User talk:Djsasso/Archive 2


Hi, do be more careful when you write comments like here. I saw it, and if Aeam had seen it, it wouldn't have been very nice. Kind regards (and be more careful next time!) Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And your point? -Djsasso (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Use preview, and if you did, read more carefully, that comment was awful. Regards, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
It was a mistake. I made the same one when I first saw the comment being removed, too. Either way (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
No the comment wasn't aweful, you need to stop being so childish. If people can't handle a mistake they shouldn't be on the internet and they are going to have a hard time in life. -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


For protecting my talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Cats

I suggest you read this. Kennedy (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read that, and the corrisponding ST discussion where a good number of people say user cats that help build the encyclopedia are good. Type of religion cats for example don't help people. But cats where you need a specific language speaker to help you translate or location categories where you need somone in a specific local to get info for you are very usefull. -Djsasso (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It proves in that discussion that they are not used. Besides, its only you in those categories. Cats need at least three pages to be valid (source: WP:CAT) Kennedy (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It isn't proved at all, and the fact that I am the only one in those cats make them all that much more important because I would be the only available one to help in reguards to them. It also says in in WP:CAT that they should have 3...not that they have to have 3. -Djsasso (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
You might also want to stop using invalid speedy deletions. The categories are not empty. And just so you know what I am referring to. Empty categories (with no articles or subcategories for at least four days) from QD C1. -Djsasso (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c x2)Begging your pardon, the discussion where its proved these type of categories are not used is here. Majorly linked to this. You could also see this which proves they're not useful. The deletion reason is not incorrect, but which would you suggest? The categories are almost empty... It also depends on your interpretation of the word "should"- "there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. There should be a minimum of three articles that would fit into the category before a new category is created." I'd say that means there should be three, otherwise the category is not necessary... Kennedy (talk) 14:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess thats a matter of opinion, 19 times accessed in a month on a wiki this small seems to me like they are very much used. -Djsasso (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree the city one is probably a bit much, but I don't see a provincial one or a national one as being overcategorization. -Djsasso (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Independent view - the C1 criterion does indeed say empty category so it's best not to use it for this purpose - it may be that we need to change the wording following a community discussion. In my opinion, these categories are examples of vast "overcategorisation" so should be deleted, but probably as Djsasso says, via RFD. There's no rush Kennedy, so why not just nominate them all at once, and we can continue this important discussion there and get the community involved? Deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how RfD is appropriate here. It meets QD criteria as they are not proper categories. And 19 views does not mean they are used. One wonders who these people are, viewing this category; likely me, you and TRM through the creation, deletion, revertion, deletion, revertion and outside view. Either way, I'll take it to RfD... Kennedy (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
RFD is best until we tighten our C1 speedy criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I would note that 19 views was last month not this month. -Djsasso (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair do's. I'd still say that even 19 in a month does not make it useful. Kennedy (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


85px User:Kennedy has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!
As a peace offering for the above discussion which went too far. :) Kind Regards, Kennedy (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
It's all good. Sometimes we just get passionate about the things we think are important. I think I was just frustrated that it looked like it was just my categories you targeted when there are lots of other user cats. But I missed that 4th cat you deleted. :) -Djsasso (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My failed RfA

Hello Djsasso! It was a really big understanding mistake. see on my talk page. I never would accept a nom by Snow.... The sign of BG7 let me thought, that he want to nominate me now. I want to say sorry for the problems with this nom. And thank you for deleting the page. And: I wouldn't vote really sure "support" at the moment, because I'm not 3 months here. Now I wait until the mid of June, because I'm a little bit busy until then. So I want to say, that I can understand your oppose. Best Regards, Barras (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


Hope you don't mind. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your recent deletions

I just saw the following in Special:RecentChanges:

  • (Deletion log); 17:19 . . Djsasso (talk | changes) deleted "1970 PHS" (QD R3: Redirect with an uncommon typo)
  • (Deletion log); 17:19 . . Djsasso (talk | changes) deleted "1969 AHS" (QD R3: Redirect with an uncommon typo)
  • (Deletion log); 17:19 . . Djsasso (talk | changes) deleted "1967 AHS" (QD R3: Redirect with an uncommon typo)
  • (Deletion log); 17:19 . . Djsasso (talk | changes) deleted "1963 AHS" (QD R3: Redirect with an uncommon typo)
  • (Deletion log); 17:18 . . Djsasso (talk | changes) deleted "1960 AHS" (QD R3: Redirect with an uncommon typo)

AHS and PHS are respectively abbreviations for Atlantic hurricane season and Pacific hurricane season. Apologies if I am misunderstanding. --Dylan620 Review me 17:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you were doing with them, but redirects must be something that is likely to be typed by the general audience. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Should Loremipsum be deleted, then? --Dylan620 Review me 17:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Lack of a space is a plausible typo. -Djsasso (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, 1970 PHS, 1969 AHS, 1967 AHS, 1963 AHS, and 1960 AHS are all valid redirects on the English Wikipedia, and there is some anecdotal evidence[1][2][3] to suggest that "PHS" and "AHS" are common qualifiers for storms. Redirects are cheap; they don't need to be widely used, but anything that helps readers find what they're looking for is a decidedly Good Thing. EVula // talk // 18:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, those were indeed valid redirects. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good enough for me, when I looked for use of them I couldn't really find anything from a serious source. -Djsasso (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Should Teletubbies be protected indefinely? Because they were for a long time. And shouldn't it have a protection template? Smiles (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I added the protection template. I recommend indefine semi-protection as a dispute. Charlotteswebmedia (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
He/She was actually a sockpuppet vandal and has since been fact I am pretty sure you two are the same person so i suspect you will be soon as well. -Djsasso (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

My RfA


This page was first made as the Disney character, only moved to Jafar (Aladdin) because it was that on English. Not anymore, so please clean this up? (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I just wanted to say sorry for all the bad I've done. We've had rough times, and haven't often got on very well. Our conversations on irc show that we can get on, and I'd prefer it that way here too. If you want, we can make a fresh start, and forget all our past conflicts. Anyway, thanks, Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 16:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -Djsasso (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
That being said its quite clear opinions are not wanted on this wiki and that everyone has to love each other, so I will probably no longer help in discussions and will only focus on deleting articles and reverting vandalism etc. Can't help a wiki that doesn't want to be helped. So you probably won't have any conflicts with me anymore anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to stay out of discussion. We just say what we both think, and we leave it there, no arguing. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander=</sup> 16:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh I agree, this isn't about you. Its about the wiki in general. Anyone that goes against the grain gets ostracized. And I don't just mean me. You could probably think of a number of editors that fit that bill. This wiki jumps on anyone who disagrees with them or is the slightest bit controversial. Its not worth the stress. -Djsasso (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Your RFB

Hello Djsasso. I just closed your recent RFB as unsuccessful. I'm sorry that it didn't work out as you had hoped, but with luck, some of the comments will help you find areas which you could work on should you wish to reapply for this position again in the future. Feel free to get in touch with me if you'd like further discussion about this, or indeed anything else. Once again, my commiserations but please continue to be the fantastic editor you are. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tough luck Djsasso, but I'm sure you'll do better next time. Keep at it! — RyanCross (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Unlucky mate.  GARDEN  20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Djsasso. I was undecided, but good luck in future endeavors. =) American Eagle (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Shame, but never mind. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Good luck in the future! Wish you luck, Razorflame 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It's all good, its not like you had a hard call TRM. haha :) Was the expected result. -Djsasso (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversightship/Djsasso

I've created this for you but I believe we should wait until we have another candidate so we can run at the same time. Best. Synergy 17:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversight pre-requisites

Since we're doing this rather ad-hoc, I'm just making sure that all candidates have read (and can accept) the Foundation's requirements for Oversight candidates. Please double check m:Oversight#Access to make sure you're eligible. EVula // talk // // 18:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup, mentioned I meet requirements on my acceptance statement. -Djsasso (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Per my recent entry on ST, I may well post a couple of questions to each candidate's RFO. I hope you don't mind. Good luck, and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope completely just kidding. Of course its cool. -Djsasso (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


No, it's not "probably good". Check the templates at the top of en:Skins (TV series). -- Marawe (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

By what I mean by probably good is that you now have attributed the source. Which makes the copied parts ok. I would say 80% of our articles are in some way copied from en. The copying from en is not a problem, its how they are copied that is the issue. -Djsasso (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I know, but this one was copied from a bad :en one, and uses difficult words. -- Marawe (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Template edits

Apologies for the edits to the attrib template. After being told to use it on the talk page by User:Synergy, I was under the impression that it was solely used on talk pages. Of course uses in edit summaries does not show up in the special page, what links here, so looking there stil gave that impression. Apologies for the inconvenience. I shall go and clue bat Synergy now. :) Seddon (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries, its not really all that big a deal and I totally saw where you were coming from. Personally I think making a notice on the talk page is a bit much. As long as you note in the edit summary where you are bringing the article from you are pretty much covered for GFDL. -Djsasso (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My RfB

Request for cratship

I've nominated you for crat here. Please consider carefully, and good luck! Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

OS heads up

I spun out all the candidate sections into individual subpages; make sure to add Wikipedia:Oversight candidates/DJSasso to your watchlist. EVula // talk // // 02:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your RFB

I have closed your Request for Bureaucratship as successful. Congratulations. Some concerns were raised in the oppose section and I'd urge you to consider them going forward. Enough of the community supported your promotion to bureaucrat in my opinion and thus you have been promoted. Good luck! fr33kman talk 04:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats Djsasso! Exert 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, wasn't expecting that! Congrats! –Juliancolton | Talk 04:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Happy days! NonvocalScream (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, Djsasso! We have a new 'crat!-- Tdxiang 09:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I am sorry to be a wet blanket, but your 'crat tools have been removed, following the removal request on Meta. A discussion will be up on ST soon, which will then determine what will happen after this. Chenzw  Talk  11:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey back at ya..

No offence taken in any form. I guess it's your bad luck that this was such a close call. Ordinarily it's either virtually unanimous support or total community indifference. This has exposed our "processes" once again, in my opinion. I wasn't ever seeking for the decision to be reversed, I just wanted Fr33kman to know that I was worried that what had occurred may set a tone for the future which possibly requires more discussion. It's also your bad luck that so few people bothered voting and yes, one extra vote would hit the 75% from the current 69%. Over at, as you know, RFB's almost invariably go way over 100 !votes... Anyway, no hard feelings either way I hope. Best. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

my recent edits

Did I do something wrong? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't your user pages. Those users may still wish comments. -Djsasso (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No, the reviews had been closed and archived. See here. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
No, they were archived off the review page. People can still comment on them. -Djsasso (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Sections with at least one review will be archived at Wikipedia:Editor review/Archives 30 days after they have been created, that's from WP:ER. Where does it say that the reviews can still be edited? Griffinofwales (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The lack of archive templates on the reviews which stop editing. We just move them off the review page so as not to have that page be messy. Either way you shouldn't ever touch another users user page unless you are reverting vandalism etc. Or there is an invitation to do so. -Djsasso (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The lack of archive templates on the reviews which stop editing. We just move them off the review page so as not to have that page be messy. My quote from above says they should be archived, so maybe we should start adding the templates. Either way you shouldn't ever touch another users user page unless you are reverting vandalism etc. Or there is an invitation to do so. I was just trying to clean the cat, but never mind. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The boxes aren't hurting anything. The categories aren't really "dirty," so they don't need to be cleaned. Just... leave them alone. You don't need to do anything. EVula // talk // // 04:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
That's what I'm doing. I learn something everyday. Griffinofwales2 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

hello! my bid to be an admin was closed because of my less than 100 edits, but I have more than 100 edits, I was trying to bring it back up for a vote, what can I do...I was not tryint to be "disruptive'...

thanks! Bubblycanuck (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The criteria suggests 500 edits as an absolute minimum. You also appear not to have a lot of experience. The RFA had very little chance of succeeding, so I suggest you try and contribute to the encyclopedia, and try again when you're ready. Shappy talk 15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
In general you don't end up being an admin until you have been around quite awhile and the community has gotten to know you. The numbers are just guidelines as to a bare minimum. Often times votes require you to have much more than that. Besides which its based on trust and knowledge of the tools more than pure edit numbers. -Djsasso (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
You only have, as of right now, 120 edits here[4] (and only 260 global edits). That's just way too low for an RfA to pass here. EVula // talk // // 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello DJSasso,

In accordance to what I have posted to Simple talk I have restored Fr33kman's original decision to promote you to the level of Bureacrat. I wish you all the best for this new role. I would also like to remind you that Fr33kman, the community of editors and administrators place a lot of trust in you - try to make sensible decisions, because that is what Bureaucratship is about. So let me congratulate you on your new status. All the best. --Eptalon (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: DodekBot

I didn't have much time and resources to run bot recently (for some values of recently). Also, I do not expect to do it more often in future. Feel free to remove its flag. Dodek (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


Please go ahead and add your candidacy. I set no end date. We need at least two elected. Good luck and thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

cats on redirects

Why would new articles be created? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Because he is redirecting a city to a prefecture. It is pretty simple to assume that the city will eventually have an article for itself. -Djsasso (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
In usual circumstances (spelling, nickname), there should not be any cats, right? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah if its just a common typo or an alternate spelling like New York, New York or New York City then you wouldn't bother with cats. But if you are redirecting a sub-topic of another topic categories are fine. -Djsasso (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Bruce Smeaton

I noticed you undid my edits to that article. 1. You didn't leave a very informative edits summary and 2. You used the default, which should only be used when dealing with vandalism. Why did you undo my edits? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I undid your edit, wasn't anything much else to say. You removed redlinks which is something you should never do. 2. Undo is good for all situations. Rollback is only for vandalism. -Djsasso (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
You're supposed to give a reason such as 'Do not remove redlinks, they should not be removed'. The default undo message is only for vandalism, try undoing this edit and see. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is what is known as a suggestion. -Djsasso (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
When they say please, they really mean do it. Look at some of our vandalism templates for evidence. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Dude, you need to relax. Step back a bit and breathe. Maybe wikis are too stressful for you? -Djsasso (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to sound mean. Thinking of something else. I don't think wikis are too stressful, this wiki is stressful (why would that be?). Maybe that's why everybody leaves. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing bot flag

I'm okay with removing my bot's flag. If I decided to reactive my bot here, I'll let you/others know. - Huji reply 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You -> Your

I've become too dependent on the modern tech. Thank you for fixing that, I'm too dense. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I do it all the time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I think you might have made a mistake, and accidentally UNDID good changes? Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


It's not a redlink if it's blue. Most of our changers will not click on a interwiki link because it's blue. That's why I think we should either 1. remove the link entirely (which I usually do) or 2. change it to a normal wikilink. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mythdon

So I hadn't been editing from September 3 to September 7, and no attacking went on. Well, now, with the hidden revision that is recent, there is apparently attacking upon me returning probably because I returned to editing this Wikipedia. Please protect my talk page until October 15 at the earliest. I am getting tired of the attacks by them IP's. Mythdon (talkchanges) 19:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Can you email me so I can verify your address for the Oversight mailing list? Thanks. EVula // talk // // 19:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


What was this for? Read the en. article. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read the en article. They are the same people. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Simple says it's a group, en says it's one person. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Remeber we are a wiki that caters to people who can't speak english very well and thus don't always word things clearly. They clearly are the same person as they both name the same single as their big hit. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Wow, didn't see that. Thanks, should be more careful in the future. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Please remove the bot flag. Don't need it anymore. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


As for willingness to discuss, yes he shows that he is willing to discuss, and then blatantly ignores everything everyone tells him. and was in regards to the fact I almost blocked him for a week only a few days ago. In the first instance, I'd love a thread/diff, and in the second, I'd like to know why, since I don't recall any conversations where you mentioned this to me. Griffinofwales (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said I told you I was going to block you. -DJSasso (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, then. What did I do that you considered block worthy. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Continued to do things that you were told a number of times that you shouldn't do. I thought that was pretty clear in my statement. -DJSasso (talk) 16:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What were those things? If I'm doing something that I've been told not to do, please tell me, otherwise I don't know of my error. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Read your talk page, its full of things people repeatedly tell you to stop doing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Reverting too fast? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems with coordinates

I have found that the Template:Coord is not working right. I saw that the last activity in the history of the template was by you and maybe some of your changes are not working right. If you go to the page of the template you can see that most examples show wrong; only when the coordinates are in decimal the template works. If you think that your changes are not the cause of this problem, please let me know. Thanks. -Jmarcano (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I just imported it from en. What you are seeing is that some of the underlying templates probably haven't been transferred over as well. I will see if I can see what is causing it. I hadn't meant to import coord so I may just end up deleting it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I have found that in many articles, if not in all, the problem has been corrected. Anyhow, thanks. -Jmarcano (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Who you cheer for...

You Canadian and i bet your proud of it good for you man also just wanted to ask if you cheer for the toronto blue jays? they didn't have a good year but lets go for next year. Cheers (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it

" It is unexcusable that a crat woul forgo closing so they could try and push a candidate they like to passing. To be honest I was this close to putting both of them up to strip them of their bits. While it is not necessarily abuse of their bits, it is definately misuse. " - if you think I've abused my position, feel free to pursue my de-cratting however you see fit. Chenzw's vote made the RFA pop up on my watchlist, I voted soon afterwards. The fact it was a short time after the theoretical minimum duration of the RFA was incidental. But as I said, if you think I'm not doing my job correctly then do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No the reason I didn't was that I decided it wasn't bad enough to warrant that sort of drama. I do think that a crat who sees a rfa that should be closed and instead votes is misusing their position however. I have no problem with a crat voting any time within the time parameters since you did have 7 days in which you could have made your vote. That was the issue, since I know you saw the rfa prior to the expiration of it. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, that's why it was on my watchlist. But I hadn't voted and then I did, just after Chenzw's vote made the page pop back to the top of my watchlist. There will be no drama. If you think (as you stated) I "misused" something then I would be very happy for you to pursue my de-crat. Of course, if not it would be advisable for you to be careful when you throw statements about "misuse" around. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
No I fully believe you misused them. I don't trow around terms like misuse lightly. I don't however believe it outweighs your other contributions. I think what you did was really bad, don't get me wrong. But I think having to have the drama and such that would come from such an action would outweigh any benefit of removing them. -DJSasso (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well you're wrong. Totally wrong. And I don't appreciate you spreading lies about me around this Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Pardon my intrusion, I'm offering informal mediation if you need. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I politely decline at this time. If Djsasso wants to accuse me of "misuse" (of what, I know not) and abusing my "position" because I voted late, and vaguely threaten to de-crat me then he needs to put up or shut up. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
How is an opinion a lie? You did something that I feel you shouldn't have done, there is no lie in that. You don't have to agree with my opinion. But I have had others say they were disappointed that crats saw an rfa that should have been closed and thought, oh I should vote and not close. So I hardly think I am not justified in thinking the way I do. I however did not because I didn't want to start this kind of bickering that you are now doing. Voting instead of closing an expired rfa is the misuse, if you don't see that then you shouldn't be in a position where you decide rfas. I actually took the high road by not putting up an decrat for you because you do such good article work. But now your incivility is quite distressing as well. -DJSasso (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I voted because I wanted to vote. Just because I'm a 'crat it doesn't mean I can't vote. It was unfortunate that it was just after the expiry of the RFA but that really, really is inconsequential. I haven't "misused" anything. Your opinion is fine, but you state as fact " It is unexcusable that a crat woul forgo closing so they could try and push a candidate they like to passing." This is a outright lie. I (and I presume Chenzw) had no intention whatsoever attempting to "try and push (sic) a candidate [we] like to passing". That's a lie. Now that really is uncivil. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Again that was called stating an opinion. In my opinion it is a fact. You had 7 days to vote, you even had it watchlisted. If it was a case of I didn't know about the vote until the last minute, fine. But you clearly above have said you had it watchlisted so you had 7 days to vote, after 7 days, no I don't think you had the right to vote anymore, you had the obligation to close. I don't think its inconsequential at all. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
No, that was you spreading lies about me and Chenzw. You, as a crat, have gone on record as accusing two other crats of "unexecusable (sic)" behaviour. You need to take a look at yourself and what you're saying. You've accused two fellow 'crats of trying to "push a candidate" to passing. This is unacceptable. You need to step up to the mark and do something about it or retract it publicly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, not a lie. People are allowed to have opinons. A lie would be me saying you went and gave an admin bit to someone when you didn't. You both voted when you should have closed. I don't care if you think that is a bad thing to say, I believe it so it won't be retracted. Chenzw atleast had the sense to admit that his vote could be struck. I am disappointed in you quite frankly. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You're sadly mistaken. You lied because you stated categorically that I and Chenzw were rigging the RFA. Frank disappointment doesn't cover this. You've lied and sullied my and Chenzw's names. Disgusting. A fellow 'crat? Your behaviour needs analysis. Strike my vote, no-one actually asked me what I thought. You were just allowed to spread the lies about me and then the subject was closed. Retract your accusation/opinion or substantiate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You voted support. Therefore you must have liked the candidate so that part is substantiated. Supporting a candidate generally means they are closer to passing so the fact your vote pushed him closer to passing is substatiated. So show me what part of that is not true. Did you not support? Or does supporting a canidate not make them more likely to pass? -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have to "like" a candidate to vote for him. Wrong. I just have to be convinced he or she won't harm the Wikipedia. You know very well that you were suggesting I and Chenzw were trying to rig this RFA. And it's disgusting. And as a 'crat you should know better. And even if you claim "that's not what you said" that's certainly how I and hundreds of other people will read it. And as a 'crat you should be able to offer your opinion without throwing wild accusations around. And as a 'crat, you should retract your accusation that we were "pushing a candidate" to passing or prove it. And as a 'crat, if you genuinely believe what you've written about me and Chenzw, you have an obligation to do something about it. Your choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean "like" in a friend sense, I meant like as in the candidate you suppoted. Maybe that is what is tripping you up I don't know. I do think you ignored the fact the rfa should be closed so that your vote would help to make a candidate you supported pass otherwise why would you vote support. If you had said right away that you didn't know that time had expired I would have apologized for my misreading of the situation by now. But you up to this point have not said that so I have no other choice but to continue thinking I am correct. Had you voted support and then closed as successful I would haev called for your tools 100% because that is clear abuse. What you did on the otherhand I believe is just misuse, violation of ethics perhaps is a way to explain what I think. Not illegal, but not on the up and up. This is why I felt I had no obligation to step up and do something about it. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's down to a lack of experience, but you really really should learn how to communicate effectively and appropriately with your fellow 'crats. You could have talked to me directly but, no, you leave a heavily damaging and derogatory note at the noticeboard which I didn't even see until today. I want you to clarify to the community that you categorically do not believe that Chenzw nor I were attempting to rig the RFA. You may not think that's what you meant, and your many "explanations" for what you said etc are all very well, many many people will read what you've said the "wrong" way. Please start a new thread on the admin noticeboard where the community can judge my behaviour, it's the least you can do. Drama or not, you've started this so the least you can do is finish it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This wiki has a reputation for admins and crats doing things that they shouldn't do. I have never promised anyone that I wouldn't call out people that made mistakes when I see it. Quite the opposite in fact, people knew that about me going into putting me in this position. You made a mistake, until you admit it, I won't be retracting my statement. It is actions like these which help to damage the way this place looks to those outside Crats are no different than any other editor on the wiki and are not infallable, you do make mistakes. Crat's do not get special treatment because they are my fellow crats. I am here to stop exactly these sorts of actions. If you feel damaged then I can't do much about it because its your action that caused it. And quite honestly I feel the attacks on me here probably made you look worse. Should I have talked to you privately about it first? Perhaps. But being called out in public usually makes a person less likely to do it again than being told in private. -DJSasso (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You made a mistake. You called me wrong. And you did it in public. And I doubt the damage can ever be undone. You needed to speak to me maturely, not launch a personal attack on me (and Chenzw). I've made no attack on you at all than to attempt to defend myself from your defamation on my character. You're wrong. And you've handled it badly by attempting to "out" the two of us. I don't care what "reputation" you think this Wikipedia has, I care about my and Chenzw's reputation and your mud-slinging is plain offensive. Start a thread on the admin board. Get the community to examine my (and Chenzw's) behaviour. The only mistake I made was to not even realise that you had started defaming me without bothering to even leave a note on my talkpage. I'm not asking for special treatment, quite the contrary, I want you to bring this to the attention of the whole community and let them decide. And as for "being called out in public usually makes a person less likely to do it again than being told in private" - I am not a child and do not wish to be treated like one. Disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I did bring it to the attention of the whole wiki, notice that it was posted on a public noticeboard. No one seemed to dispute me or tell me I was being unreasonable. You are acting like a child and throwing a hissyfit. Chances are no one would have noticed or cared had you not continued ranting here on my page so any damage that might be caused is probably your fault. What you are probably worried about is that en will notice your mistake here and react poorly to it. -DJSasso (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Um, I'm entitled to feel badly treated because you chose to cry wolf to the community and not even have the courtesy to tell me you had done. I have, at no point, made any "misuse" or "abuse" of my position as a 'crat. You, on the other hand, have behaved incredibly weakly - what happened to discussion and addressing people personally? - no, you just posted an edit that said my and Chenzw's behaviour was "unexecusable (sic)". You need to learn that if you're prepared to say that, you need to follow up on it. And seriously, you really think en wiki has anything to do with this? Then you're even more mistaken than I first thought. I've said to you many times in this discourse that you should address this specific point to the community. I have absolutely nothing to hide. Your tone, your accusations and your on-going denial of any wrong-doing is much more troubling than anything I've ever dealt with on Don't forget, this is Simple English Wikipedia. You have to choose your wordings carefully. Either prove your accusations or retract them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing to proove TRM. You voted in a rfa that was expired. You voted support in a rfa that would have been a clear close had you not voted therefore your vote helped his chance to pass. Nothing I said was untrue. You committed a wrong, you are not perfect, stop trying to shift blame and act like the angel. If you want to know how others feel, feel free to start a thread. I clearly said in that same comment that I didn't think it was bad enough to do anything about it. And I still don't. -DJSasso (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. I'm starting a thread for others to comment. I've never tried to shift blame nor have I said I was an angel. I just said your accusations and lies are unacceptable and that your behaviour is very very disappointing, particularly as you have so many tools. You "clearly said in that same comment that I didn't think it was bad enough to do anything about it"? No but you were happy to call my and Chenzw's behaviour "unexecusable". That, in itself, is inexcusable behaviour from a fellow 'crat. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy (which you did not extend to me), I have added a comment to the noticeboard so the community has a chance to discuss your assessment of mine and Chenzw's behaviour. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine, if you think I have to agree with everything you do then whatever you want. I am allowed to disagree with a decision a crat has made, especially if its a bad one. Your action was inexcusable. -DJSasso (talk) 22:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
And I've added a thread to WP:ST which directs the community there as well. My "action was inexcusable"? Really? Unlike yours, to accuse fellow 'crats of impropriety? To suggest they'd tried to fix an RFA? To suggest I was worried about an reaction? You need to look closer to home. I never said you had to "agree with everything" I do. I just wanted you to clarify that you didn't think Chenzw and I were trying to force an RFA through. Your tone, your language, your comments, they all suggest that we're "up to something". But you have zero evidence. And what I object to is your "hit-and-run" attitude where you can slate our behaviour and then just carry on. Hence the threads I've started. Note, it's there for the world to see. And I told you about it. Some things you could learn. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying a 'crat acted improperly. Zero. More editors should hold admins an crats acountable like that. I do think you tried to make it more likely he would pass instead of fail. Whether that is rigging, I don't know. You voted in a case that would have been an absolute clear fail had you closed it. Instead you both voted and pushed it into a zone where it could have been a pass. Whether that is what you were trying to do or not. That is what it looked like you were doing, and that is where I have the problem. Looks are everything on here. -DJSasso (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Take it the talkpages. There's plenty of useful discussion there. I'm entitled to vote. The "zone where it could have been a pass" is incidental. In fact, it's your problem. I exempted myself as I voted from deciding on the outcome. Do you get that? So anyway, saying "Looks are everything on here" has utterly undermined any trust I ever had in you. Content is everything. Contributions are everything. Trust is everything. Assuming good faith is everything. Looks? Nothing. You failed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I am trying to keep this wiki from getting shut down, and looks are exactly what is going to cause that to happen or not to happen. Content is why we are here, but content won't keep us open. As much as you might think it will. You are entitled to vote within the 7 days, not after. -DJSasso (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Please state your commentary on the community talkpages. Content most definitely will keep us open. This kind of stupidity and back-stabbing will kill us. 'Crats should work as a team, not as a group of snipers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

GFDL attribution

When you create new articles, as you have today, clearly based on the version of the same article (even down to referring to non-existent categories), you really ought to provide GFDL attribution of the article and the version you based it on. Usually we use the {{enwp based}} template for this, on the newly created article's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I didn't on these particular pages is that lists of stats are not copywritable. But yes, when I copy paragraphs of text I will mark them in that mannor. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't the stats which worried me, it was the verbatim copy of the opening lines of the lead. And note, the template requires you to add the version of the page, not just a link to the page itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Right, the opening sentence would not be copywritable as well as it is only a single sentence. In order for it to be copywritable you need to be able to show originality of thought. Which is not possible in most one sentence leads. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Hold on, in the 2004-05 NHL lockout you've copied and pasted across, the lead says "The 2004–05 NHL lockout resulted in the cancellation of what would have been the 88th season of the National Hockey League (NHL). It was the first time the Stanley Cup was not awarded since 1919, and the first time a major professional sports league in North America canceled a complete season because of a labour dispute. The lockout lasted 310 days starting September 16, 2004, the day after the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NHL and the NHL Players Association (NHLPA) that resolved the 1994–95 lockout expired. The negotiating teams reached an agreement on July 13, 2005, and the lockout officially ended nine days later on July 22, after both the NHL owners and players ratified the CBA." and the Simple en wiki says "The 2004–05 NHL lockout resulted in the cancellation of what would have been the 88th season of the National Hockey League (NHL). It was the first time the Stanley Cup was not awarded since 1919, and the first time a major professional sports league in North America canceled a complete season because of a labour dispute. The lockout lasted 310 days starting September 16, 2004, the day after the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the NHL and the NHL Players Association (NHLPA) that resolved the 1994–95 lockout expired. The negotiating teams reached an agreement on July 13, 2005, and the lockout officially ended nine days later on July 22, after both the NHL owners and players ratified the CBA." This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Glad to see you've used the template after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Right and as you see I use that on such things. Perhaps you needed to wait until I was done maybe? -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Judging by how you hadn't simplified the prose (just cut most of it out) from the other two articles, I didn't want to risk it. I take GFDL seriously these days you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be much better if you didn't copy and paste from enwiki, because the text quoted above is not simple. Majorly talk 13:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that, I intend to simplify it when I am done. I am just trying to remove redlinks from an article first. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The invasion

I've sporadically dabbled here before. A nice alternative to waste time while not on the other version. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Made a comment on my talk page on the English version of KingRaven44. ಠ_ಠ!i!King OF ZE Ravenz!i!ಠ_ಠ (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant en:User:KingRaven. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


100px The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For you, for your consistent and calm approach in dealing with vandalism. Please feel very proud *COURTESY OF THE AWARDER*! — This unsigned comment was added by TheNEWawarder (talk • changes).

Cite web template

Any clues why it's suddenly showing all reference's bare URLs? I checked the imports you did, they all seemed to be the same as the version you were replacing, but I'm not sure... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to delete and replace with what was there prior to my import. I hadn't intended to import citeweb. Accidentally checked import all templates, when I imported something that used that template.. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an example of one that was showing up wrong. I just replaced cite web and looked at a page and it looked ok, just want to see if I should go through each of them or if its good now. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at Portman Road - the references now contain the bare URLs as well as linked titles... Still seems to be a problem for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean now, I will look further. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted or reverted (I think) any changes I would have made. The job queue probably has to work its way through to fixing the cites. I will check back in a bit to see if they changed. If not I will continue looking, but I don't know that anything I did should have caused this but you never know since when you import an already existing template it only imports the edit history, and not the template itself. -DJSasso (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
There we go, looks like its fixed, not sure what caused it but its gone now. -DJSasso (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Works for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete and Move.

Hey. Can you please empty out the article in CAT:QD so I can carry on with the move? thanks!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Done by Pmlineditor. Thanks anyway!--Gordonrox24 | Talk 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Go work on articles people"

Hi Dj. As you know, I'm one of the persons who actually work on articles (and this not only importing of articles). I think it would be helpful if you would work on articles... It's not needed to tell others to do it if you don't do it. (I refer to this). You have two article edits this months and just 19 in November. I think, no, I know I do in this area a better work then you, even thought my spelling and grammar isn't the best. You shouldn't tell people something you don't do. Thanks --Barras (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

When people tell other people their contributions arent needed then yes I will tell other people to go work on articles. People on this wiki knock others down to much. No I don't work on articles here much and probably won't ever because of the way people treat others here such as the situation you commented on and your message here. Both instances were incredibly rude. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Our goal is an encyclopaedia and we can't get a good encyclopaedia without article work. Don't tell others what they should do if you don't do it. If someone like TRM, BG or Eptalon tell this others, I would understand it, because they work on our goal and do article work. You don't do it, so just don't tell others to work on articles or start to work on articles. My comment on the Bot talk wasn't bad and also in good faith. Your comment was unneeded and far away from good faith. I'm normally not rude, but such comments as from you on the Bot talk page pisses me off. We don't need users who have tools and never work on articles. We need users who work on articles. To say the truth: I don't care what you say to others, but if you tell it to me I have a big problem with it... --Barras (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Everyone contributes in their own way. We need people who do all sorts of things to build a good encyclopedia. When I see people telling other people not to do something because they don't value it then I get pissed off. People on this wiki need to back off and mind their own business. You comment was not a good comment, neither was griffins. It was also directly contradicting another Crat who said it was ok for both to go. We DO need users who have the tools and don't work on articles as I mentioned above it takes all kinds of users to create a wiki. So stop being an ass and go work on articles if you think article work is the be all end all. I certainly have no desire to put in work creating article while we delete clearly notable articles because people feel they aren't usefull. When we stop doing that I may start writing articles again because I don't wish to waste my time. -DJSasso (talk) 11:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


I don't remember that discussion, so I appreciate the heads up. :) Kind regards, ···Katerenka (討論) 06:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota, my "over-linking" and my "stub type failed", which was also reverted, {{us-stub}}

Hello, Djsasso, Good call in catching my blunders of "over red linking words not needed." The stub type is basic, US-stub didn't need to be used in this case.

Sorry for my "confusing" issues. I apologize for my actions and mis-linking.

--TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cave, minor change I just did not know what editing change you made, Djsasso due to no editing summary. It is probably perfectly correct since you know what you are doing as an "Admin". If, I have once again blundered on something simple and I could not correct it due to me not noticing my error I would be so pleased if you could inform me so it doesn't happen again. Thank you.

--TheSneakyRaccoon (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect...

...the movie article's usefulness isn't being called into question. It's a matter of who created it. I'm not against an article on this movie but I am adamantly against anything and everything the contributing user does. I would personally like to see this speedied; if he'd done this over at English, I would have done so. If it's deleted here - and it should be - I will personally write the new article. That way, we have a proper article and this kid's contributions are out of the edit history. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know you are, as you have the many times you have come here. And many times the community has said we don't just wipe out stuff that is a valid article, no matter who created it. We don't have the editor base to do such things. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, which is why I'm offering to replace it. The red links to articles this site should have are alarming and I've promised myself that I would begin adding content here and I have been as of late. Frankly, I'm out of ideas for new content at English. I'm asking for this article to be deleted on principle and I will gladly assume the responsibility of creating a new one. -- (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Write the article in your sandbox. When its done I have no problem replacing the article and killing his edit history. -DJSasso (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You got it. Great idea and thanks for the consideration. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All set: User:PMDrive1061/The Secret of NIMH 2: Timmy to the Rescue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Gotta run, but thanks for your help and sorry for putting you through extra work. I guess I still have a bit to learn about the protocol over here. Regards, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


I do believe that's the second time we've agreed on something. We should celebrate...!! Notice it's all gone quiet, I guess everyone's retreated to IRC to have a good "open" discussion. I've offered Nameless User an olive branch. Perhaps if he agrees, you'd lend a hand if you have a moment? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you fairly often to be honest. Just like anything on the internet, you are more likely to hear when people disagree or don't like something than when they do. As for lending a hand, I have no problem lending a hand. No one is talking on IRC...Majorly left and the rest don't really have an argument that is all that substantial. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool, well if he takes me up on the offer (and I've added some criteria to his unblocking) then I'll let you know. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards

Hi Djasso, thanks for the input - I had a long think, and several talks on IRC about your suggestion re. time and edit count. I have come up with a new proposal. This would keep the edit count on the low side to discourage editcountitis, around 200 edits a month. The idea is for a "normal" editor (probably someone with a real life) to be able to achieve the level without resorting to unnecessary edits just to get the numbers. Anyhow, could you have a look at the new proposal and leave a comment on Wikipedia talk:Service awards - Peterdownunder (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Billboard chart pages

There was a discussion over deleting or keeping the charts and the decision was to keep. I read why they were deleted but I don't understand the reasoning. Inkyandorblinky (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Straight copying a chart is a copyright violation because Billboard sells their chart listings. You can have articles talking about the charts but to just reproduce the rankings is a copyright violation. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
What I did was to list the number ones of each week. There was no straight copying of a chart in full from Billboard. They were really excerpts and there is no problem on the other Wikipeida sites on this issue. They are just exceprts. Inkyandorblinky (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Change Me Username

Can you change me username to ILoveWikipedia? (Hellothereyousuck (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Dj, ^sockpuppet btw :) fr33kman 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I saw. Wouldn't have done the change anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Have a sec? fr33kman 03:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Biz-stub template

Can I get it in userspace? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there much point to doing that? I mean I know why people do it for articles so they can still work on them and resubmit later, but I can't see why you would need a stub in userspace. It can easily be restored if approved. -DJSasso (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Is there a list of all templates anywhere on this site? Kansan (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Cheers, Lauryn 03:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. I probably should have posted this at Simple Talk in retrospect. Kansan (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


I hope you don't mind if I help out at the Bots page... I know this is more a crat's domain, but I have some experience with Bots and I'm responsible. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No you can certainly help out, I just usually ask for 50 edits because 20 edits a person can be really careful with, and with 50 they are more likely to slip up. So I like a larger sample size. Technically for interwiki they can even bypass us crats and have stewards do it directly. The disambigs however they need to request it locally. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Wikipedia:Simple_talk#QD_A3. Cheers, Lauryn (utc) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Hi i truly dont see your point in your comment Seeing as how its was brutally easy with a google search to find a number of sources that you clearly did not even try. and I actually take some offence by it. Its not my job to provide sources for that article its up to the creator or those who find the article notable. And to answer your comment, if it was so brutally easy then why didnt you yourself just provide the sources needed in the first place. Then we hadnt have the need for any discussion. If we should turn your question around, isnt it to be expected that a user saying Keep in a deletion discussion to make a good faith effort to provide sources for those Keep "claims"? Sincerely, happy editing.--Sinbad (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A coin always have two sides.--Sinbad (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is actually your job as a nominator to make a good faith attempt to proove the article is not notable. That is one of the key steps in the deletion process. When you nominate someone like a professional athlete which meets notability guidelines automatically, it looks like are you are trying to proove a WP:POINT especially when there is a lengthy past of you doing it. When people continue to push points when told they are doing so, they are subject to blocks. As for those saying keep, no they don't have the same burden you do because you are wasting their time. When editors could be finding sources for other articles. Instead they have to waste time going to a delete vote that has no chance in succeeding. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well im disagreeing with you on several points in your latest message. All your points can be twisted around and point towards WP:POINT in your arguments to. As you are trying to make a WP:POINT not taking in any other users viewpoint on this particular subject which is not fully in linewith your own viewpoint. But im not interested in starting any meta blame-game discussions.--Sinbad (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I am also questioning your comment lengthy past of you doing it as i have hardly nominated any articles as of 2010. You might take my advice to think twice before writing a certain statement as you have tendency to be way too overly dramatic it seems in reviewing other peoples edits and other peoples actions overall both now and in the past. Thats my last word in this meta debate.happy editing.--Sinbad (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
However i still appreciate your work on wikipedia and dont questioningyour work overall.. let that be clear:).--Sinbad (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to things like you nominating of the BE850 words list, which was probably one of the most important pages on the wiki. You are a bit to quick with the deletion calls. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)