User talk:Djsasso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

  • Archive index - Index of all archive entries.
  • Archive #1 - Entries archived from January 2005 through August 2007.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from September 2007 through January 2008.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from February 2008 through April 2008.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from May 2008 through 30 days ago.

Contents

[edit] User: Wassup54

Hello Djsasso. Wassup seems to have an anti-Canadian theme to his edits, concerning Quebec related articles; see St. Leonard, Quebec. I wonder if I should report him/her for possible disruptive editing. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried helping him/her out, but that edit is plain silly. POV stuff left and right. I have tried to his side etc. I dunno, sometimes it can be disheartening on wikipedia eh.. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I think our friend is back, using an anon IP, check out edits by 65.94.162.121 Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention 65.94.226.182..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And User:65.94.162.252. I've left notices at all four pages. --Ckatzchatspy 09:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Et encore... 65.94.161.228 Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yet another... 65.94.172.154 Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This isnt anti-canadian edits, it is pro-Quebec edits, huge differences. All of you however seems reluctant to have Quebec being more mentioned. I understand that all of you live outside of Quebec and that you do not understand the nationalism movement here but you have to realize something: Only people living in Quebec have the right to define their own identity, independance or not. The majority of the population here consider themselves as Quebecers, hell even your house of common has declared that Quebecers form a nation inside a united Canada. So you should at least show some sort of respect by letting us define ourselves the way we see fit, no offense. Now Ill admit that I may have went too far in erasing totally canadian references, but I propose a compromise: to mention both canadian AND Quebecer identity for personnalities living in the province. What do you think. Wassup54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.162.252 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that your edits are changing content without any reason. Your politics aside, it does not affect the fact that say oh if someone's passport says they are Canadian, they are Canadian (for example). Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I have blocked the range twice, but i won't be able to keep doing that as the range is for bell in montreal and I am not sure how many people that would be affecting. It may just come down to policing articles they are likely to hit and revert when necessary. -Djsasso (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It look like, you may have to 'block' his range again. Wassup54, has chosen to no longer sign in. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
And it seems he or she is back. CHeck out Night-sunne Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I will keep my eye out, but unless he engages in full out disruptive editing again, there isn't much I can do as its just a content dispute until he crosses that line. -Djsasso (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
He's playing again in Montreal Alouettes and Multiculturalism... Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: User:68.149.139.239

So I see. What's comical is that he tries to mock for how seriously we take this site, when he's now gone on with this nonsense for three days. I guess he'll be back two days from now... Resolute 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

...aaaaand I've extended to a week and protected their talk page as they persist in the nonsense. Resolute 23:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And back again, lol. I've already dropped a Level 4im warning on him for picking right back up where he left off. I think the next block is going to be a month... Resolute 14:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I pretty much go 24, 48, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year when looking at block history. -Djsasso (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that was quick. Blocked him again. Resolute 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mcenroe

First of all, sorry about the prod notice on your page. Secondly, after looking through some of the sources you've given, and doing a bit of googling myself I have found evidence of his music on CBC here: [1]). Do you have a reference for the international tour? That would be helpful in cementing the article's notability. No hard feelings, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I will take a look. I know he has toured in the states a couple times and japan. -Djsasso (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University School of Law

I'm new to wikipedia. Perhaps I did something incorrectly when I created the Cox Center article. Who are you and why did you delete the article? Thanks. Williamericwolff (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically because it read like an advert. The only references on page were not reliable sources because they were not independent. Now I am only guessing but I would bet that WP:COI comes into play as well. -Djsasso (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Hi. Could I trouble you for a page move? I did not know where to put the request, but I know you're an admin. It's about Kirpal Singh (Spy). Since "spy" is not a name, I think it shouldn't be initcapped. Could've done it myself, but there's already a redirect in place by the name of Kirpal Singh (spy). I think it should be the other way around. Don't you, too? Thanks. LarRan (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You can move pages yourself when there is no redirect blocking them as there didn't seem to be one in this instance. However, you are correct it should not be capitalized. -Djsasso (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You sure there wasn't a redirect in the way? Must be something wrong with my eyes. Anyway, thanks. LarRan (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milton Keynes Thunder

I see you nominated Peter Taylor (ice hockey) for deletion. You might want to check the roster at Milton Keynes Thunder; I haven't looked at all the players, but I would assume that many others could also be added to your nomination. Skudrafan1 (talk) 05:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah most of them are prods at the moment. -Djsasso (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:2007–08 NHL season

I've just made a recommendation on the page Talk:2007–08 NHL season. Since you edit there regularly, I wanted your comment. BMW(drive) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The club dispute

My formulation is nutral, your is a POV. I think we should keep the amature-professional club left aside with CSKA because a team who beats montreal. at it's peak, 6-1, and whose players, most of them, were yearly world champions as part of the national team, are not amatures, even their players admit that. Today it is widely agreed in Russia that the CSKA of those times was professional.

So my formulation keeps the question who was bigger, CSKA or Montreal, open, and that way NPOV. Your formulation pushes a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are engaged in the edit war just like me, i'm difending an NPOV. Administratorship doesnt give you the right to push POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually my version was an attempt at NPOV. By making it possible for both to be the best in the world. Formulating whether they were professional is a decent arguement and one that deserves a section in the CSKA page. However, when it comes to pure championships the Soviet Union right up until the break up claimed they were not paying the players to play and that they were just members of the armed forces. Obviously they were using loop holes but we need to go with what is official. The stance of the hockey project on wikipedia is that the Soviet League was a strictly amateur league up until the change. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
First, please stop threatening, it's not honest. You are the one causing this edit war. I'm not regestered, but i'm familiar with the rules. My formulation is NPOV, your one pushes a POV. But you yourself admit the professional-amature case is disputed!!! That's why i keep it completely out. Thats the whole point. The fact the Soviet beated NHL temas in the series just proves we should ugnore the professional-amature thing, since it is disputed, and focus stricktly on achievments. I'm a Detroit fan, live in Israel. I'm c-o-m-p-l-e-t-l-e-y nutral here, so if you took me wrong i'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Except that one game does not mean throughout history its the best team. I am not threatening, I was warning. The fact you reverted it now a 4th time gives me ample reason to block you but I didn't. I was however trying to get you to discuss the issue without blindly reverting back and forth. However, since you keep insisting on having it your way maybe I should have you blocked. As for me disputing, its you who disputed what was there in the first place and changed it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh a lighter note, being a fan of Detroit probably would make you more biased as you are trying to knock down the might Canadiens so to speak. -Djsasso (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Actualy i have symphaty to Montreal. I think their achievments bring pride to NHL and that the fact they are not strong today as then denounces the whole league. I think it's sad Canadian players who grew up in Montreal play for USA teams only because of money. If not the huge money of USA clubs, Montreal would still rule, and that would be fair. 79.180.172.187 (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Anon you've breached 3RR at those articles; again - discuss you proposed changes first. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
And thats what i'm doing. My formulation is nutral thats why it should say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.172.187 (talk • contribs)
This is very true. I have no ill will toward you or your opinion. I just think the best way to word it is to say one is professional and one is amateur so that arguements about validity can be avoided, because as is seen by their complete lack of championships since they turned pro, its fairly obvious they were stacking the teams that played the NHL teams etc and once they turned pro they could no longer benefit from that. To argue that the CSKA was on the level of the Canadiens as a normal league team is false. It was more a case of the Soviet Leagues all-star team playing an individual NHL team. -Djsasso (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Montreal to ended in 92. And? It was Soviet teams, regular teams, not only CSKA. Looks, you see it's disputed, thats why i did the NPOV fprmulation.
I recommend 79.180.172.187 be blocked for breaching 3RR on Montreal Canadiens and HC CSKA Moscow articles. He seems unwilling to discuss his idea's first. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I already beat you too it. I wanted to let him discuss the idea and let his first breach pass. But when he reverted a number of other people I had to do it. Ironically the last few he reveted were people switching it to the way he originally wrote it. -Djsasso (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely a case of heavy revert thumb. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think its just a case of someone newer to wikipedia not quite sure how things work and then getting a little heated when things don't go their way. Next time they will probably understand its better to talk. I actually meant for him to go to the team talk page and discuss it, should have been more clear I suppose. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
IP rookie mistakes, to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So you support that kind of concensus? I have seen the other users reverted me to my first version, but just for the record, i reverted them not just to revert, but because i was shure you hate it and would resist so i went to a softer version. If you like it, fine, i only tried to make it better. If the Montreal case is closed i dont mind, less head ache.

CSKA today are even officaly professional. They are a regular professional team. Morever, they agree or admitt, that then they were professional. Why i want to ignore the professional-amature thing? Beacause you yourself know it's disputed, so lets look on achievments only. Lets ignore the disputed thing. Dont get me wrong. I havent written they are the best but "one of the best, if not the best". So it's completely NPOV.

And it's sad that people started reverted me without even knowing that we have a discussion on your talk page. By blocking me how did it help to the discussion? I'm seriously thinking of signing up. Then i'll have a normal talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.161.47 (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's sad that certain IPs seem incapable of leaving the articles as they were, before their edits. AGAIN, discuss what you want changed at talk: HC CSKA Moscow first. You're not going to get anywhere by making your changes first, then discussiong it. Indeed you're being disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Your the disruptive one here!!! Havent you noticed that there is a big discussion here?? Havent you read it?? Belive me, the discussion here goes nice without you. If you would learn the whole case you would see that the mission is not to do "my edits" but to create an NPOV opinion. And thats what's being done here!!! 79.181.157.144 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I see that reasoning with you, isn't going to be successful. Very well, continue with your disruptive ways. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For Djsasso

Hey Dj, I'm gonna let you (and others) handle things at HC CSKA Moscow. The IP is being too uncooperative, for my taste. He/she is only ticking me off. GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness, our IP friend has (I believe) finnaly registered as User: TheJokerrr; and better yet, he's interested in the same articles as I am (for example: Peter III of Russia & President of Cuba etc); who'd a thought eh? cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, we also got a new registered User named User:Necklace01, also interested in HC CSKA Moscow; even cooler. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you would checkuser us you would see no connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.167.107 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about connections? Aren't you being a tad paranoid? GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You said. You wrote it here, which is my discussion with Djasso, and i write from an IP, so beetwen me and Djasso you probably mean me. Anyway
Anyway, if you want, checkuser us. I'm from Israel, check where they are from and it will be clear to you.

Djasso, i moved the discussion to the talk page of the Montreal article as you guys tol me. All this time i was shure everybody read it here they are simply to get involved! You could move it yourself instead of blocking me yesterday by the argument i dont discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.167.107 (talk) 13:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] en dash

Hi. I thought I knew what I was doing changing to an en dash in the Luc Bourdon article. Was I wrong? If so, what did I do wrong? I want to make sure I do it right from now on. --Elliskev 15:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh you didn't do wrong, basically its just cleaner to use the actual character instead of the HTML code. Most people don't realize how easy it is to do without using the html code. All you have to do is hold down ALT and them press 0150 and it will make the actual character. -Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for that tip. --Elliskev 16:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Well, fine. As a joke I added the names Curly and Shemp to Larry and Moe Robinson on the "relatives in the NHL" site. You found them, sent a warning, deleted them. Fair enough. On the other hand, I don't know why you decided to delete references to Aurel Joliat (I saw the broadcast in question and met the man not long afterwards at the 1986 Hall of Fame banquet), or why changes were made to Greg Terrion's bit -- he WAS a checking line center who often played with Dan Daoust. I know! I was there for Pete's sake up in the press box of Maple Leaf Gardens, 1985-86. I remember when Miro Ihnacak was smuggled out of Czechoslovakia, and how various newspapers, including The Hockey News, called him Miro the Zero because he didn't amount to anything. Or that Mark Howe played with Brad McCrimmon in the mid 80s and the two of them racked up incredible plus/minus stats. I suppose if I had mentioned that Howe had won the Emery Edge trophy for plus/minus stats (an NHL trophy back then), that would have been deleted too. I see all sorts of things on Wikipedia that are not annotated. Apart from the small joke -- which as I said, caught fair and square and right away -- what was wrong with the other postings?

by the way, I accidentally sent my first attempt here. Do I remove it or you? Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Djsasso/Archive_4" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.185.67 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with most of them were that they contained opinions on the type of players these people were. Opinions are to be left out of articles. Facts are ok when backed up with reference, but opinons are not. In the case of Joliat, well the fact that he was seen playing pinball isn't really encyclopedic. -Djsasso (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

...but his white hair flying in the wind was? Joliat, I mean.

You do what you need to do Djasso, you have the authority, but commenting on how good a player was, or their particular style shows up in a lot of player bios. I mean Tiger Williams had to have a REASON for being the most penalized player in the game, otherwise the numbers -- impressive as they are -- really don't mean anything other than he sure tripped a lot of guys or had a lot of delay of games. The fact he was pugnacious would have to enter into it. The fellow -- name escapes at the moment -- who was smashed in the face by Wilf Paiement around 1979 or so -- is said to have been a top-notch "trash talker". Those words exactly. How is saying that Terrion was a checking centre different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.185.67 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying those sorts of things can't be in the article, but you need a source from a reliable source that backs up that they are those things. Either way I have no more authority than anyone else, I was just trying to point out that there might be a better way to write what you were mentioning. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you delete KevJumba's page?

Why? KevJumba's page has updated references from major newspaper (San Francisco Chronicle) and other independent sources. Other Youtube comedians have their own wiki pages, so why couldn't KevJumba have his page? If you want to delete youtube comedians, at least be consistent and delete all of them. Otherwise, your deletion of KevJumba's page was prejudicial.—Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 22:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to have reliable sources for people, and youtube is not considered reliable. You need sources from other notable publications in order to pass WP:V and WP:Notability (people). -Djsasso (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It has reliable sources including an article from San Francisco Chronicle (SF Gate) which is the largest newspaper in San Francisco and Northern California. (June 5, 2008) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/05/DDIF113834.DTL

Here are other sources NOT from Youtube:

http://aarising.com/aprofiler/kevjumba.htm

http://www.newsflavor.com/Entertainment/Kevjumba-The-New-Celebrity.127862 —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

when are you going to restore the page or is it impossible to convince you to restore it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 12:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's be deleted atleast 3 different times by afd. I suggest you take it to deletion review if you would like it restored and they will !vote on it again. -Djsasso (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. I don't want to waste my time talking to nazi censors. Your deletion was censorship and suppression of free speech based on prejudice. Just so you know, of the top 5 most subscribed youtube comedians, the 3 white comedians have wiki pages, but the two asian comedians had their wiki pages deleted and blocked from creation. Sorry to see that wikipedia is run by a bunch of small-minded bigots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not about tracking youtube popularity (or any popularity at all), but rather about notability, that piece of information is not useful. The race of any person involved, either as an editor or as the subject of any article on Wikipedia, is not the point.  Frank  |  talk  14:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Notability is the key. Oh and umm, wikipedia is 'run' by you as much as it is by Djsasso or me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Notability as defined by whom? the white media? you? don't you see the problem? Notability is just an excuse for excluding people. Back in the dark days, the southern states found all sorts of ways to exclude black people from voting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs)
As you have been told, on a number of occasions, this is about verifiability and notability, not about ethnicity. Please see WP:V and WP:Notability (people). This will be much more productive than tossing around unfounded allegations of racism. Please be civil. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
In my view, the page meets the WP Notability criteria, so what's your point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So then go to the deletion review link I gave you and make your case. -Djsasso (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
To the same people who deleted it? What a waste of time. It's pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the idea, is that it is a different group of people who will look at it. Would be a better use of your time than arguing to us. -Djsasso (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You were wrong to delete the page in the first place. You did not follow the WP Notability guideline. Just because it was deleted many months ago does not mean that it should be deleted now. The new page contains new sources from recent newspaper and web publications. According to the WP guideline, you were not supposed to delete it unless you could show that it did not meet the criteria. The guideline further states that "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The SF Chronicle and other web sources clearly met the criteria. Your deletion was not justified. You abused your power as an administrator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of the page was entirely within the guidelines. You are not interpreting the entire quote you listed above, and you have to understand that it's not the ONLY thing that determines whether a subject is notable. The quote includes "reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This automatically precludes youtube and blogs, including blogs by the subject of an article. The article that was deleted may have had a link to a SF Chronicle article, but that is not enough to establish notability. It needs to be about the subject, not just a quote from the subject, and it needs to occur enough times - and in enough places - that notability is clear.
There is definitely a deletion review process that you can go through, and in fact other editors would take part in it. You are also welcome to create the article again and see if other editors feel it should be deleted. In either case, you will be able to determine if anyone has "abused" power, or if in fact it is community consensus that is being employed here. I am confident you'll find it is the latter, but regardless of the outcome, I encourage you to use the tools available to you rather than just hanging around here. You have already gotten a few opinions on the matter; there are plenty of other editors whose opinions you can solicit. Remember that deletion of an article is not personal - this is about content, not a particular editor (or two).  Frank  |  talk  12:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Followup - I see this article cannot be created directly because it's been protected (too many deletions already). However, you can try to create an article in your user space and find sources which show notability, then have other editors review it to see if it meets guidelines. I personally think that will be hard to do, because he's a teenager with a youtube account (so what) but that doesn't mean it can't be done. (And, if you wait long enough, and he actually does become notable, it will be no problem at that point.)  Frank  |  talk  12:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines. In my view, the article met the guidelines and should not be deleted. Why should a few editors decide what the world can see on wikipedia? It's censorship which could be abused. The problem is that administrators could misuse the "notability guidelines" as a pretext to exclude articles. I also don't understand why it should be protected from creation. New sources about him become available and there is no reason to block it. The fact that people try to create new articles about him means people think he is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by V12345c (talk • contribs) 13:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, instead of beating a dead horse here, why don't you take some of the suggestions here?Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
When/If new sources become available people can request that a page be unblocked by an admin so they can edit it. However, this page along with various other spellings of his name have been deleted upwards of 10 times now so all the various spellings have been protected. The fact people try to create articles about him means he is popular. Notability is not equal to popularity. -Djsasso (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Your disagreement is definitely open to discussion, and I highly encourage you to go to deletion review for that. It's not about "a few editors" - it's about community consensus. If you feel the article is not getting a fair look, deletion review is the place to go. Also, please sign your comments on all talk pages by adding ~~~~ at the end of each comment you make so people know who wrote what.  Frank  |  talk  14:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Jokerrr

Hey DJ, I must say in a way he or she has a clever username... Anyway, just a heads up, this person is reverting changes you, and I and GoodDay have made, including reverting typo fixes... I think this person may be a fan of Central Red Army, though that is just a guess... Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am betting its yet another sock puppet of the 65.94.xx.xx IP and Wassup and IrishForce and Nightsunne etc. I am probably going to be putting in a suspected sock puppet in an hour or so on them. I won't add him yet but if he continues to just revert edits by 3 of the people who happen to be reverting the edits of the 65.94.xx.xx IP then I will have to assume he is also one of the sock puppets. -Djsasso (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that is much more likely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Jokerrr is certainly wild. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll go off the board for 50 Jack and take Trolls.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing nicknames

Where's the decision? I haven't found it and I don't see much of a reason for doing so yet. Mass rollbacking your recent edits is tempting. ;-) Maxim(talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is part in the main talk page of the project, and then on the infobox template. The reasoning for it is the constant adding of things like "Ozzie" for Osgood and Staalsy for Staal etc etc which aren't true nicknames. We are attempting to make people put nicknames in the prose and sourced instead of the infobox. The field has actually been removed from the infobox for awhile. I am just going through removing them now to fix things like references that got messed up when the field was removed. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

From Nickname, "A nickname is a name of an entity or thing that is not its proper name." Being that "Ozzie" is not a proper name, it is therefore a nickname. All pointless now though. Asher196 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

And the next sentence. "Not to be confused with a familiar or truncated form of the proper name, such as Bob, Bobby, Rob, Robbie, Robin, and Bert for Robert which is called a short name." -Djsasso (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
We will just have to disagree in this area. Asher196 (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Line edits

Heh, good luck there; I'd watched the affected pages while I decided whether to revert or just AfD the lot. User:Dkender's already been pretty intemperate on my talk page, and going back over his own (which he's blanked), he's already been blocked for WP:NPA violations. Just wanted to give you the heads up!  RGTraynor  15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh I know, it was your talk page that alerted me to it so I thought I would back you up. I will probably just afd them if he reverts again. It would be different if ground had been atleast broken because then it would meet WP:CRYSTAL in that it was most likely going to happen. In Calgary we happen to have the same sort of thing going on with our train line. And they keep changing their minds, so in city politics you just shouldn't make articles until things are done. -Djsasso (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize you and Traynor had such a mutual admiration society going on. Traynor is too immature to discuss how immature he is, and you're no better. Have fun. I wish you would AfD those pages so that the rest of the community could get involved in your actions. Dkendr (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually me and him often disagree on various topics, just happen to agree with him on this topic there is no need to attack other users because they disagree with you. Continue to attack other users and you will be blocked again. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite, and indeed, Djsasso and I've butted heads vigorously on a few issues - I wouldn't get between us on a debate about the proper applications of national spelling variants, for example. He is, however, an efficient, knowledgeable and dedicated editor who has never stooped to flinging repeated insults or "declare war" at any editor with whom he's disagreed, and I respect his service, ability and judgment without necessarily having to agree with him on every point. As to community involvement, I see that you're an inexperienced editor, so you may not realize quite how down people are on repeated personal attacks, but I wouldn't in your shoes be sanguine about the prospect.  RGTraynor  17:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purple Line

Review the pages for WMATA Silver Line stations such as Route 772, which are unbuilt, and tell me that they should not have pages either. Dkendr (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

First off there is a difference between planned and proposed. Secondly you are using a other stuff exists argument which isn't really going to help your case. -Djsasso (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I didn't touch the Silver Line station articles: the Silver Line's been approved, and I'm bemused that anyone would have trouble realizing the distinction.  RGTraynor  17:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Latest Reverts

They actualy made a mistake with the Sockpupeting. I mean, if i'm such a nationalist, and a Russian one, how can my IP be from Israel? But thats possible, and i guess the guy they thought me for was also from Israel, i'm from that immigration to (1 Million out of 6 Million in Israel are from the USSR), there ain't another explanation for the blocking, but then comes a second question. Enter my user contribution's page. Could you find one edit there which is not related to sports? Where are the nationalist topics? The guy they thought me for most of his contribution page is ethnic topics. But nevermind, dont care about it so much. No account - i cant create articles. Less work for me - wikipedia looses. Thats one. Now the second point. If I would promote CSKA, why would I delete the phrase, which not I added, which states that "CSKA is one of the most succesful sport clubs ever" in the begining of the history section there? Which ironicaly, you returned when you reverted me there. P.S. What you reverted there was decided to be there not by me but in a discussion on the talk page. You wanted to get back at me and you reverted a community decision. Funny ah? All i eventualy achieved is that in both texts we will speak directly in numbers, how much the team won what, and thats it. If for you any time it's not told your the greatest then it's insulting you, you should chech your nutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.3.32 (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So let me see if I understand this, you have been banned from editing wikipedia, and are still editing under another IP? OK...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Its called a proxy server, you can easily make your IP be anywhere in the world if you know how. And just because you are in Israel doesn't mean you can't be a Soviet Nationalist. Just because you push your nationalist ideas in sports doesn't mean you aren't pushing them. All of your edits pretty much involve making russia/ussr look better vs the rest of the world. Its a pretty clear cut case. A community decision that was based on a sock puppet and only a couple people took place in, a number of which could also have been your sock puppets. So the consensus becomes invalid. -Djsasso (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vince Weiguang Li

I noticed you were deleting and then later redirecting Vince Weiguang Li. Surely this is where the article should be (rather than at Tim McLean) as per Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators; while not finalised it suggests that there should not be an article for the victim, unless they were otherwise notable, and that there shouldn't be an article for the Perpetrator, unless they are otherwise notable, they killed a famous figure, or the motivation or "execution of the crime is unusual". That seems to be where we are. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually the article should be at neither, and should be at "Murder of Tim McLean" or some other such name. -Djsasso (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Djsasso"
Personal tools