User talk:Djsasso/Archive 3

Delete - no action?

I was wondering why you removed my quick delete requests on pages such as Template:2009–10 NHL Western Conference Semi-finals bracket 1/doc? They have been replaced, and are not linked to any pages.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Because at the time it was linked from its page. Doc pages should not (though its not required) be linked to doc pages on other pages but should be on their own page. It makes it easier for editors to follow and allows for proper interwiki links because interwiki links go on the document page. -DJSasso (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to simplify maintenance of the templates. I will go back to one template, one doc. Can you grant my temporary flood for all the changes I will be making?--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

NHL standings legend

You removed the template Template:NHL standings legend from several templates, such as Template:2009–10 NHL Atlantic Division standings. Your reason was "should put legend directly on page you are going to use this template on." I seems to me that it is more user frendly to include the legend within the standings template. There may have been some cases were the legend was duplicated, but those were in the process of being removed from the article. Also, I really belive that codes such as OTL, GF, and GA need to be explained.

The legend template had incorrectly included on some of the playoff templates, but they were in the process of being removing.

ack, forgot to sign--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at 2009–10 NHL season and you will see what I mean. The legend is replicated after every single table. And that is overkill, and extremely redundant. This is why you should just put the legend in the section on the page you are going to transclude the template to so you only have to do it once at the top or bottom of the section and not have it show up after each division table. It makes the page look horrible to have it show up after each table. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

National Hockey League categories

Djsaso, I would like to make a category, National Hockey League team seasons as a subcategory to National Hockey League seasons to categorize the team season pages, such as 2009–10 Boston Bruins season. What do you think? --The Three Headed Knight (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. I hadn't done it yet since there were only a couple seasons so far. But yes, it will become necessary to do that so might as well do it now. -DJSasso (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hey I don't know who you think you are to delete my articles like that. I'm going to have them appealed. Jimmy Wales (talk)

Hey, DJ, the guy above is a fake. He's an IP pretending to be Jimbo Wales. He pretended to be Peter Symonds before. Reverter (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

New message

You have a new message at simpled talk. Immunize (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For updating me to "semi-active" [1] EhJJTALK 17:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, you certainly aren't inactive at the moment. Feel free to move it to active if you feel that is more appropriate. :) -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans Jörg Butt

Why do you moved the article to Hans-Jörg Butt? His forename is Hans Jörg without a hyphen and it is written in every language (with latin letters) the same! --Edwinvandersar (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But that isn't how its written in common use in english. See the english wikipedia for an example. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think they copied wrong from other pages (e.g. German Wikipedia, Hans-Jörg wasn't moved to Hans Jörg until 16 December 2009) like the most other Wikipedias. And why are other people with double-barrelled name written without a hyphen (José Ernesto Sosa, etc.)? --Edwinvandersar (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If you can find English language sources without the hypen then go ahead and move it back. But you will need to source that english media do not use the hypen. My guess is that the german wikipedia copied the page from the english wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think I won't find any english-written source with Hans Jörg, but If you go after that you have to move the article to Hans-Jorg [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] or Hans-Joerg [7] [8] [9]. --Edwinvandersar (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten move

Please move SAN disambiguation page to san to have casing exactly as already you did in eta disambiguation page. Note that typing all in lowercase is more easier for users when searching. 83.11.121.223 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is technically impossible for the first letter to be lowercase (the software does not allow it) James (T C) 14:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
But typing it as such in full lowercase works in links, even if not in names, as demonstrated above. 83.11.121.223 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes the system automatically redirects. -DJSasso (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

QD ER

The user has 1 edit (it was creating that page). πr2 (talk • changes) 17:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, its a good faith edit. Wikipedia is not paper. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi, Djsasso. Please adjudicate between Fr33kman and myself at User talk:Codedon#Trolling. Thanks, Codedon (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

AN/Robert Byrd thread

You slam of me was a bit uncalled for Purplebackpack89 16:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really at all. You constantly post such requests and every time its explained to you that protection is only for extreme cases of vandalism, yet you go and make the same type of request again. There are only so many times someone can tell you something before your requests become disruptive. -DJSasso (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
My requests are not disruptive. I don't make them on pages that I'm not worried about could be targets of heavy vandalism. I don't make them incessantly; I think I've made about four. You're bordering NPA/AGF here; watch out Purplebackpack89 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As I said, you are bordering on being disruptive by constantly asking us to do something that is against policy. Also the key words in your statement are could be. We don't work on what might happen at wikipedia, we work on what has happened. By protecting a page you don't only block the vandals that might come along, but you also block all the good people that might come along because he died and add good faith information to the article. As such protecting a page is something we try very hard to avoid doing because the protect can do more harm than the vandalism can sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

sandbox

Just a reminder that Wikipedia:Student tutorial is a sandbox, and is cleaned by a bot. Not many know, as you apparently don't. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I do, I was undoing an edit that someone else did inappropriately. You know better than to go around giving such messages to regular users. -DJSasso (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You mean that IP? Or my adding of the navigation? πr2 (talk • changes) 22:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Your undoing of the IPs edit yes. -DJSasso (talk) 22:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't undo the IP's edit. I simply added the 'nav' bar. πr2 (talk • changes) 22:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
And re-added all the stuff he removed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, a logical edit conflict. I went to get the nav bar code, and (s)he blanked the page. Logical edit conflict. Sorry, πr2 (talk • changes) 22:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

<-Sorry, DJSasso. Misread the diffs. BTW, that wasn't a warning, but a note. :) Griffinofwales (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits in Wikipedia space/Civility warning

{{subst:uw-civil2}}

This is increasingly uncalled for, and becoming disruptive in its own right. Two days ago, you accuse me of disruption. Yesterday, you start a big row about Ottava's userspace. Today, you imply I don't know what a DYK is, plus that whole sandbox thing above. Please stop, for the good of the community Purplebackpack89 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

... πr2 (talk • changes) 23:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
He didn't start the discussion about Ottava's userspace. The sandbox thing doesn't look incivil; nor does the DYK thing (imo) which looks like him just stating a point. DJ is by nature opinionated and to-the-point but neither implies incivility. Templating him was rather impolite as well, given that what these templates say is pretty inappropriate for disputes among established editors. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
But judging by the thread below, I may not be the only one troubled by DJ's edits lately. Purplebackpack89 17:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop trolling. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

message

You have a message at WP:PERM. I'm leaving the rollback right on the account until I have your side of the story. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can see he was autoconfirmed. You might want to check the account before jumping on things. You don't need any edits to become autoconfirmed. You only need 4 days. And even if he wasn't, the decision did say admins could use discretion. As well as WP:IAR also would have covered the situation. As long as I believe I am helping the wiki by ignoring a rule that prevents me from maintaining or improving the wiki. Giving rollback to a trusted user to stop vandalism is improving the wiki by helping maintain the wiki free of vandalism. So the situation fits exactly into the purpose of IAR which is to allow us to ignore any needless red tape in the pursuit of making the wiki better. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One. the edit thing should have been changed (policy updated), but I have no clue how to do it. I may IAR and block you for all I care, you can't ignore policy, and exactly what vandalism has he reverted? Griffinofwales (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No...the proposal was for autoconfirmed. The user was autoconfirmed. I followed the decision to the letter. Using IAR to block me doesn't help the wiki any and would likely have your adminship removed. You can ignore policy please read WP:IAR which is an official policy which explains that we can ignore any rule that prevents us from doing positive actions. Giving rollback to a trusted user so that they may in the future help undo vandalism is a positive action. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Quote from WP:RBK: "You should have met the requirements for autoconfirmed user when requesting. User rights cannot be given to IP editors." Quote from Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed users: "Accounts which are more than 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits are considered autoconfirmed." - that's it. Also, quoting from you, "Saying you don't care what the community thinks and that you won't undo your action is a gross missuse of your tools. The wiki is build on what the community says, an admin who wont do what the community thinks should not have the tools." For about the third time in a week, you can't have it both ways. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Right and that is the case for new accounts, not the case for SUL account. SUL accounts go autoconfirmed as soon as 4 days are up. As well you might want to note Wikipedia:Rollback feature is a guideline which means "Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy." I don't plan on having it both ways. The situation I was talking about in that quote is a completely different situation. Why you are so keen on pushing editors away from this wiki is beyond me. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
My interpretation of community consensus is 4 days/10 edits, and I'm sure other users would agree. The guideline can easily be changed, and I'm sure it could even become policy. But that's not the point, you blatantly ignore community consensus, which you are quoted as saying should mean that you lose your tools. The quote I got it from was over something covered in main page cascading, not something officially in a policy or guideline. Don't see the difference. As for your addition, that is community consensus, not my problem if you like it or not. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, and the decision of the closing admin was that administrators could use discretion. That was the communities consensus. If you don't like it that is your problem. And clearly the 4/10 wasn't their interpretation because two people who supported it both jumped on you when you made your comment to me on the request page. Clearly they thought all that was needed was autoconfirmed. Secondly I didn't ignore consensus, the user was autoconfirmed which was what your proposal asked for. I followed consensus to the T. -DJSasso (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe that barras (the closing 'crat) defined what types of discretion he was talking about. I don't think he meant discretion to mean: ignore this. As for your addition, check the RBK policy, it specifically says requirements for autoconfirm, not autoconfirm. As for your second addition, RBK policy. If you think you're so right, take this to ST, and see if the community likes your interpretation. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Right and the requirements for autoconfirmed for an SUL user is 4 days. And yes barras did. He specifically said an account of a trusted user, someone with rollback at en is a trusted user. But again that doesn't matter because he was autoconfirmed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

<-Just take to this to ST, we're both trying to determine the consensus, so let's find out what it is/was. I took it to mean admin = trusted user. Rollback is hardly a position of trust, it's given out way too easily. Griffinofwales (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree with Griffins interpretation of the rule, but was confused when he commented here, as the account was autoconfirmed. I was unaware that SUL accounts are autoconfirmed automatically after four days. If this is the case, I feel the policy should be updated with specific requirements.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Right, its given out easily because its a harmless tool that does absolutely no harm and can still do lots of benefit. Nevermind that fact that users can create their own rollback tool such like twinkle without even having the rollback feature. Not really sure why you are on such a crusade against it. The whole reason we changed it so admins and rollbackers from other wikis could have it automatically was so we didn't need arbitrary guidelines in the first place which only serve to frustrate people that want to help. -DJSasso (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

table

Hello? Please tell me how to make a table. Thank You. Polymathsj (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at Help:Tables which should help you out. -DJSasso (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I still cant function it well. Could you please fix this? Polymathsj (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Polymathsj (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Red links

Hello again. To remove red links, which should I do? Remove [[ ]] or create the page? Polymathsj (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Create the page is preferable. However, red links are ok. They are red so that people who come along later know the page is missing and will hopefully create it. So basically either create the page or just leave it as is and hopefully someone else will. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your advice. Polymathsj (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

RFD

I was getting to that :) Hoots (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I figured you probably were, but another user added it to the wrong page so I figured I might as well move it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem. At least it was done twice instead of not at all :) Hoots (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suraj Narredu

According to Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2010/Suraj Narredu the template should be added to Suraj Narredu. Why was it removed?  PolymathSJ Talk 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I just figured it out. Wrong page.  PolymathSJ Talk 18:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sweet Images man.

one word, nice. --Ninny (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename User

I submitted my request on EN Wikipedia.  PolymathSJ Talk 21:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

75px The Working Man's Barnstar
Because I know you deserve it! Please continue your great contributions and diligent editing! Yours respectfully, Belle tête-à-tête 12:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My userpage

If anyone has the right to edit, I clearly have the right to revert their edits in good faith an unlimited number of times. It's a joke that's been up there for a year and nobody cared. If they had beef, they should have mentioned it a year ago. Compared to some of the political userboxes on EN, that is downright mild. Tele is just trying to make trouble, throwing policy out left and right (often misusing it), and he should be blocked. Purplebackpack89 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

BRD would apply to your userpage as well. 1 bold edit, 1 revert of the edit, and then people discuss. Back and forth reverting by either of you would result in a block for edit warring. Just because its been up for a year doesn't mean it gets a free pass to stay, it just means that no one noticed. For example I didn't notice until now. I don't think its a huge deal to stay up. But I do think you should reconsider if thats the sort of message you want on your userpage. As you can see it can be taken in a bad light. By no means is this me telling you to take it down, just that you might want to think about it. As for him, just disengage with him. If he is just trying to cause trouble he will either get bored and give up and leave, or he will do something worthy of a block. But don't bait him, because that will get you in just as much trouble. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Userspace doesn't fall under 3RR, least not on EN Purplebackpack89 22:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A recently blocked user whose username resembles you-know-who

Please put this notice {{username|your username resembles that of a prolific vandal on enWiki}} onto the user's talkpage. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. The user no doubt knows why they were blocked. They wouldn't have "accidentally" chosen that name. Kansan (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the clarification anyway. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not necessary as was mentioned. Please let people do their jobs. Believe it or not they know what they are doing. -DJSasso (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Conflict

Yes, it was an edit conflict. Please see the details on TeleComNasSprVen's talk page.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Another day

another round of welcoming in the new users. Can I have the Flood flag for this purpose? I will also be creating several redirects. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to be creating redirects like all those adminshirt ones you just made then I would think twice. Almost all of them are speedy worthy as unlikely typos. -DJSasso (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Fine, we'll bring the redirects to ST in a discussion, and I'll stop creating the ones for the adminshirt template. In the meantime, could you give me the flag? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
No I don't give the flag for low number of edits. Unless you intend to do 200 or 300 edits come back and ask. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox Header

Can you please explain this: (actually, its this)?  Hazard-SJ Talk

What part of my edit summary confuses you? -DJSasso (talk) 19:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You changed the link...  Hazard-SJ Talk 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I changed the page back to what it originally was, yes. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FOO

See this discussion. And this one. Thanks, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of which are simple.wiki. You really need to get it through your head that we aren't en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Look, I personally supported the deletion of the redirect, but I don't think it's right to remove it from the sandbox before it had been deleted. That is all, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
For all the wiki policies and guidelines and essays you throw around, have you never read WP:BOLD? -DJSasso (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Translation of the week

Thanks for the answer. Nataly8 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. I put in the peer review 5 articles. Did you have to do some comments? Nataly8 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Aang

Hi, I am a new user and I need help with the simplification of the article. Can you help please? Nataly8 (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I a working on it. Thanks.

And..

75px The Admin's Barnstar
For your great work as admin. Good luck! Nataly8 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Block

Can you block this user? Nataly8 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

18px Done. Next time, report to WP:VIP. EhJJTALK 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

3.000 changes! That's many :( Nataly8 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag?

Sorry to bother you, but can you give the flood flag to me, User:PiRSquared17, and User:Nataly8? We are reverting Hazard's changes, and we are flooding the new changes page. Thanks SimonKSK 15:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

With regards to your edit summary "Who added all these..." I did not add the requirement... I was only reinforcing what you did. 50 test edits. I'm not sure what gives? Jon@talk:~$ 16:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No I meant the code for closing the discussions. It used to be all we had to look for was 18px Done or File:X mark.svg Not done. Which is also simple to add. It just took me about 5 edits to figure out how to close this discussion because someone added a edit notice stating we should close stuff that way now. Which is way more difficult than it needs to be. In the end I had to copy someone elses and change the bots name. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Its easy, should take only a few edits to get it. Don't be averse to change! :) Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not adverse to change. I am just adverse to change for the sake of change. It comes from being an IT professional, you shouldn't change something unless you have a reason to change something. I still haven't figured it out. But I guess I can just copy other peoples code in the future like I had to for this one. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Expand the edit notice, you will see the archival templates and how to use them. They are at the bottom of the edit notice. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 16:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. The instructions didn't work. That was the problem and why I was frustrated. Kept leaving bad code behind. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Roses

Hello, DJsasso! Congratulations for your recent marriage. I didn't know you had married until I read your Request For Checkusership. This is for your new bride. :) I sincerely hope you both have a very happy wedded life together!



85px Belinda has given you some beautiful, lovely roses! Enjoy the scent!

With profound respect, Belle tête-à-tête 01:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Greek alphabet madness

Hi, I'm trying to clean up some of the madness produced by en:User:Wikinger on the Greek alphabet articles. Are you familiar with that user? He's a banned sockpuppeter over on en-wiki, and all the permanent nonsensical tinkering with the exotic letter articles at the bottom of Template:Greek alphabet is from him. It's all a mess. For now, could you please move Fau back to either Wau or Digamma (any of the two, take your pick)? "Fau" makes no sense at all.

Probably it will be necessary to semi-protect all those articles and the template permanently. That person has been at it for years. Fut.Perf. 08:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you managed to get it taken care of by yourself. I will keep my eye out on them. -DJSasso (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, Clementina was kind enough to delete the old redirect junk to make space for the move. Fut.Perf. 12:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

RfCu

Sorry, I misread it and switch PBP (as usual) with PiR... Sorry, wasn't my intention. it looked like he switchs. /me slaps himself. -Barras (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries I get those two switched up all the time as well. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

hockey/hockey players

hi djsasso i see you like hockey articles and making new hockey players, want a hand? --72.73.79.145 (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

We are always looking for more editors of any type. Feel free to help out in any way you would like. -DJSasso (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Give yourself a Wikimedal

Hi Djsasso, I recently changed December 1st on Simple English wiki, testing the abilities of the editors. You my friend were on top of the "wikiball" as we Wikipedians like to say. Go ahead give yourself a WikiBarnstar for revoking my edit within 3 days. Fastest I have seen. Keep up on your wikiawesomenessKiwislayer (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your request for checkuser...

There is currently a discussion as to the outcome, can you comment Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkusership/Djsasso as to your preference. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

RevDelete Reasons

Hey Djsasso, I have a quick question about the RevDelete reasons. For a RevDelete I did earlier I put "Hiding of blatant attack names" as the reason, I've since realized that that is under the "only for use by oversighters" section of the drop down box. I'm just wondering if this is an issue because I'm not an oversight? Thanks. Exert 03:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be an issue, it just won't do the same thing that happens if an oversighter uses it. It means one of the oversighters will fix it up later, but that's better than leaving an attack name --Peterdownunder (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it wouldn't be an issue, its still somewhat relevant for rev del. It just says in the summary that its been oversighted which isn't quite true. No worries though, better than leaving it. -DJSasso (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Note

When you made this edit, you deleted a user warning I had placed Purplebackpack89 18:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I know. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello! Do you can grant me rollback status to revert a vandalism? I also have this flag on ru-wiki and commons[10]. Thanks! JenVan (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to be autoconfirmed (4 days/10 edits) before we grant you the flag. 6 more edits :) Griffinofwales (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RFCU

I've closed the request as unsuccessful. It has the correct support percentage but not enough supporting votes from editors. It needed 25-30. Jon@talk:~$ 17:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation template and "printonly"

Hi DJ, just wondering if you could solve a problem I see with the citation templates. If a title and a URL are given, it appears that, in some situations, both title and bare URL are shown, linked. According to a user over at enWiki, this could be down to a missing printonly class in Mediawiki:Common.css. I see you edited this before. Any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to fix a related (or maybe its the same) problem myself with those edits, but I don't know enough to fix it. If it does just come down to missing a printonly class maybe its an easier fix than it looked. I think I had just tried copying over the entire en version of common.css but it didn't seem to work. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I just tried an edit by recommendation of User:TheDJ (any relation?!) at enwiki, didn't seem to make any difference.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Might have to wait for the job queue to update. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

bite

I thought the response was somewhat bitey but I wanted to see what was accepted here. Well, I found the wall :) --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No harm done. We just have to be a bit more leniant with small issues like that because we have a harder time bringing people to this wiki. This may have been vandalism but since its not outright vulgar vandalism or the like I would personally err on the side of gentily nudging them to what they could do better. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

POINT accusation

That's redonkulous. I nominated it because I thought it wouldn't pass GA in its current state. Purplebackpack89 21:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked a question. I ask because you have nominated it in the past for what clearly was a point nomination. And now after having one of your GA/VGA requests turned down you have gone on a sudden rush of nominating articles to be demoted. You honestly think it doesn't look like you are clearly trying to have articles removed because yours didn't get promoted? Perhaps you didn't do it for point reasons, but it clearly looks like you did. -DJSasso (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Sudden rush? I nominated ONE article that hasn't been up to par in OVER A YEAR. (I didn't nom Nickel Creek). And do you have any reason why it's still a GA? Cuz there are multiple issues Purplebackpack89 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, interesting timing after that failed VGA/GA. Anyway, I've addressed your vague concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit

What was the purpose of this edit? Thanks, --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Never mind. I see why. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, requests are not considered live until they are transcluded so you can't !vote on them. Since he hadn't accepted yet. However he appears to have accepted now so go ahead and add your opinion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag

You should use the flood flag for those semi-automated edits, you know... --Chemicalinterest (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope...flood flag should only be used when you plan on doing a few hundred edits. Too many admins give it out for people doing too few changes. I won't be one of them. -DJSasso (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Few hundred? The reason is so you don't hide vandal edits from recent changes. Not everyone uses the 500 edits option. What is wrong with giving it out for about 30 changes? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Because people are too worried about the RC. A vandal edit slipping through isn't a big deal as it will eventually be caught. And isn't likely to happen because we have editors who go through every edit anyways. Edits should be as open as possible and using the flood flag hides them. When we added the flood flag it was only supposed to be used in the most extreme cases, however, as time has gone by people have given it out for fewer and fewer edits. I personally go back after I make a run to check any edits made at the same time anyways, so in my case (can't speak for others) none would slip through anyways. -DJSasso (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

100px The Running Man Barnstar
For lots of work in improving Wikipedia's coverage of hockey. Kansan (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. Thought you explained it much better than I did :) Normandie Talk! 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well its been 'archived' now so my link is broken, but you get the picture... Normandie Talk! 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I knew what you meant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks. Thought you explained it much better than I did :) Normandie Talk! 12:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well its been 'archived' now so my link is broken, but you get the picture... Normandie Talk! 16:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I knew what you meant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year