User talk:Djsasso/Archive 7

Petr Nedved

You seem to take personal issue with my edits, and in this case you are only stirring a hornet's nest that has already, long ago, been discussed and settled. By reverting the article to Petr Nedvěd you did not put the article back to its settled version. The issue was discussed in 2006 where it was settled that the proper article title was Petr Nedved. At some later point, some editor ignored this consensus and improperly move the article to Petr Nedvěd. This was just recently corrected when admin Anthony Appleyard moved the article back to its previous version as an uncontroversial move. If you believe that the article should be properly named Petr Nedvěd, then please re-start that discussion, but do not abuse your admin powers to get around a proper move discussion. Dolovis (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And there have been discussions since 2006 that we use them on player pages. If you wish to move it to non-dios it is up to you to start a discussion as it has been at its dios version for a very long time. In no way have I abused any powers. It was not an uncontroversial move as adding or removing diacritics from hockey articles is a very contentious issue thus it was appropriate to change it back to its last stable version. -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Dj. Recommend you revert page move to previous 'non-dios'. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay you know darn well we have an agreement that we use them on players pages. There has been a consensus on that. Dolovis is just making WP:POINT edits because he likes trying to butt heads with everyone. -DJSasso (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Who is butting heads with whom? This matter did not involve Djsasso, and it had already been resolved by another admin before Djsasso injected himself into the middle of it. No one requested Djsasso's involvement, and his actions have only served to revert a previously settled issue back into a live contentious one. Dolovis (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It did involve me, I am an editor, as an editor it involves me. You don't own the articles you change. I reverted a contentious move back to the version it has been for 4 years. The previously settled version was the version with diacritics. As for butting heads just have to look at your talk page to see that every single editor you come into contact with gets yelled at by you or you fight with in one fashion or another. Including non-hockey ones. So its quite clear that you just like to cause trouble. I would also note the discussion you cite has one editor supporting the move one not supporting the move and one saying he isn't sure. Which means in that specific discussion there is no clear consensus either. -DJSasso (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

2012 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships & 2013, 2014, 2015 etc

I believe you should check over those articles content. GoodDay (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

What about them? They are currently redirects because I moved a couple of them. -DJSasso (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant these "Men's World..." articles. Their content matches the "IIHF World..." articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of course they do at the moment...because the IIHF articles redirect to them.... -DJSasso (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

You're mis-understanding what I'm saying. For examples: the content should be taking out of 2012 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships & placed into 2012 IIHF World Championship. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't understood what I said. The Men's World Ice Hockey Championships articles include the Championship division information. In other words the teams that compete in the top level of the world championships that just finished. The IIHF articles contain the information of all 4 of the world championship levels. Div I, Div II and Div III. Where the teams competing include countries like Mexico. Look at the 2005 articles you mentioned and you can see the difference. -DJSasso (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

2005 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships mentions Divisions I, II & III. 2005 IIHF World Championship mentions the tail end of the whole tournament. Thus backing what I'm writing. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I said those articles needed to be fixed. If you look at the category for the world championships the IIHF articles only exists for 5 or 6 years....most articles fall under the men's world ice hockey article titles. -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec, let's backtrack. Which line of articles are suppose to have Divisions I, II & III. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Its late I am gonna go to bed...I think we confused each other enough lol. -DJSasso (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't go to bed, I need to know which. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Relax dude, the world won't end. -DJSasso (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I had to blank out some of your re-directs, as they were unintentionally misleading. Sorry about the hyperness, I'm facing a possible banishment from British & Irish articles, today. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

And I reverted....its appropriate for them to be redirects until there is enough information to split them out into their own articles like the other ones. This avoids duplicates being created. I caught one such instance earlier today with 2012 when both had the exact same information. -DJSasso (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's misleading. Those 're-directs' should be deleted & thus left a red-links. This is how I got messed up at 2011 IIHF World Championship's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Its not misleading. Its how splitting of articles works. Until an article is split out to make its own article it redirects to the main article. Don't worry people will find what they need. -DJSasso (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So, let's be clear. It's the 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships etc etc, articles that need to be created. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Once there is information about them...there likely isn't yet...because the lower levels of the tournament don't plan as far in advance I don't think. In fact articles for almost every year need to be created...as I said they only exist for about 5 or 6 years....so there are a few decades worth of articles missing. -DJSasso (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's try this again. Which line of articles, is suppose to have the Divisions I, II & III teams? GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the articles that exist and figure it out for yourself. You will figure it out quickly...since there are only 5 articles that have that information and probably around 60 or so that don't. I can't believe we have gone around and around this much for something that isn't important. -DJSasso (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important 'cuz it's potential confusing. Compare 2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships content with 2012 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships content. You'll note, the latter resembles 2011 IIHF World Championship. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes they are the same because the information hasn't had to be split out yet. Once there is too much information to fit on the the 2012 page the type of information that is in the 2011 IIHF page will get moved out to its own page. That is how summary style works. Until such a time the Men's World pages contain both types of information. The reason those 5 IIHF pages exist is because a user decided to get more detailed with the Championship division so it was split out into its own page. However with the current articles there is no need to do that. So the current title matches the title of the last few decades of tournaments. Its not confusing at all....both articles are about the world championships. One is just more detailed than the other. Just like we do for NHL team pages. We have a small summary on the main team page and then have a more detailed history article...or coach list....or gm list etc on another page. Or a perfect example would be 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs and 2010 Stanley Cup Finals. The playoffs page has summary of the finals but the finals page has a completely detailed account. -DJSasso (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'll have this figured out by tomorrow. Ohh, my aching brain. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Hockeybox

A tag has been placed on Template:Hockeybox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. Aleenf1 13:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English)

Wowsers, the dios discussion has really picked up steam again. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well Dolovis decided to go for a wider view. I don't think he realized how much of a issue it is across the wiki. Our truce or whatever you want to call it at the hockey project was probably an oasis in the storm that happens in most other subjects where they are prevalent. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

So far, the back-and-forth between both sides has been civil. For me, it's good theatre. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah its not so bad compared to others I have seen. -DJSasso (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not even getting involved. Let everyone else sort it out, then let me know what style I should be using... Resolute 04:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg Thrashers??

It's probably the pesamist in me; I don't believe the Thrashers will move to Winnipeg. I just can't image the NHL Board of Governors agreeing to that location. The BoG will either prevent the sale or restrict the new owners in where they wish to move. If anywheres? the Thrashers will end up in either Kansas City, Las Vegas, or Portland (though the Canucks would opoose the last). GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the writer who broke the story is known for not writting things that turn out wrong. And the Globe & Mail is owned by Thompson so I doubt the paper would have printed it if it weren't true. So my guess its going to be there soon. They won't announce it till after the Finals is my guess. From what I have read the BOG has already approved a sale and move ahead of time. So all that needs to happen is an agreement on a deal. Portland and LA don't have arenas that are good enough yet unless they share with another sport which is unlikely. And Kansas city has no billionaires stepping up to own the team. I doubt any of those cities will get it before Winnipeg. They need Canadian dollars right now to prop up the league. They won't risk another failed US franchise right now with the way the US economy is going. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope your optimism is awarded. Don't underestimate the determination of Bettman & the boys, to stop any American franchise from moving to Canada. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Vand?

Can you explain how my edit [1] was vandalism? Gnevin (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't say it was vandalism. Using undo does not mean its vandalism. If it was vandalism I would have used rollback. Different messages. Using undo with the default message was to indicate I undid your edit. Perfectly acceptable use. -DJSasso (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Not according to If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only. Gnevin (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion yes, not a policy page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As an admin, you think an edit summary wouldn't be to much effort Gnevin (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No normally it wouldn't be. It was called unintentional but when you come here automatically assuming I considered it vandalism and clearly looking for a fight. What kind of reponse do you expect? -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as an apology so Gnevin (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Undo Gnevin (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• The use of edit summaries is nowhere close to mandatory, for an admin as with any other editor, and one would think that an editor active for five years would understand that. What are you looking to achieve by provoking a fight out of this?  Ravenswing  14:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to provoke anything, my understanding is that using the default summary is only to be used for vandalism. The undo button is constantly being abused and on a personal level I don't like being called a vandal . However all that being said I am also guilty of not assuming good faith about Djsassoc for which I apologise and promise to have my morning coffee before I edit again Gnevin (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all good. We figured it out and no harm done and the page is better off now. :) -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

One editor defending another

I am an honest editor trying my best to do honest, credible editing at Wikipedia. Along comes User:Porgers and his sockpuppets, and without provocation, starts Wiki-hounding me because I correctly warned him about repeated blanking edits he made at Jack Layton. His trolling of my edits has been going on for over two weeks. I did nothing to provoke this. Whoever this is, cannot just be ignored, as you said in your comment here: "Don't let him get to you. He acts aggresively with everyone he comes into contact with. If you read his talk page he pretty much yells at anyone that does anything he doesn't like or who doesn't agree with him. It isn't worth your time to pay him much attention. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)" at this Talk Page. It's all very well to say so when you are not the victim! Porgers and his various sockpuppets have a nasty habit of drawing a random editor from an article into the fight by accusing me of falsehoods, when that is not the case. If you think that is OK, then try being the innocent victim sometime. It is not pleasant. --Skol fir (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually wasn't talking about you. I was referring to Dolovis's aggressiveness towards Toddst1. -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to "Porgers" and his sockpuppets, because they cannot just be ignored. He is outright malicious in his behavior. As for Dolovis, I already left him a friendly message explaining the whole situation, as Toddst1 was really just trying to defend me from personal attacks, poor guy! --Skol fir (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted DJ's comments as he intended them. I appreciate his comments there and on the WP:RFP/R page. As far as me being a "poor guy", it kind of comes with the territory if you're an admin that actually tackles problems. No complaints from me. Thanks, DJ. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, the "poor guy" expression was just a nod to acknowledge that you have been helping to defend me against wrongful attacks by Porgers, and have taken some of the flak that goes with such an intervention. I am not saying you can't handle it, just that I was annoyed that you had to have more aggravation from another editor, Dolovis, because of the fact that you were just doing your job as an administrator. That really gets to me, when people don't respect what you are doing, in the overall struggle to keep Wikipedia honest. I could go on, but... --Skol fir (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Year ranges

• FYI: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Year ranges.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg NHL Team

Would it be possible to merge the existing Atlanta Thrashers/Winnipeg NHL Team information into one page?? I seems rather pointless to have the two separated, even thought the pending sale of the Atlanta Thrashers is still pending. It would be nice to recognize the heritage of what was once an NHL franchise in the city of Atlanta along with incorporating the teams pending relocation to Winnipeg Manitoba Canada. The histories of the teams various travels will be well documented, but until then the Atlanta Thrashers Wikipedia page should be a page of transition incorporating the old with the new. Just a suggestion! --MML0123 (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• It's common practice with the hockey team pages to keep the old page intact with a franchise shift; if the sale is approved, the separate Winnipeg page will remain. We feel this does recognize the heritage of the old team, and those viewing the new page seeking that history can follow the provided link to get there.  Ravenswing  07:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ravenswig, I have to totally disagree with you! Technically until the NHL Board of Governors meets on June 21, 2011 This team is still recgonized as the Atlanta Thrashers. Yes new owners have bought the team with the intesions of moving it to another location, but until then I think that information pertaining to the new hockey team should be transitioned into the current Atlanta Thrashers history!!--153.2.246.31 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• If you'd like to change the consensus on how we handle franchise shifts, feel free to go to the WikiProject's talk page and attempt to talk people around to your way of doing things.  Ravenswing  05:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Eurohockey

Hello! You indefinitely full-protected Template:Eurohockey back in 2008. Although the Eurohockey database is outdated (player profiles haven't been updated since the end of the 2008–09 season), what about changing the link title from "Eurohockey – player profile and career stats" to "X's career stats" (X is the player's name) so that it better matches Template:Eliteprospects and Template:Hockeydb? HeyMid (contribs) 12:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is actually set to be the title of the page so that it matches the page you are being sent to. -DJSasso (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

GD's talkpage

For whatever reason, my talkpage tends to become a social center (likely because of my strong opinons). In future, I shall be invoking 'deletion', when I sense trouble there. 'Tis the best route to take, for all concerned. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yup however you think is best to handle it works. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a gander at the header, in a honking large font, I have on my talk page. To wit: "I am disinterested in rants; if you want to blow off steam, go join a gym." I fall back on that premise if I get the impression the reason someone is posting is to tee off, rather than seeking a resolution to a dispute or problem - however forceful the language - and promptly delete unanswered the offending comments.  Ravenswing  19:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the best way, remove the sparks before they catch fire. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

RMs

Howdy Dj. I wish you'd make page move requested for those hockey articles, instead of arbitrarily moving them to dios form & thus turning up the heat. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Policy doesn't require me to. They are sourced. They are within consensus as you well know. Frankly his constant requests for move and your supporting him when its clear the community doesn't agree with you two is turning up the heat if anything. Heck the consensus we use was your idea in the first place. -DJSasso (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Go the RM route, please. Arbitrarily moving these pages on such a heated topic, isn't necessary. There's no hurry to move these articles. Don't adopt the methods that were used years ago by the pro-dios crowd, which created the current atmosphere. Go the RM route. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not arbitrarily moving them. I am moving them in conjunction with the centralized discussions at both the ice hockey project which came to the conclusion that players pages get them. And I am moving them in conjunction with the discussion at the naming conventions page where consensus says they are used. You remove diacritics from pages every day and you don't expect others to uphold the other side of the consensus? You can't have it both ways. You can't remove them at the same time as expect us not to add them where appropriate. The current atmosphere was created by xenophobic editors who refuse to admit they might have been wrong and that they are used in English. Not by the editors who have been fixing the mistakes. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't force you to use the RM route & approach this topic, as an administrator (i.e a un-biased approach). I can only request the you use the RM route - afterall, I assume you'd be confident in those RM results. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay the whole reason we created the consensus was so that we wouldn't have to have these discussions over and over again. You are well aware of that. If you don't want the consensus I am sure more than a few people would be more than willing to start adding them to every NHL page again. Stop being a stone wall. It was already agreed that player pages get them where appropriate, you personally have already agreed to that so there should be no problem. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're confident about what the RM results will be, then why fear that route. I'm merely giving you advise, if you want to move articles Darwinek style, that's your choice. PS: There's still the matter of dios in the NHL team rosters. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever GoodDay. I don't fear the route, I dislike the waste of time it becomes. I don't want more editors time wasted. That is the whole point of centralized discussion so that it doesn't waste editors time that could be used on more useful things. I thought you were staying away from this topic anyways? -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ya wanna go the dramatic way, it's your choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only dramatic if you make it that way GoodDay. Its you who gets to choose if you put up a stink or not. Or choose to accept the compromise that you yourself suggested and then accepted. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Your choice. GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Made a comment for the hockey players

I entered this comment, that says much how confusing the policies in Wikipedia are. Probably we need more lawyers and less IT professionals here? 3.6M articles, and we don't have good basic rules of spelling. Divide et Impera (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Junior Hockey template

Apparently there is no Jr. A and Jr. B in Tier III anymore... it is just a big sloppy free-for-all... good ole USA Hockey... here's a link http://gljhl.pointstreaksites.com/view/GLJHL second article down.... DMighton (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm their website says there is still. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know... it's confusing... but apparently it is being implemented for 2011-12... I think. Everything is a little vague. DMighton (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Upset

To both you and User:Resolute *Takes deep breath*

I've taken a couple of pot-shots at both of you over the last couple of days, for which I'll apologize here (for talking about both of you, rather then to either of you). I'm pissed off at both of you though, because I'd really like to contribute to the coverage of NHL topics on Wikipedia but I don't feel that I'm able to do so due to decisions that both of you have made. You're both administrators, and leaders of Wikiproject Ice Hockey, so (regardless of the supposed "it's no big deal" idea) either I can go along with whatever either of you feels is the Right Thing™, or I can do what I've been doing and mostly ignoring the hockey topic on Wikipedia. It really bugs me, but... oh well. I take solace in the fact that Wikipedia itself isn't going away. Things will get changed, eventually.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall ever having talked to you about anything to do with hockey so I am not really sure where this is coming from. I don't expect anyone to go along with what I feel is the right thing. I don't however, feel that just because I am an admin that I shouldn't have opinions. Everything on the wiki is built on consensus, a lot of things are done in the hockey project that I don't agree with but I do them because its what most of the other editors came to a consensus about. If you want to contribute to hockey articles go ahead and do so, the hockey project is just a big group of people who discuss things and then take action. Sometimes consensus agrees with you and sometimes it doesn't. Once everyone comes to an agreement I will support that consensus 100% even though I disagree with it. So perhaps that is being mistaken for what you call my opinion of the right thing. Since you commented in the diacritics discussion that is a perfect example, I don't agree with how we handle it at all but because most of the project came together and created a compromise I full support it and suggest people follow it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Whereas I'm demonstrably on the opposite side of the issue from DJ and always have been. I don't like the consensus either, but I feel strongly that a fundamental element in the survival of this encyclopedia is the need to suck up and accept consensus, whether or not you care for the outcome. How are you defining "leadership" here, exactly? In doing things the way you want them to be done? Sorry, no. DJ isn't doing things on this issue the way I want them to be done - he and Resolute are just acting the way it's necessary to do. That is leadership.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  23:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

@Dj, I'm not surprised that you don't remember, since I've successfully avoided the area since 2008.

@Ravenswing, why should I (or yourself, for that matter) accept their leadership here when I don't agree with it? Just because their administrators doesn't mean that I have to agree with them on content issues, and neither should you. You're proving my point that there's actually no consensus here except that which is artificially being enforced by Dj and Resolute.

As to the problem itself, as I said above I dispute the fact that there's any consensus at all. What upsets me is that any time the subject comes up yourself (Djsasso) and others start screaming that "there's a compromise!". And, since yourself and Resolute are both admins, that has an obvious chilling effect on any chance of a reasonable discussion occurring about the issue. And, as I said to Resolute, that you support this nebulous compromise (which, despite searching, I have yet to actually find anywhere) effectively means that you do agree with it. Sucking up and accepting consensus is certainly a cornerstone of our Editing policy (see also Wikipedia:Consensus), but that also requires that everyone be willing to continue to discuss the issue as needed and to compromise again as things change.

There's some discussion about this between myself and Resolute on my talk page, as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I just saw your reply over on the WikiProject talk page. For now, I think that it's best to talk about this here or on my own talk page, since I started these discussions and have replied to them.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As far as I recall, most editors are not trying to stop any discussion (though with a caveat; more on this later), but would like to ensure that before articles are changed in different ways that an agreement on how to proceed is first reached. Imagine for a moment that the current agreement aligns with your desired approach, and most articles conformed to it. Now, anyone is of course free to try to reach a new agreement, but I imagine you would want this agreement to be reached first before editors started making large scale changes, rather than vice versa. Previous consensus is raised not to stop conversation, but to stop edit warring.

The caveat is that the idea that "consensus can change", while of course absolutely true, leads some people to discuss a topic unceasingly. It is understandable that after having gone fifty rounds on a given issue, all involved will get a bit weary of discussing the subject. This does not mean people should never raise the topic again, but they should bear in mind that since the topic is well-trod, most of those involved are not acting out of ignorance of the opposing arguments. Far too often, editors project a self-congratulatory air regarding their views, and it can be galling to experience this non-stop. Perhaps if controversial topics could be placed on a schedule for regular revisiting, it might encourage a more inviting atmosphere for changing consensus: those looking for change would know a chance will come up, and those in favour of the status quo would know they will get a respite for a period of time. But in Wikipedia's current environment, almost anything someone tries to do relating to a sensitive issue leads to accusations of all kinds of things, so I'm not sure if having a schedule would help, anyway. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Isaacl pretty much sums it up perfectly. Its not that I am saying don't discuss, its that I am suggesting its been discussed ad-nauseum and that it might be something the person will want to research before bringing it up again so that it doesn't fall into the same old battle it has in the past. Such repetitive arguments inevitably lead to an unwelcome atmosphere, which you suggest you are seeking to avoid, because people end up getting hurt feelings or heated tempers. As Ravenswing suggests below I am not shoving something I created down peoples throats. It was something that a large number of then-regulars agreed on after much heated debate. In fact it was created by someone with the opposite opinion on the topic from me. As for using my adminship to batter people into agreeing with me I never mention I am an admin, and if it wasn't listed as such on my user page I doubt many people would realize I am since I rarely use the tools for the very reason that people that perhaps have grudges against admins in general lash out at admins when things don't go their way. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm somehow missing the logical leap where my statement "proves" your point. The consensus compromise was not, as you infer, something that DJ and Resolute shoved down our throats. It is one to which the then-active WikiProject regulars - myself included - agreed, after long and oft-bitter discussion. For my part, I respect DJ and Resolute for their knowledge and their dedication to the encyclopedia ... but heck, I'm in the top 1000 contributors to the entire encyclopedia, I've been an editor in the hockey WikiProject as long as most anyone active, and I'm nobody's toady. Nor have I ever had the impression that they expect anyone to be. There are times when DJ, especially, has admonished me, but every editor has the right and the responsibility to do so to any other editor they feel is going over the top ... and I am not the least hotheaded editor of this encyclopedia.

But you know something? This is all slightly beside the point. If you feel the current consensus doesn't serve us well, make a new proposal. DON'T invite debate - we've already debated the positions to death. Just ask for a straight Support or Oppose. If you get a favorable outcome, why, then there'll be a new consensus. If you don't, then you know that there IS no consensus for your POV. Pretty straightforward, relatively angst-free, don't you think?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  06:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOCKEY

Howdy. It would help, if he'd use a less confrontational edit summary, when bypassing RM. "In compliance with WP:HOCKEY", would be more neutral, then "Correcting". GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Or you could just get a thicker skin and stop trying to make everything a drama fest. I am sorry I try to ignore you most of the time when you get on your little rants (for lack of a better term). But really all you are doing at the moment is stirring the pot. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not mass moving pages, V is doing it, Darwinek style no less. Atleast get'em to (in future) modify his edit summaries. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay is not stirring the pot. It is User:Vejvančický who is stirring the pot when he ignores procedure to make controversial moves that are not supported by policy. GoodDay is simply drawing attention to that fact. Dolovis (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

No policy was ignored. A consensus was formed that we use diacritics on hockey articles. He moved them in accordance. And even if there was no consensus he is welcome to move them anyways as it is within policy to make a move as per WP:BOLD. Stop accusing others of not following policy when they are 100% within it. It is the drawing of attention to it that is stirring the pot. The topic has been discussed to death, consensus has clearly been against your moves. His moves were clearly within consensus. So whenever you want to stop wasting everyone's time you are welcome to stop. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. There is no consensus to ignore the policy of WP:AT or WP:EN to use diacritics on hockey articles. Dolovis (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those policies demand the removal of diacritics. One of them even says exactly that. That they do not need to be removed. And yes, there is clearly a consensus that your interpretation of the policy is incorrect. When 20+ people in a centralized discussion tell you that you are wrong and only 4 or 5 tell you that you are right. That is a consensus, about the most clear one you ever get on wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Carthage44

Unless WP:BLANKING is now being interpreted in new ways, you absolutely can remove block notices. Every discussion in the last 5 years that I've seen has come to the same consensus on that point. If it's going to be enforced differently, a new discussion needs to take place. --Onorem♠Dil 13:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It does appear to have been rewritten in the last year to specifically say notices couldn't be removed while sanctions were in effect. Being blocked is a sanction unless I am way out to lunch. I went back to when this last came up with the same user and it was worded completely differently. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(responding to your edit summary) I did look at the talk page. The discussion about that change was an anon saying it was unclear if the '(while any sanctions are still in effect)' portion applied to everything or just the last item. They proposed rewording it and a single editor agreed and made the change. That is not consensus for requiring block notices to remain. If you see a different discussion, please point it out to me. --Onorem♠Dil 14:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No go into the archive. There was a discussion where it was something like 27 to 14 (just a quick glance numbers might be off slightly) that the change be made. It just didn't actually get made for a couple months. I believe that is the discussion he was referring to. Being pretty close to a 2/3rds majority that is usually consensus area. -DJSasso (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was in the archive. This 2 person discussion is what led to the change. I've started a new discussion asking if we need yet another time wasting debate. --Onorem♠Dil 14:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is Very Strongly Opposed to Diacritics

Jimbo Wales has expressed his persuasive opinion on the use of diacritics in Wikipedia writting “our use of diacritics is already very bad and very out of control. There are many reasons why the English Wikipedia should be written in English, and this is one of the strongest."[2]. I trust that you will now accept the policy as spelled out at Wikipedia:Article titles which requires that the article title is to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This applies to the title of the article – but within the text of the article, pursuant to WP:MOSBIO, the person's legal name should usually appear first in the article. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

He is welcome to his opinion. He has no more standing on wikipedia than any other user. He holds many opinions that are counter to a great many things that the majority of wikipedia believes. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would think he has more influence though. Never thought this would boil up and out of the hockey project. One new viewpoint is that we should adopt a rule that is more straight-forward than common-name -- simply always use an anglicization for the title. This would not be open to pov-pushers on either side. It's just the way it's done -- to avoid arguing. --- I wonder if we would lose a lot of European editors. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally since redirects exist I would say always user the proper name (for the title only). ie Gordon Howe instead of Gordie Howe etc. This way there is never any debate about what to call a page. We simply always use their legal name. And then the common names redirect and can be mentioned in the lead sentence as "commonly known as" or some such. But that isn't ever likely to happen. Same idea for non-bio related articles as well. With the ease of creating redirects not really sure why we even have common name. We have a lot of policies/guidelines that just invite disagreement. This is definitely one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 01:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Alaney2k is right on with his comments. Always use the English name for the title, and use the legal name in the lead sentence of the article as recommended by MOSBIO. Everybody wins, and will be in keeping with current Wiki-wide policies. Dolovis (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin intervention necessary

First of all, I'm sorry I have to bother you; I usually don't ask admins to do something, however, it is necessary this time. 207.179.221.58 (talk · contribs) continually gets personal to other users, even after receiving a final warning (which he or she has removed from their talk page in the meantime). Is it possible to cool down the user in question? Thanks in advance, even if you decide to take no action at all. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You sure that is the right IP? I see no contribs or deleted contribs on him. -DJSasso (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I see in your history who you mean now. I will watch him for now. It probably won't matter in 15 minutes. -DJSasso (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I just noticed that I have put the wrong link into the template anyway... and yes, the original cause for all this might be irrelevant in a couple of minutes from now. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Winnipeg Jets

Everyone is reporting that they will be the Jets. The sources are good. How is anyone jumping the gun? Seems like a couple users want to dominate a page and be the ones to break the news :\. --FourteenClowns (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A number of sources have just said Jets. A few places have indicated they hadn't decided between Winnipeg and Manitoba yet. No official announcement has been made by the NHL or True North yet. That is how its jumping the gun. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, there is a way to do all the moving that no one other than experienced editors or admins can do. Weatherman05071 (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have them all loaded up in my browser already so shouldn't be a problem. One of the pages is blocked to admins only already. The other one is semi protected as well. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And when you moved them, you overrided the original team's page. It's just the same people wanting to break all the news. Public encyclopedia my aunt's fanny. --FourteenClowns (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No we moved them as was set up by consensus. Wikipedia isn't here to break news. -DJSasso (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I wasn't speculating. Going off hard evidence. It really seems like those who have personal feelings toward a page is what they want to do. --FourteenClowns (talk) 00:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No you had speculation from news sources. Until the Jets/NHL made the announcement there was no fact. In the end you moved it to the name that wasn't consensus anyways so it had to be fixed. -DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Rumors are not "hard evidence." That being said, this is an encyclopedia, and as DJ correctly says, it isn't here to break news. We don't give out gold stars for "scoops," nor do we hand out prizes to the first editor to make an edit. There is nothing actually wrong with waiting for official word.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  00:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't breaking news. Every outlet that covers the NHL was reporting it. Come on fellas. We are a little too uptight about this stuff. DJ, when you initially moved it, you wiped out the original team's page. --FourteenClowns (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I looked back and this isn't the first time that you have done stuff like this. When are you going to learn what this whole thing is about? First Amar'e and now this. Then onto your next point, he didn't wipe it out. I personally looked at the page moments after he moved it, but sometimes there are errors and it was easily fixed.Weatherman05071 (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance you can move the Winnipeg Jets (1972-96) page to "Winnipeg Jets (original)" maybe, as per the same layout as the Ottawa Senators? It'd look tidier... Russ Jericho (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No because its not the original jets as discussed on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you move a page for me?

I was nominating the West Coast Express for a Good Topic and screwed up the name of the nomination page. The GT pag allows for a quick page creation but it has a default name in it, I didn't realize I needed to make a change so the page was created as Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/.../archive1. Would you be able to move the page from that to the appropriated name of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/West Coast Express/archive1? Thanks --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Awesome thank you! --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you delete a page for me?

Hi Djsasso! Forgot what the procedure for these sort of things are but I would like to get the article Michael Schumacher (ice hockey) which currently is a redirect deleted, leaving it open for future article creation. The link is/will be available on a couple of different articles and I don't think the LA draft article is an appropriate redirect. Cheers! —KRM ^{(Communicate!)} 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree a redlink is probably the better way to go. But since it was just created by someone it will have to go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Unless you ask the original creator and they say they don't mind then I can speedy it as author requested. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me if it is deleted. I had done that for all players who had been drafted by LA, but had no pages. I forget which team I had followed, Edmonton rings a bell. It allowed for the redlinks to be removed from the page. In fact, if it is an issue I had done that with all the Kings' draft choices this year aside from Christopher Gibson and Nick Shore. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics

The discussion has now been going on long enough that we are beginning to go around in circles. Before talk escalates to shouting, I think it is important to attempt a policy wording that would have the broadest appeal among the 'neutrals' that will also hopefully swing some of the opposers. Vejvančický (talk · contribs) and I have been trying to work out on my talk page what wording we would like to see in a new proposed statement. Your input would be appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• There's a lot of activity at present, and I'm wondering if the time is now ripe... We may have to launch the RfC shortly, so any help in getting the above page ready would be appreciated. Feedback on timing is also appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Move help

Hey, could you move Orangeville Jr. Flyers to Orangeville Flyers for me? Initially, the team was announced as Jr. Flyers... but it turns out they dropped the "jr."... DMighton (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thx. DMighton (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Havlat number

"not announced on team website yet" -- Does that matter?? The whole point of the Wiki is to update the information as it is announced, not whether or not the team website says so. God forbid what Darren Dreger, a national hockey analyst, would report! You'd might as well just take it roster template down entirely and tell everyone to go on the team site, if this is the case. (Saint0wen (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC))

Yes, Wikipedia doesn't report on speculation. Wikipedia actually does the opposite of updating information as its announced. We aren't supposed to be news breakers here. We just report what is fact. Until the team officially announces it we don't report it. -DJSasso (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary comment

I wish to gently point out that I think the edit summary comment that you left for me here might be considered uncivil. It was my intent to get around to wikifying the career statistics myself, but I am happy to see that you have gotten the job done. Dolovis (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Dolovis, before you run around accusing other people of being uncivil, you should really take a careful analysis of your own behaviour on Wikipedia. It sure looked like you were scratching at that anon IP editor earlier today with some sort of sock accusation with your comments on that users talk page. Not to mention a multitude of other disrespectful, and frankly what I would consider as uncivil editing habits in the time you have been here. It was your intent to get around to wikifying the career statistics yourself? Really? I don't know if I have ever seen you undertake any major content editing of a player page, let alone the statistics section. Just sayin'. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

European Hockey Task Force

Hi. I would like to start a European Hockey Task Force within WikiProject Ice Hockey. How do I go about doing this? Thanks. --Hockeyben ^✉ 20:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

First thing I would do is ask on the project page if there are people that want to join it. Most task forces die pretty much as soon as they are created because the hockey project tends to do everything on the one main page. Basically as a rule of thumb we say if you can find at least 5 active editors that want to help then you can probably start one. Personally I wouldn't bother but if you want to that is where you should go ask if there are editors who want to help you. -DJSasso (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the talk page. I'm a frequent contributor to Euro hockey, and with it covering a broader scope than some of the other projects, hopefully it can find some participants. Thanks for your help. --Hockeyben ^✉ 22:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just looking around at the other task forces, and none of them had 5 participants when they started, I'm sure I'll be able to get 5 people, as one has already committed. So is it okay if I go ahead and start it? --Hockeyben ^✉ 00:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Those other ones are the reason we ask for 5 participants. Almost no task forces ever get 5 active participants and all of them go inactive. Look at the talk pages of all the task forces. Only three of the task forces had activity that lasted any length of time. Sweden, New Jersey and Vancouver. And of those three the only one really active still is Vancouver and it never actually uses its project talk page. As I said most people suggest you just do your task force "talk" on the main ice hockey project page since that is where the most eyes will see it anyways. Other than splitting out talk from the main project talk page to a task force talk page there is no other real purpose for creating a task force. Task forces are meant for projects that get alot of talk and have alot of members, our hockey project only has 30 or so highly active editors so we don't actually really need task forces as the talk on the main project page rarely gets to be too much. -DJSasso (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I would probably just suggest renaming the Sweden task force to the Euro task force rather than create a new task force. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that will work. It'll cover a broader scope. I'll see to it soon.Hockeyben ^✉ 01:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned it at the discussion you started. See what others say. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't resulted in much interest. Should I re-purpose the Sweden Task Force, or just let it die? --Hockeyben ^✉ 22:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

American hockey players with diacritics

Hello. Is it possible for American people such as Éric Landry to have accents/diacritics in their name? I'm asking this because back in February you moved Éric Chouinard to the non-accent name, and I don't see anything that says Landry's relatives are of Latin descent. HeyMid (contribs) 11:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes they can, however for that particular player we actually got confirmation directly from him that his name didn't have one. I don't know about Landry in particular. He is French Canadian however and they use accents in their names alot. -DJSasso (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, you may be interested in a discussion here. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For re-tagging thousands of articles and for helping the Sweden ice hockey task force become the European ice hockey task force, I award you this barnstar. Your help is appreciated! Hockeyben ✉ 01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

College parameters update

Don't know if it matters but the change to the College parameters task force is removing the symbol from the ice hockey banner. Just wanted to give you the heads up.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, because I haven't changed the code in the template itself yet. This way I can keep track of what articles are still showing up in the categories as tagged. If I changed the code first I would lose all the articles from the categories. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. Wasn't sure if it was intentional or if there could have been a typo or something like that in the updated code. Thanks for changing all of those it will make it easier to tag future articles with the simplified wordings.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 18:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah when I created the parameters I wasn't think about how long they would be. So I figured I should fix my mistake and make them shorter since I was changing the sweden ones to euro already yesterday. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Demitra

I looked everywhere and there is no official confirmation. It is unclear whether he was on the board of the plane or not. It is unknown as of now and Lokomotiv did not confirm if the whole team was on board. So until then, it has to be left as if he were still alive. Norum 14:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Russian Officials announced that the whole team was on board including 4 youth team players. There is a reference for it on the plane crash page itself. There are a number of others if you want to look harder but that is the quickest one for you to see. -DJSasso (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Then show me the link, because as of right now, no major website was able to confirm anything for a 100%. Norum 14:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"According to Sov Sport, Locomotiv has confirmed that the entire main roster, plus four players from the youth team, were on the plane". -DJSasso (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

See, it says "according to them"....so that's really no proof at all. Salei was part of the team, yet he was not on board as he was waiting in Minsk for the team to pick him up. Norum 15:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are right that there is a rumour that he was not on the plane. But as of right now the most official word is that of the team stating he was. -DJSasso (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What about Korolev and Karpovtsev? Norum 15:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Air crash article

Hi there. Could you actually read my edit summaries in future? Thank you kindly. — Joseph Fox 17:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read your edit summary. You were reverted on your bold move. You don't revert the revert and then try and talk on the talk page. You leave it at the original version and discuss on the talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Chris Richards

(gnashes his teeth) ... I wonder how much bloody time is wasted on Wikipedia dealing with jamokes who seize upon pedantic points just because they like to hear themselves argue. Don't mind me ... just needed to rant.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  13:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am giving Powers the benefit of the doubt since I think he is doing so in good faith. There are others of course who are trying to get every non-notable minor minor player who played 1 min in the Alabama Hockey League a page. Those ones frustrate me. But if we can tighten up the wording somehow all the better I guess. :) -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lionel Conacher

I hope this is the appropriate way to contact you. Several people, including me, have tried to update the Lionel Conacher page on several occassions regarding a tribute award in his honour. I realize that it may sound trivial, but it has been created with the utmost respect for Lionel Conacher, and there is significant participation in the league, including a descendant of Lionel Conacher himself. There is an annual awards banquet at which the formal trophy is presented, bearing his name etched on the front. The entry is absolutely not meant to be offensive, spam, or vandalism. It's a single sentence added in what appears to be an appropriate place, in the context of awards that have been named in honour of Lionel Conacher. I understand that you must see a lot of vandalism and you need to exercise discretion in editing entries that appear inappropriate. I respectfully request that you reconsider the decision on this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.143.190 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Maxim Shuvalov

Immediately apologize for bad English. I rolled back your edit in the article about the hockey player Maxim Shuvalov. Maxim complies with the criteria of relevance to athletes as a player junior national team of Russia, won a bronze medal at the world championships in 2011, Maxim has played in this tournament all seven matches. Link stat [3]. JukoFF (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• No, in fact that doesn't comply with any of the criteria for hockey players at WP:NHOCKEY, and I'll file an AfD right away.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, in the Russian Wikipedia, the significance tests for athletes is softer for writing enough to play for any national team is not important for an adult or youth. JukoFF (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That certainly may well be, but of course the various national Wikipedias all have their own criteria for inclusion, which pertains only to their projects.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  12:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• And speaking of these AfDs ... take a look at Fayerman's links through Google Translate, DJ. They're all WP:ROUTINE items. In your shoes, I'd retract that Keep. Ravenswing 19:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

  I already did look at them or some of them anyways through google translate. There is enough chatter there for me to not worry about it and assume there are probably others if searched for long enough or hard enough. Especially in offline newspapers and the like. While just being a junior player isn't enough I wouldn't doubt that one who was on a medal winning team and was hours away from playing in his first KHL game had articles out there if we looked. I don't want to bias on a player just because the references are in russian and harder for us english speakers to find. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nsport - clubs and teams

Hi, did you see my post at [4]. I believe you were quite active when this guideline got off the ground and wondered if you could help to answer it. Please post there. Thanks. 08:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

igor korolev

I've refrained from responding to Norum. (I nearly responded today) I suggest the same to you, unless there is any complaint about his comments to be made elsewhere. IMO, he just wants the last word. IMO, it's gotten quite tedious and Norum is being unreasonable. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I decided that was my last word. He really needs to read up on the definition of nationality. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you're right, Alaney ... he really does insist on having the last word. What a chump. Ravenswing 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The thing that kills me is that he says "I'd still be a Swede with an X passport". You wouldn't be if you became an American since the US makes you give up your passport to other countries when you gain citizenship. Although I am sure a lot of people never actually do. Canada however does allow dual citizenship. I also liked his Hess argument since Egypt didn't exist when he was born...it was the Ottoman Empire. -DJSasso (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that going too pedantic on his sorry ass wouldn't have done much good. But yeah ... he's very strongly in the "I believe this very much, so the rest of the world is wrong" camp. Ravenswing 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Grrr ... now the guy is trying to remove his comments from my talk page. I just reverted them, but I'd better not send any more warning templates. Should someone else do so? ("Leave the idiot be" is an acceptable answer, I guess.) Ravenswing 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  I would just ignore him....if he keeps going. Report him to one of the dispute resolution pages. I don't want to get too involved in an admin capacity since I was in the Korolev discussion. If you stop responding he is likely to stop responding because he will have gotten the last word he so desperately wants. -DJSasso (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough ... I'll do just that if he keeps going. (It could be worse, actually; he wrote AGAIN to my talk page, but thought better of that a couple hours later and removed those remarks.) Ravenswing 22:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

  I'm watching now as well. I'd say leave him be, and with luck he will do the same. Resolute 22:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• The guy is STILL trying to remove comments from my talk page. What's the best venue to go with this? Ravenswing 03:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  Just read that thread, man, this guy is something... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard mabye. I wouldn't go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since its not something that has to be dealt with immediately. I have a feeling they would send you to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard though but it can't hurt to go there. Well sometimes it can if you go there and are lying...then the boomerang effect happens. But in this case that shouldn't be a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Janne Karlsson hockey coaches

Hello! Why did you move "Janne Karlsson (born 1958)" and "Janne Karlsson (born 1964)" to Janne Karlsson (ice hockey b. 1958) and Janne Karlsson (ice hockey b. 1964), respectively? I don't see any indication that further disambiguation than birth year is needed here. There may be a problem with the Janne Carlsson article, but his surname is spelled "C" instead of "K". Are you following any specific policies or guidelines here? Best regards, HeyMid (contribs) 21:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It was moved because we always include the ice hockey for standardization of the disambiguation. As for C or K, well I am not sure would have to investigate what the proper spelling is for each of them. If they do indeed have different spellings then the brackets wouldn't be needed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The person covered in the "Janne Carlsson" is an actor, not an ice hockey player. It seems his official name uses a C, but the article lead states that the person's name is sometimes written out as Karlsson. HeyMid (contribs) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it looks like its probably valid. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Trenton Titans

I understand that the revert was done on purpose and I know the page is under protection from IP editors now; I was only trying to get the editor to stop reinserting reverted changes, and show that discussion can work (as it did for the previous proposal I made). Whether or not the editor chooses to take this advice or continue to play whack-a-mole is up to them, of course. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I understand. My comment was more in the hopes that the editor would see what the problem was and stop socking so he could be unblocked and contribute...but I think that is unlikely. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

With the 2-week block expired, our IP friend is back and as you can see, he still doesn't seem to get it.  Cjmclark ^(Contact) 13:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor makes a couple of reasonable points: the mention of Trenton Devils, LLC may be unnecessary detail (it could be made more explicit that the subsidiary was formed to own the Trenton team, but I'm guessing most readers don't care that much about the business details), and the original franchise owner ought to be mentioned. I'm uncertain, however, on how to encourage the editor to proceed with contributing sourced information, without over-obsessing on the minor points. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thing is he is a blocked editor, so he currently shouldn`t be making any edits. But yes he is getting into far to much detail and yes it can be mentioned who the old owner was. But beyond that most of what he is obsessing on is not really all that relevant to the article. -DJSasso (talk) 23:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor has actually proposed removing the details on Trenton Devils, LLC. Though it's hard to tell (the editor's communication style jumps about), it seems the editor may have absorbed some of the advice given. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a feeling its a young kid which could be part of the problem. But yes removing all that legal mumbo jumbo would probably be a good idea. Taking it back to where it was prior to all his edits is probably the best bet to be honest and then start fresh with a new paragraph on the current situation. -DJSasso (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Query

DJ I don't mind a trout slap or another sysop disagreeing with me but I have severe difficulty with being described as being very "biased" and "involved" with regard to a conflict that I have never edited in, and with an editor I have only interacted with in a purely administrative manner. I would invite your feedback as it seems you have a very strong view that I acted in bad faith as to which parts of WP:INVOLVED I violated. Or if on reflection you think it possible that I was mistaken in my application of that block, rather than acting in an abusive or bad faith manner I would sincerely appreciate a redaction here[5]--Cailil ^talk 21:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately your comments on that page indicated to me that you were biased towards the situation. And that you had a strong opinion on the matter which makes you involved. The minute you said "It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect." it became clear you were biased and had an opinion on subject. As such you should not have acted in the matter and instead posted on a noticeboard if you felt he should be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

DJ the only opinion I have is that an editor using wikipedia's edit summary system to express the view that becuase a person is "black they're not English"[6] and that becuase a person is "Jewish they're not Ukrainian"[7] as Lvivske has done, is inappropriate and counter to the purpose of this project and its core policies. That does not constitute involvement. Perhaps I over-reacted but you have accused me of bad faith - these are 2 very different things--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have not accused you of bad faith. Bad faith assumes you were trying to do harm. I only think you just acted very poorly. An admin should have known better. You apparently did not. That does not imply bad faith only poor admin skills. -DJSasso (talk) 00:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Kentucky UIFL team (2012)

This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Kentucky UIFL team (2012), appears to be leftover from a September redirect you created after a merge. Perhaps you can shed some light in the AfD why it still exists on a redirect, or should it have been moved to the target page?—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I just readded it so that the user who added it wouldn't complain that I hid their discussion. It didn't dawn on me at the time that it should have gone to Rfd not to Afd. The user had cut a page and and pasted it elsewhere and turned this page into a redirect and then asked for its deletion. I just moved the page and then created a new redirect to replace it and put the tag on this new redirect. I have no opinion on the matter if it should be deleted or not. But looking at it now it should probably be at Rfd instead of Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Djsasso/Archive 7! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Timestamping so bot will archive it properly... -DJSasso (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Pro hockey team

see Template_talk:Infobox_Pro_hockey_team#Championships. I really don't care if we remove those fields, but if we do, we should fix the two articles as well. I have no idea if these fields are really necessary, but I was trying to convert those two articles. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Essex 73's

Hey, I am having anon blanking and reverting issues on Essex 73's. The person keeps deleting a paragraph with no reason given and I don't want to risk 3RR... can you help me? DMighton (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I just reverted it myself, and also dropped a lvl 1 warning on him; no one had mentioned anything on his talk page before that. Ravenswing 07:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming conventions (use English)

Noticed your dispute with an RM closer. Are you sure you don't care about the Diacritics topic? GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, positive. Its never been about the diacritics. -DJSasso (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to David Johnston‎ among other Canadian GG articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Might want to check out Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Anyways edit summaries while good practice are not required so messages like this are rather pointless. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If anybody, myself & Mies should be getting a warning; not Djsasso. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Might want to add summaries when you enter a content dispute. This makes it less pointless. The other editors were leaving comments.

If anybody, you should know better. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

My edits were obvious thus did not need edit comments as per the page on edit summaries which mentions there is no need of them when you are making simple changes. You really need to be more civil when you go to peoples talk pages. -DJSasso (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Your edits came in the middle of a mild edit war. They were without summary so I suspected, at first, that you were either sockpuppet or were being requested to edit to save M a 3RR warning.

I am attempting to be civil. You really need to be more careful when you enter messes like this though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to learn to make sure you assume good faith prior to jumping to conclusions. The lack of an edit summary was actually an attempt to not flare things up worse. Sometimes the best course of action is to not say something. -DJSasso (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I did assume good faith, but I have to be suspicious anytime someone enters the fray as you did. A simple edit summary of "restoring to established baseline until discussion is complete" would have been adequate. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Miroslav Blatak

Howdy. I checked the article's history. Darwinek first moved the article, without having an RM, on May 1st, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No he fixed the diacritic...the article already had diacritics before that. Look a little closer. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I looked closer & I think I'm gonna be sick. GoodDay (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

nhl standings articles policy question

If I were to create 'NHL standings' articles for each season, the content of which was division, conference and league standing, would that be within Wikipedia policy? I would not want to go to the bother if someone could propose that they were simple 'forks', or whatever and get them deleted. I'd like to go back from this season probably about 20 years, so that the season articles are less standings tables and more prose. Another purpose would be the ability to have sortable tables, so that you could rank the highest penalty team, highest scoring team in the league, etc. Maybe add the vs. division, and vs. conference columns. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think that would run afoul of WP:NOTSTATS. The reason the season articles survive I believe is that they have the prose on them with the stats (ie from NOTSTATS it says "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. "). The stats by themselves probably wouldn't fly. I could be wrong but that is my take on it. I would do the same thing with sortable tables on the season pages as that would still work in my opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for contributing to the promotion of Doug Bentley to WP:GA status.

This user helped promote Doug Bentley to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Taylor Ellington

This page was deleted back in Feb. as the player was 18 games short of meeting the notability standards. It has no been recreated now that he has played those 18 games. I remember this article being more than the one line stub it was recreated as and I was wondering if there was a way to access the old article to combined the two. (I thought I heard something in a discussion where that was possible, but if not I'll see what I can do about improving the page in a few days or so.) Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly can do. -DJSasso (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Old revisions undeleted and I have merged in some of the older article. Feel free to look back through the edit history to see if there is anything else you want to retrieve. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll take a look but, I'm guessing you probably got the important info. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Scott Pellerin

Djsasso - you recently posted the following information to Scott Pellerin's wikipedia page:

"Pellerin and former University of Maine teammate Cal Ingraham are co-owners of Juniors Hockey, an on-line hockey equipment supplier specializing in outfitting players under 5'8". In 2010, Pellerin appeared in several print ads for PETA protesting the continued usage of animals as sports team names and mascots. In 2011, Pellerin launched a line of hand-made earrings with designs inspired by salt-water fishing lures."

The information is not true and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from posting false information about this individual who is currenlty an employee of our organization.

Manchestermonarchs (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaken, actually. The offending edit was made by UMaine1992 some time ago. It was simple vandalism that, unfortunately, was not caught. Thank you for removing it, however. Resolute 01:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Dan Bertram (ice hockey)

I request that you restore the Dan Bertram (ice hockey) article to my user space so that I may continue to work on it. He is two games shy of meeting criteria #3 of NHOCKEY, and with a bit of work I think I can demonstrate that he already meets GNG. Dolovis (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Did someone take care of this for you? I have been away so did not see it until now. If not I will take care of it right away. -DJSasso (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it has not yet been done. Dolovis (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. User:Dolovis/Dan Bertram (ice hockey). -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Dios 'yet again'

Howdy Dj. Do as you wish, with the NHL player bio articles. But, don't start a silly fight between us, concerning NHL based non-bio articles. We don't need to be chasing each other around all hockey articles: You reverting me at Anaheim Ducks (for example) & me 'adding' dios to any of the Elite league teams. We don't need it, so let's avoid that. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That was my point...why you would start something like that by reverting the move is beyond me. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I merely requested, that you'd go the RM route. It'll like end up in a consensus to 'move', so there's no harm. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, you wanted to waste peoples time with a discussion on something that has already been agreed upon. The reason we came up with the compromise was so we would avoid having to have these discussions on multiple pages. If you don't think we should have that compromise anymore then by all means start up discussions on every page you remove dios on from now on. -DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If ya wanna move the bio article back to diacritics, without an RM? then do it. I don't have time to argue about it anymore. Bio articles, have become a major headache for me. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

DJSasso should absolutely follow the RM route; to do otherwise would be a serious breach of his duty as an admin to follow proper Wikipedia policy and procedure. And if DJSasso is using his admin powers to facilitate the move over a redirect which could otherwise not be done, it would then be a clear abuse of his admin powers. DJSasso is fully aware that all moves involving diacritics are controversial, and he is also aware that Wikipedia Policy dictates that controversial moves must be made through RM. Dolovis (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy restricting anyone (except in your case) from moving an article to or from diacritics as you are well aware. If a user makes a request and the request is in good faith there is no reason it can't be done (see WP:BOLD). Moves likes these are done hundreds of times a week. Have rarely been complained about until you started making a massive fuss about them. You've been asked by the greater community on more than a few occasions to just step back from the issue. You are getting yourself far to worked up about them. In fact the community went so far as to ban you from moving articles because of problems you are creating. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

re: Dolovis

Since you reference it at User talk:Thomas280784#Controversial moves, you wouldn't happen to know where the ban on Dolovis is archived at?

I want to skim over it before throwing in 2¢ at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Controversial moves

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RESTRICTIONS is where it is at which I believe has links to the discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. - J Greb (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Hockey team naming conventions

Got a new team in NW Ontario called the "Northern Renegades". They play out of Eagle Lake (a reservation in Migisi Sahgaigan... a tiny town near Dryden)... in the past they have marketed themselves as Dryden's Jr. B team... If I create an article, do you think it should be called Northern Renegades, Dryden Northern Renegades, Eagle Lake Northern Renegades, or Migisi Sahgaigan Northern Renegades? I usually try to avoid creating an article chiefly with the team's nickname... I'm not all that comfortable with that. DMighton (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there not league articles or pages that might have the full name? I would go with whatever you can verify, so if all you can verify is the nickname go that way. However, I would make a big effort to find an article that uses the full name. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit War

I have an anon user engaging me in an edit war on multiple articles: Strathroy Rockets, Sarnia Legionnaires, and probably soon to be Sarnia Sting and Mooretown Flags. He is bolding text inside the infobox despite this not being inline with format anywhere else in sports that I know of. He also has tried to insert image from commons that have improper rational, even going as far as claiming he is the author of the logos. I have asked him to stop on my talk page. I am hoping you might be able to advise or help me, I never know what to do with these people. DMighton (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This guy: User talk:72.39.202.94... he has also listed himself on the Junior hockey task force as User:Jacobpullen. DMighton (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC) And now this name: User:SSFanJP. DMighton (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NM... situation resolved itself! I am very glad it did. Thanks either way, I'm sure you would have steered it this way too. DMighton (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Portland Winterhawks

Please respect WP:HOCKEY diacritics compromise or re-open the can of worms again. Which is it? GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean the one where you have actively not been upholding and have been moving player pages away from diacritics? Seems to me you re-opened the can of worms already. -DJSasso (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been moving player pages for over a month (or more) & don't intend to -anymore-. I also stay away from RMs, that concern hockey bio articles. Infact, I'm been trying to persuade Dolovis away from the bios & into the North American teams/leagues etc, articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't change my comment. If you want to fight about it we can. It really is up to you if you want to waste peoples time or not. I reverted your bold removal via WP:BRD so please follow process and discuss if you choose to. Continue edit warring will of course be reported. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why are you doing this, btw? What do hope to gain? Stop this now, I beg you. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An accurate encyclopedia. I didn't start it...you did...you removed the diacritics that have been there for quite some time now. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a NORTH AMERICAN based article. Why are you being such a dick about this, suddenly? GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling people names now? That is definitely the way to go about winning people over to your opinion. One might think that I was actually tired of having to debate this with you and Dolovis over and over as both of you find new and creative ways to continually bring up the topic. Seems to me that that might be the reason people are getting frustrated by you. Already ended up in Dolovis being topic banned so clearly the community is running out of patience. -DJSasso (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's time to take you to ANI, my friend. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free but you might find out what a boomerang is. I've done everything according to policy. You on the other hand came here calling me a dick. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just reported you to ANI. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: Once more - Why are you doing this? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I believe they should be used on that page. Just like you obviously believed the player pages should be moved when you !voted in the requests for moves to move them. A number of those pages ended up moved. This situation is no different. I don't believe they should be removed in this case so I am currently making my case for why they shouldn't be. It is up to you to make your cause now for why they should be. And if need be an admin will decide the outcome just like in a request for move. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's been weeks, since I've bothered with hockey bios. I don't have any intentions of bothering with them again. Again, why are you doing this? You knew your revert was going to breach WP:HOCKEY's compromise (not to mention p-ss me off), so why'd ya do it? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I already gave you the answer, because I believe they should be used on this page. It is interesting that you now see how it feels when someone goes against the compromise. Something to consider the next time page moves come up. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

So this is a vendetta or somekinda revenge kick you're on. So very unbecoming of an Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere did I say that. I said that I believe it belongs there to be accurate and because that is how the team spells his name. This isn't some school yard like you like to treat it as. If you can't have a civil discussion please just stop talking. -DJSasso (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"..It is interesting that you now see how it feels when someone goes against the compromise. Something to cosider the next time page moves come up". I take it you felt that way before? Furthermore -- stop bring bios up, as I don't bother with them anymore. It was agreed at my Rfc/U, that editors wouldn't bring up past events - please respect that. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was annoying that you would revert moves that conformed to the compromise. But you did and you can't erase the fact that you did. What other editors agreed to do at your Rfc/U is irrelevant to me. I don't recall saying that you get a free pass on previous behaviour. All I have asked you to do here is discuss the topic at hand on the appropriate page. You know where that is. You also know that canvassing is a bad thing. And I am sure you know that calling people names is a bad thing. So enough back and forth on my page already. -DJSasso (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Fine. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay

OK, I've seen enough. You have two options. Either a) You cease and desist from reverting the edits of GoodDay (and likewise he does the same for you) and you cease to comment on his edits, either on article talk or user talk pages. This first option would be voluntary. The second option is I go to ANI and make it official. Your choice. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 18:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If he is going to make comments about me why shouldn't I be able to respond. I have held off for years on his constant bad faith remarks about me or people who hold similar positions as me. He needs to stop making such disparaging remarks about people who disagree with him. There would be zero problem here if he would stop doing that. I admit I have gotten frustrated lately with him, but its only because he has been doing it over and over for years and he needs to stop. People have asked him to stop over and over again. Its one of the biggest reasons he went to RfC/U. But clearly it hasn't stopped him from doing it, he just stopped doing it to editors in the British topic area but that not the only area he has been doing it in. I have no problem with most of what you say above, but if he is going to continually make bad faith comments I have a right to defend myself from those comments. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Steven that at this point, it would be best for both of you to disengage. That said, Steven, as one of GoodDay's mentors, I am certain you can see how his commentary in this topic area is hardly productive or encourages a good response. DJ is right, his militant attitude on diacritics has been an ongoing thing for years, and has rarely aided discussions on same. Resolute 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem disengaging, but he really needs to stop treating everyone who disagrees with him in an us vs them, good vs evil type attitude. I have bitten my tongue on it for years and really its starting to get tiresome its been going on since like 2007 I believe. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd settle for an interaction ban, between myself & Djsasso. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course you would because it would essentially deny me the ability to participate in discussions which you have commented first when really all that we need done is for you to stop saying things like people who think we should use diacritics are doing it for "mother-tongue pride". Or calling us things like "diacritics pushers". It makes for a hostile environment. If you would be more civil in your tone about people that disagree with you we wouldn't be here right now. -DJSasso (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Or we could settle for an interaction ban as well as a topic ban from all WP:HOCKEY articles. Actually, I think that works quite well. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

So essentially ban me from the only articles I work on at the wiki. And that doesn't seem overkill at all? All I am asking for is that he treats people that disagree with him civilly instead of calling them various names. Why is it so hard for him to do that? As his mentor isn't that what you should be helping him to do? If not then what purpose do you serve as a mentor? I mean there would literally be zero problem between us if he would bite his tongue when he wants to use a clearly derogatory name for someone that disagrees with him. Not a single peep from me. Yes I snapped at him the last couple days and for that perhaps I went to far, but come on he isn't blameless here. -DJSasso (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you pop up everywhere that GoodDay edits is so blindingly obvious that it amounts to wikistalking. Is he blameless? Of course not. One edit I spotted today removing a diacritic shouldn't have been done, the article title of the target page included the diacritic, likely due to its use in reliable sources. That's why a two-way interaction ban is necessary, the topic ban is a temporary fix until I can work my DR magic. I've read over the policies regarding diatricts. A local consensus, such as at WP:HOCKEY, does not override global consensus (in this case being WP:DIACRITIC.) So let's have an RFC which myself and two others will oversee. The topic ban is until that has completed. But the interaction ban is necessary. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I follow him? He constantly follows mine and others edits. He is well known for doing it and jumping into discussions that don't involve him (or diacritics) just to again spout his point. When he has commented on pages about me yes I have commented. When he comments on pages that I watch on a topic I pay attention too of course I comment. Who wouldn't? I walk away from his rants all the time, maybe I haven't done it the last couple days. But this is ridiculous. The fact that you can't see he is using you as a new weapon is also kind of disheartening as I had a lot of respect for you as a mediator. Would take two seconds for you to ask him to stop calling users that disagree with him bad names. Assuming he would agree to then this would be all over. Why are we making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. -DJSasso (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who was that fellow, that showed up at that Portuguese monarch RM? GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean the discussion that showed up on Jimbo's talk page on a topic that I pay attention to so I then went to cast my !vote? Not to mention the fact that I now follow Requests for Moves that are about diacritics... -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Djsasso, I consider myself a reasonable person. From what I've observed thus far, GoodDay has commented somewhere, and then you have popped up to comment. If you can demonstrate examples of it being the other way around that would be appreciated. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Steven, but that is both excessive and unnecessary. At this point, there is no need for anything but both to walk away from this discussion. Proposing interaction bans is counterproductive at this point. Resolute 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolute, the fact that the two have been unable to walk away from discussions is exactly why this is being proposed. Would love you to be able to demonstrate how this is unnecessary though. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 19:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Both edit heavily in the hockey topic area, and frankly, topic banning either because of a pointless interpersonal squabble will have the effect of kicking them pretty much off the project. In neither case do I find that beneficial. And if you don't think that is a draconian response, well, I really don't know what to say. I get that you are trying to protect your charge, but enabling GoodDay's behavour by rushing to his defence when he goes out of his way to create drama is not helpful. Especially since this is precisely the kind of behaviour that led to his RFCU. And in my mind, is not a proper action of a mentor. I trust that DJSasso can walk away from this. I do not trust that GoodDay will. His very long history on Wikipedia tells me that he will badger anyone and everyone about his personal view of diacritics until they throw their arms up in frustration - or find a naïve mentor willing to build walls around his "enemies" for him. If you want to put an end to this for now, propose a formal ban from either commenting on the other's talk page. I'd support that if the community found it necessary. Topic banning either or both from a major area of work when the current squabble has little to do with hockey overall? Completely over the top. Resolute 20:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Is topic banning them extreme? Of course it is. It's a temporary bandaid, to stop the edit warring. An interaction ban only will create a first-strike effect, where the user who acts first can practically do what they like, because the other user can't do anything about it. Do I agree with GoodDay's actions? No. What goes in an article is the result of policy and discussion, not personal opinion. Is GoodDay innocent here? No. But Djsasso isn't either. An interaction and topic ban is necessary for now, then we can sort out this diacritic issue through proper dispute resolution. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is any ban necessary. Why can't we just work this out as adults. Escalating it serves nothing but to inflame the situation even more. Not to mention there has been no edit warring. The only page that could come remotely close is the Portland Winterhawks. Other than that I haven't reverted an edit of his in recent memory. -DJSasso (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a topic ban for both of us, won't be necessary. I believe I'm done with the ice hockey articles, as it's not worth the continuous misery (that I get from Djsasso). GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I consider that a personal attack. I realize you are trying to play Steven against DJSasso here, but this is yet another sign of why people react the way they do: you are going out of your way, yet again, to disparage people unnecessarily. Resolute 20:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe the locus of the dispute to be hockey-related articles, and so a topic ban on editing hockey-related articles does not seem appropriate. GoodDay and Djsasso have had amiable discussions on the various Wiki-gnomish edits that GoodDay tends to engage in. Note that GoodDay's RFC/U is almost entirely absent any comments from WP:HOCKEY regulars as for the most part, they have opted to drop the stick and refrain from engaging in protracted discussions with GoodDay on the use of diacritics. An interaction ban on the topic of diacritics might be a more suitable remedy. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It is true, GoodDay and I get along in most instances. Even when it comes to diacritics we usually agree to disagree. This dispute isn't really even about diacritics at all. The dispute today was about his attacks on editors. -DJSasso (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (It's located here) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious...you couldn't try to reasonably work out the situation first instead of having to throw it to the drama increasing ANI? I said I would walk away from the situation. I am not sure what more you want out of the situation. All I hoped we could agree on was that GoodDay stop calling people names. Would have taken seconds to work out and move on from. Instead you have now inflamed the situation and its going to become a circus likely. -DJSasso (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that GoodDay should stop calling people names. I also agree that the use of diacritics needs to be sorted out. Neither of you are in the clear here. GoodDay is as much to blame here as you are. I'm his mentor, not his advocate. Did I jump to ANI? Perhaps I did. If you can agree to an interaction ban with GoodDay, and that you won't make modifications regarding diacritics in hockey articles, then I will close the ANI thread and we can pursue dispute resolution, because in essence this is a content dispute that has got out of hand. Let's sort it out. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have never said I was going to change diacritics in articles in the first place. There is a single situation where one player I felt should be discussed. So I BRD'd his removal which I thought was a fair edit since discussion is always ok. Currently that discussion seems to be going towards my point of view or a 3rd alternative that someone else pointed out. Other than that I never change diacritics in articles. The only one of us two who does that is GoodDay. So by all means lets work this out. I think this is a large misunderstanding on what the actual problem is. Oh and yes as I said I have no problem not continuing arguing with GoodDay. I would rather us not be banned from joining the same discussion on an article or wikiproject as long as we don't address each other if that is possible since we are both highly active in such discussions at the project. That would eliminate the so and so acted first issue. But I can certainly completely avoid his talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, I might get one of my colleagues to set up an RFC where the use of diacritics can be discussed, but it's generally a case-by case basis. Part of the problem is that the policies on common name use and diacritic use somewhat conflict. That needs to be sorted out, but for the time being, yeah, off each other's talk page. Participate in discussions elsewhere out of coincidence, but don't interact with each other if possible. Sounds reasonable? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup fine by me. -DJSasso (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Good-o. Closed the ANI. Shows just why I hate ANI...heh. (For the record, didn't realise you only edit hockey articles, but when I get a few threads on my talk page regarding you, what am I to think)? Anyways, I've gotta do real work now. Myself and DBD will guide GoodDay to edit other articles for the time being. Good day (pun not intended) to you. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarification, I assume that the agreement to not make any changes related to diacritics in the near term would apply to both editors? Resolute 21:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it would. I'm not unreasonable. That would only be fair. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 21:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Steven, with all other editors opposing your suggested sanctions, you do realize that you jumped the gun? HandsomeFella (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. ANI creates mandatory sanctions. Here, the two users have agreed to voluntary restrictions. What the editors at ANI want does not override the opinions of the concerned editors. Perhaps I should have suggested that first. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else should have suggested it. I am rather appalled that one of GoodDay's "mentors" would come charging onto DJ's talk page not only waving the bloody flag and making peremptory demands but to propose a RfC with, well, you as one of the "overseers." This is a serious conflict of interest, and I am astonished that an editor so heavily involved in mediation issues was not only so hostile right off the bat but didn't perceive that he could be seen as biased in the matter. Were I DJ, I would strongly oppose your further involvement in "mediation" in this dispute. No doubt there are many capable, neutral mediators who don't resort to flaming and ANI as first resorts. Ravenswing 22:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've acknowledged your post. I do also note the fact that editors on Wikipedia have supporters and opposers, and you appear to be one of Djsasso's supporters. If I proposed a topic ban only to Djsasso, of course I'd agree that I was being biased. I disagree that I am being hostile, though I feel that your comments are hostile and will have no part in replying to them any further. You will also note I have had a discussion with GoodDay to address these issues. I have said many times that I feel GoodDay is not faultless here, neither is Djassso. It takes two to participate in a heated discussion. I do take the issues seriously, but let me do my job. I dislike the notion that I am "on his side". I am his mentor, not his advocate. As for myself not being neutral, well, I've been a mediator on Wikipedia for nearly three and a half years. I'll let those that have observed the many disputes I have mediated advocate for my impartiality. Anyways, I have work to do. This discussion is resolved for the time being, DBD and myself will work with GoodDay to pursue other Wikipedia interests. Good day to you. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing. Steven said at GoodDay's talkpage that "[he and DBD are] here to guide you, but not to be your advocates" [8]. In my view, they sure acted pretty much as GoodDay's advocates. Is mentorship something that is organized at wikipedia? If so, their competence needs reviewing. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair you did come here with a very aggressive tone that seemed liked you were threatening me, while you did not comment on his page at all about his issues at all. (until you went to ANI and posted a notice about it) So it did come across very much like you were coming here at the defense of GoodDay to attack me. Don't get me wrong I know you are trying to do your best to do what you think was right in good faith. But you have to admit if you read back through your comments here that you did come across as very much on the offensive against me at the behest of GoodDay. Anyways I think we are pretty much done here so no need for anyone to drag it out so everyone go on about your business. -DJSasso (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that I did come across as aggressive, and I apologise. I jumped to ANI too quickly. Let's just put it down to a screaming baby at 5.30am, lack of coffee and being all rather new at this mentorship business, and move on? :) DBD and myself are sorting stuff out now, so hopefully everyone can walk away from here. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand. I have a 3 week old at home myself. Which probably accounts for my recent lack of patience with GoodDay to be honest. The patience I used to use for him was used up elsewhere lol. -DJSasso (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Glad we can come to an understanding. Do yourself a favour. DO NOT pick your little one up for everything. We did. We now carry a 9kg baby everywhere, and I have a sore arm most of the time. Some would reply to that with "lol", I say, "unlol". As long as they're fed, changed, and loved, you'll be fine :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah trying to do that. He was born at 4kg so he is going to be big quickly haha so we already worry about sore arms. -DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Our daughter was born at 4.5kg, and my wife is little. 22 hour labour then an emergency caesar. Not fun. She is such a crybaby, lol. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

London Nationals

Would you be willing to move the London Nationals (1950–) to London Nationals? DMighton (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. You might want to check the incomming links and fix where appropriate. -DJSasso (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

thx! DMighton (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Dominik Hašek

Do you have any idea who I could ask to spruce up Dominik Hašek, which has decayed a bit from its WP:FA promotion? I guess it could use about 10 or 15 citations of uncited facts for WP:TFAR by his January 29th birthday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nickname

Is this deprecated? That's not what the talk page says. Rich Farmbrough, 18:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Yeah it was deprecated years ago. We have been slowly removing it manually. Wasn't aware you could make all the pages with it show up in a category. If I could have figured out a regex to remove them in awb years ago I would have done it myself. But I am not sure how to make it match parameters that have a value or doesn't have a value. Who r U misinterpreted its missing in the infobox as a mistake because he saw it on an article that it hadn't been removed from yet. If you know the regex to use I can take care of it myself since I know people like to hound you about such edits. -DJSasso (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can include it in my bot run... since there are only 5 other items to do. Rich Farmbrough, 18:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC).

Finally got the go-ahead on the BRFA ... running now... Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC).

Just in time to catch the last 200 lol. Cleared out that last thousand or so over the last few days. Didn't really need a bot since I now could put them in AWB via a category instead of having to loop through every use of the template which is why I hadn't done it in the past. :) -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

NFL

There is also not a clear consensus on reverting the change. Two editors have made the change to reflect it's a men's league, two editors have reverted and stated the opposite. Being BOLD as you stated, usually involves discussions on the talk page, which was not initiated by anyone but myself, after what seemed like the beginning of an edit war. As no one owns the articles on Wikipedia, I have no interest in making sure that anything is kept accurate. --UnQuébécois (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe (WMF) (talk • contribs)

signing so archiving bot will handle properly.... -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Philipp Grubauer deletion

I moved this discussion away from my talk page, as it no longer pertains to me, and I don't want to keep getting emails about my page being edited all day. The new location is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#Philipp_Grubauer_deletion. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It does sort of pertain to you... And you really shouldn't move discussions like that... But its not a big deal. Probably could have just commented there for us to stop. :) -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

your bot-flag request at is.wiki

Your edit on the article Eminem doesn´t seem right. At the time of the edit the sr-wiki page existed, it was not a redirect and it does not show up in the deletion log, so I don´t really see why the link was removed. All other edits turned out to be fine.--Snaevar (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied on is.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

DRV

A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).

If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)