thus ruining things and presenting the reader incorrect information. That is all I'm saying. It really is not difficult. As I said frwiki seems to have a bizarre habit of adding titles to the end of article titles for example :
Your father is the Count of duck so thus your article on Wikipedia (in French would probably be User:Djsasso de duck (if that makes sense) It really is just silly. You not understanding my reason proves thsat you do not know enough about the things you are moving and as a result are moving these things to incorrect names. I do not intend on sounding like a sanctimonious, arrogant pig but I know I am I just do not understand why one would go out of their way to ruin things they know very little about. It' just pointless. Please can you just move them back to the correct names. I see you've destroyed 80% of the articles relating to the Dukes of Noailles too. :/ 2.99.163.247 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Article titles are not necessarily legal names. They are what the subject is most known as. Vermont (talk) 14:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ’’’Offtopic comment: This thread is a great example illustrating why we need a better discussion tool. The formatting of this page which requires the talent of counting dots, is a waste of valuable resources. IMIO. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It isn't exactly hard to count the dots... -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

About the source code

As you mentioned here you said you're interested in the source code I have for ChenzwBot. However as it turns out, the version I have is very out of date and isn't even in the same language as the current version. I'm guessing this nullifies any of your interest in it, however if you still want a copy of it, let me know and I'll email it to you. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Your revert to my edit

Why have you reverted my edit to Psalms? I don't think that there's anything wrong with it; mind explaining this a little? Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

You changed the meaning of the sentence from they don't believe to they do believe. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
No. The version before my changes said that they don't believe in the extra psalms, but my version said that they do believe in 150 psalms. I'll change it back. Simplex Simpleton (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, which was wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I've decided to leave the page alone. Thank you. Simplex Simpleton (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Update of Template:Infobox newspaper

Hi there Djsasso. Would you be willing to import over and update the aforementioned template? Some of the params (specifically the logo one) looks to be outdated. Thanks, Hiàn (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep I can do that. -DJSasso (talk) 10:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Why was my fucking user page deleted?

Aren't user pages supposed to say something about you? What the fuck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tequilium (talkcontribs)

I responded on their talk page. Vermont (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

rvt: we don't use retired because it is more complex than former

Regarding your reversion of:

Who is the "we" in your statement and can you point me to where that was decided? I would like to discuss that with those who made the decision. --Gotanda (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not going to go looking through all our archives for it. It was a long time ago. Retired has muliple meanings, whereas former always means a variation of something from before that no longer is. More broadly than just the word retired, we try to avoid all words that have multiple meanings that could confuse a reader. To use a different example, it is the reason we use movies on simple.wiki instead of films, because movies always mean motion pictures whereas films can mean motion pictures or camera film. Even though both words are not particularly complex. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Promoting the Lawrence, Kansas article

Hi Djsasso! I was glad to see you responded to the Lawrence, Kansas good article proposal entry a week ago. I went ahead and created a few pages for a few of the things mentioned in the article. Would you be following up on the promotion any time soon? I'd hate to sound impatient, but the 3 week deadline passed a couple days ago, and I've seen a few proposals on that page that were posted months ago with no follow up. I'm just a tad worried it would slip through the cracks.

I would just like to see what else could be improved so I can begin working on making it a VGA, or so I can really start focusing on other articles instead of craving any small update. (That's a fault of mine, not yours, but it eats me on the inside.) Thanks! ~Junedude433talk 15:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There is not really much more you can do. Requires a certain amount of people to vote yes on it. But I have put a note on Simple Talk about it so hopefully that gets some more eyes on it. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I saw the note you left. Thank you. I greatly appreciate it! ~Junedude433talk 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@Junedude433: You might fall victim to the summer as well. A lot of regular editors end up not being around as much for the summer so it could end up delayed for that reason as well. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I figure some of the other mods could look at it. There are a few other active users here that could simply be pinged, but I feel like that may be a bit intrusive and desperate-sounding. I feel like we should have at least one well-written article for each major category of things (people, cities, etc.) so new articles could use it as somewhat of a template. The lone good article we have for a city is okay, but it can be so much better. ~Junedude433talk 15:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

transclusion of pages

Hey Djsasso: Why are pages being transcluded into the Simple English Wikipedia? What is transclusion, anyway? Angela Maureen (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What transclusion are you talking about? Transclusion is what happens when you put a template on a page. But I don't know of any pages that are being transcluded into Simple Wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 10:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible problem user

You may already know this/have dealt with it: If the same person who wrote the Google Groups post Nigos mentions here also wrote the comment you removed from Nigos's talk page, they may be this person. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You are correct; it is that person. Vermont (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for saying so. It's not easy to guess if other people see things the same way or if they've read the same history (especially since I'm still new here). With this I thought it better to say something. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Your revert tool

Hi Djsasso/Archive 8 It seems that whatever tool you use to revert vandalism has a short. It reverted some but not all the incorrect information that started here: https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kawhi_Leonard&diff=prev&oldid=6601924 I think, but as you know i do make mistakes sometimes. I think it reverted only stuff in the infobox, but not the article text, not sure. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 07:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Copy-pasting

I'm noticing that you are copy-pasting infoboxes from enwiki to articles (I can name Eminem and United States on the top of my head). Is that not against the rules here? jackchango talk 18:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

No. It is generally the preferred way to do it unless the infobox has alot of complex English. But very few do. Some people do try to create different boxes here but that often leads to more work for people here when we already have low editor numbers here. --DJSasso (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)