Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:01, 10 September 2010

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake. Thank you. --elektrikSHOOS 23:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question re: block

I'm looking at User talk:208.38.59.163. I can't really see what warranted a three month suspension on this shared IP. Checkuser indicates there are likely different users of that IP, and that the editor requesting the unblock is telling the truth when he says the Gretzky edit wasn't him but the ones before it were. --jpgordon 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't see what a CU says, so I can't really confirm. I don't believe its a shared IP. As Telus is a residential ISP provider in Alberta, and I believe thats a ADSL IP. But of course I have no proof of that. However, as for the length, shared or not I always follow the somewhat standard progression of blocks in doubling or so each time...his last block was a month so I jump to 3...and I expect the next one to be 6 months...and then a year if it continues. If he is a good faith editor he can have an account created for him so the block doesn't affect him, but I don't for a second buy that he is a good faith editor. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI complaint regarding Scott Oake needs closure

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake. How should this thread be closed? (It's already been archived). I believe there is enough support to justify adding the restriction directly to WP:RESTRICT. This needs to be worded. How about:

92.24.3.41 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from articles as well as talk pages related to Scott Oake and may not add any material regarding Scott Oake to other articles.

I will add this to WP:RESTRICT if there is no objection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. -DJSasso (talk) 10:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ice hockey?

Hey. I was just wondering why WRCU-FM, a radio station, was tagged as part of Wikiproject Ice Hockey. I'm not seeing the connection, but it could very well be that I missed something. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong 03:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought I had hit skip on this one. Colgate university had accidentally fallen into my worklist but I have been skipping them all, however I must have missed this one. -DJSasso (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotta ask too, there are three TV stations (to name a few) that were added to this Wikiproject...WDCA, WBFF and WWOR-TV. To the best of my knowledge, I don't remember WDCA or WBFF airing hockey, nor do I remember WWOR airing it in their SuperStation days. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going off the fact that they are in the Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates. Looks like they aired hockey at some point between 75 and 79. -DJSasso (talk) 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be why I didn't know about it. I didn't my grand enterance 'til '81. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. WWJ-TV has also had the Ice Hockey project banner added, although there is no mention of Hockey in the article. Perhaps just another oversight? --Thomprod (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, its part of Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates which means it was broadcasting National Hockey League games in the 70s. All stations have been correctly added at this point, only the one was a mistake. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hm - you might want to update your plugin settings since {{ice hockey}} has been moved to {{WikiProject Ice Hockey}}. See where the actual template name was replaced with a redirect. –xeno 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Storm

I'll take a crack at it... I'll have some time tomorrow to really give it a go... definitely notable... but, you're right... what a mess! DMighton (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

NM, I just went at it... it's a lot better now. I'm gonna try and get some past standings to tag on there too... DMighton (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BLPPROD

Just to let you know, per WP:BLPPROD, the prod can only be removed once the article contains "at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the biography." The article will need a reliable source before the BLP PROD may be removed. Regards, GiftigerWunsch 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, and for the case of BLPPROD its been determined sites like IMDB are deamed reliable enough to remove BLPPROD but not for notability which is why when sites like imdb are added we remove the blpprod and replace it with refimprove. You can see the talk page for info. -DJSasso (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's a very recent discussion and doesn't exactly establish consensus on the matter. Meanwhile the word of the policy page is reliable sources, not simply any sourcing as is being discussed on the talk page. This is also reflected by the BLP PROD template itself; it can't be removed simply because the article contains any source at all. GiftigerWunsch 00:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Even the link you point to says the same however, in borderline cases, such as where a source of arguable but questionable reliability has been added, the biography should be listed instead at Articles for Deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that ImDB has undergone some pretty extensive discussion and it's been determined that it isn't reliable. But whatever, I'll self-revert my last addition and simply take it to AfD. GiftigerWunsch 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that you got there first. That seems to be 3 reversions now... GiftigerWunsch 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Which is fine since it takes 4 to go past 3RR. -DJSasso (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Either way I could care less if its deleted. It probably should be...but I am getting a bit frustrated that people are using BLPPROD incorrectly. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly the policy page agrees with my use of the BLP PROD, and as I'm sure you're aware, 3 reversions is a limit, not an entitlement; I'm not going to perpetuate an edit war, however. GiftigerWunsch 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right, its not an entitlement. Just like i could say you were claiming ownership of the template on that page and edit warring with me and another user to keep it on that page. So it swings both ways...before constantly re-adding something you might want to actually talk about it on the talk page of an article next time. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see this is a waste of time. GiftigerWunsch 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, being confrontational instead of co-operative usually is -DJSasso (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There I have even done it for you? Was it that hard? -DJSasso (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually IMDB has not been deemed a sufficiently reliable source to justify removal of a valid BLPprod, only to prevent one in the first place. BLPProds are only for completely unsourced articles, not for poorly sourced ones. So if an article already has an IMDB link that mentions the subject that is sufficient to prevent a BLPprod being added, even though adding an IMDB link is not sufficient to justify removing a valid BLPprod. In the recent RFC on the BLPprod I tried to get it widened to articles where the only link was to Facebook, Utube, Myspace or LinkedIN and since that didn't get consensus I doubt we'd get consensus to disregard IMDB. ϢereSpielChequers 10:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no difference, if its sufficient not to add one then its sufficient to remove one. The quality of the link doesn't change if it was added prior to someone coming along to add the tag. It's either good or it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The quality of the link does not change, but the BLPprod policy is not equal between links that are there before the prod is applied and links that are added to remove the prod. I appreciate that makes for a complex policy, but things are not always black and white. It is entirely possible that someone can submit a new article so poorly sourced that it merits tagging with {{BLP IMDB-only refimprove}} but if they haven't added the IMDB link before the BLPprod is added then they need a reliable source for at least one fact about the person. The article might then only be improved to the point where it still merits a {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} tag - not a good state for an article to be in, but no longer amongst the worst we have. This new additional deletion method was specifically targetted on the totally unsourced BLPs, not poorly sourced ones. ϢereSpielChequers 15:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Then that is a ridiculous flaw in the BLPPROD policy. This is supposed to be a bright line test, not one where certain links are treated with differing rules based on random time frames. Changing the rules like that seems to play straight into external accusations that Misplaced Pages is both too hard to edit, and ruled by a small elite that thrives on being policy wonks. Resolute 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty much what I think too, the purpose of it was supposed to be a brightline test, its either completely unsourced or it isn't. This was supposed to be a black and white test. If it has a IMDB link then it is sourced (poorly), if it doesn't then its completely unsourced. I don't really see why its being treated differently. As you say its not about poorly sourced ones, its only about unsourced ones. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

They are two different brightline tests. Before you add a sticky prod you check if there is any link in the article including prior to any vandalism, and if that link supports anything about the person then it is not totally unsourced. Removing a valid sticky prod is also a brightline test - Do we now have a reliable source for at least one bit of information about that person? An IMDB link would pass the first brightline test but not the second. However I suggest we adjourn this to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_deletion_of_biographies_of_living_people#IMDB_as_the_lone_source_on_a_biographical_article ϢereSpielChequers 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Hi there. I'm new at this so bear with me. I recently added a link to my list of pond hockey tournaments from my website. I added it to the entry for 'pond hockey', as well as the pond hockey section for the entry on 'ice hockey'. Both were deleted in minutes by you.

I'm not challenging those deletions, but I honestly believe I have a very helpful FREE listing of pond hockey tournaments. The pond hockey article in particular lists four events. My listing has over 50 events. I would think that someone looking up pond hockey on[REDACTED] may find my list of value.

So my question is, if my free listing provides a value to someone who might be searching for pond hockey tournament information, what is the correct way to add a link to a[REDACTED] entry?

It is not my intention to linkspam whatsoever. It is my intention to point people to something that is VERY relevant to the article. If that is not allowed on[REDACTED] then so be it, but I hope that's not the case.

Thanks!

Rjproulx (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. The reason it was deleted of course was that it looked like linkspam. Take a look at WP:External links It explains what is ok and not ok to add in these situations. -DJSasso (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I figured that was the interpretation. I've since looked at the guidelines, and I'm hoping we can include the links in both sections by referencing these guidelines:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Also:

Links to be considered:

A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Template:Dmoz template.

After reading the guidelines on Link Spamming, I think I might be able to do this correctly by:

Contribute cited text, not bare links. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You are here to improve Misplaced Pages—not just to funnel readers off Misplaced Pages and onto some other site, right? (If not, see No. 1 above.)

I am knowledgeable and passionate about grassroots hockey, so do you think it would be acceptable to add a short paragraph about the rapid growth of outdoor tournaments? If I did that, where would be an appropriate place to link my tourney listing?

Again, this is all free. I could get 10,000 hits from[REDACTED] and I'd still make $0 on it. Just hoping that all the hard work I put into aggregating the tournament information could benefit people in their search travels.

Thanks for the reply, hopefully we can figure something out. The goal is to get people involved in this great sport, and they'll only participate if they know about it!

Rjproulx (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be acceptable on the Pond hockey page. It might be a bit too much detail for the ice hockey page itself. However the ice hockey page does link to the Pond hockey page. I certainly have no problem with you adding a paragraph (or more even) and then sourcing it with your site. As long as you understand why your edits were reverted when your first two edits were adding bare links. We could always use more editors that are passionate about hockey adding to our various articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Duncan MacPherson

FWIW, I undid your reversion of the latest edits to this article... It's not perfect, but Seawaggg did make an attempt to remove the puffery and POV that he had previously. More cleanup is needed (and I'll try to get to that soon), but I think his latest edits do reflect the sources provided. Cheers! Resolute 17:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I didn't read the whole thing...just a couple sentences which still had the Puffery....but if you think it looks better. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely toned down, but I agree there is still some. He did try to implement some of my suggestions though and removed most of what I directly challenged from his latest attempt. I'd say his latest revision was a good faith attempt, rather than just a blanket revert to his original version. Resolute 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. -DJSasso (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hockey Mountain

Thanks for the comment but it's more of just concept I don't know if anything will ever come from it.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

When unblocking users

When unblocking user accounts, remember to always also lift their autoblock(s), if their autoblock hasn't expired yet (an autoblock lasts for at least 24 hours after the initial block was made). I think you can read more at WP:Autoblock. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of that thank you. Please keep your ridiculous comments to yourself. They are the reason many people are close to blocking you. You've been warned a few times to keep your nose out of business that doesn't involve you. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can we calm down here? Your temper is starting to get noticed even on WP:ANI LiteralKa (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Moorsmur (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not threaten users with a block

Djsasso, you will please refrain from threatening a user with a block for something that you are involved in. Please and thank you. Basket of Puppies 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't a threat, it was a warning and its a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially when it was clear he was a sockpuppet of a user who has been doing this for some time. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You warned him not for being a sock but for removing your PRODs. That is highly inappropriate and the ANI thread holds consensus on this. There is no shortage of ArbCom and community consensuses declaring that you may not use your admin tools if you are already involved, unless there is a clear emergency happening. Shall we visit those ArbCom decisions together? Basket of Puppies 17:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right and I would not have been the one to block him, someone else would be, and someone else did. I never said /I/ would block him. I am very careful not to cross that line. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"it was clear he was a sockpuppet". Could you explain that a little further? It's not enough saying that it was "clear". Also, as Basket of Puppies says above, you didn't even mention "sock", but "PROD". If you don't listen and take care of other's advices, you may end up at ArbCom, where you may end up being de-sysopped (losing your administrator privileges). /HeyMid (contributions) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly not calling for a desysop -yet- but rather wish to help you understand that your reaction was inappropriate. Is this something you might be willing to consider? Basket of Puppies 18:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I wrote that he "may end up being de-sysopped", which does not mean he will be de-sysopped. Being mentioned in an ArbCom case as an admin may lead to a de-sysopping. Also, I am not sure whether you are asking me or him. Please clarify. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, Mid. I am talking to Djsasso. Basket of Puppies 19:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

HeyMid, stop talking to me like a baby, this is why I got upset at you before. Things like putting (losing your administrator privileges) is extremely condescending. I have been here for many years. I understand what a desysop is. Please refrain from getting involved in conversations on my talk page that do not involve you. Thank you. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless HeyMid has been banned by the ArbCom or administrators from interacting with you, I don't see why he needs to stay out of the conversation. As long as he keeps it civil and cool, I don't see an issue. I think you can ban him from your talk page, if you wish, however. Basket of Puppies 20:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call threatening me with ArbCom cool would you? I am more than willing to discuss almost anything with anyone, but I don't react well to people coming at me assuming bad faith right off the bat without getting my side. Or in his case, messaging me about things that don't involve him treating me like I have no clue what anything is. I could ban him from my talk page, but I don't want to be mean, I just would like him to stop escalating the situation. -DJSasso (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, HeyMid has been blocked for a week for his habit of butting into discussions that don't involve him and seeking to escalate situations. I think you are betting on the wrong horse in this race, BoP. Resolute 20:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to HeyMid's block on his talk page. Please understand- I am not betting or siding with anyone or anything. I am just curious. Basket of Puppies 20:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

KQED and hockey?

A bit confused as to why Talk:KQED rates an ice hockey project tag? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 01:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it was part of a national network of stations that used to broadcast National Hockey League games. More simply put its in the category Category:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates. All hockey broadcasters past & present are added to our project. Some like this one just have never been tagged and got tagged as part of a cleanup of articles missing tags. -DJSasso (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

FSN Baseball Report

Re your edit comment "a show that was on a national network is likely notable...take it to afd if you want or better yet look for some sources.". compared to My prod comment "A search for references did not sufficient content to meet the requirements of WP:N, I was not able to determine if the show is still aired. Fails WP:V and WP:N". I looked for references then prodded the article. Would you care to look for some references to add to the article? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I will take another look, but I had found numerous mentions of the show, enough to write an article, maybe not. But enough for me to think prod'ing was not appropriate. A nationally televised show is very likely to be notable, even if its no longer on the air since notability is not temporary. -DJSasso (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I found a few but most were blogs (Not WP:RS) or on Fox (Primary source). Did not find much in gbooks for published and could not see how long it ran. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I will say before I even take a look, that I don't object to an AFD at all. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. see WP:NRVE just being nationally televised does not make it notable. Though I agree it has a good chance of being notable if nationally televised. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I agree, I just mean its likely, just might be harder to find sources because of the fact its name is splattered everywhere across google. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you want longer to look for references before I take it to AFD? I looked at gbooks again 3 hits and "Books LLC" is wiki-mirror, another is TV guide from 2005. I am not seeing this article passing WP:N JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and Afd. I have no problem with an AFD. Just didn't think it should go by way of prod. :) -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of FSN Baseball Report for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article FSN Baseball Report, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/FSN Baseball Report until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Okanagan Hockey School

It is very well known out here, so I would say that if a hockey school is notable, this one would qualify. I can find Google news mentions back to 1975, but mostly trivial. That said, the Flames run their hockey school in partnership with the OHS, and there is a related Okanagan Hockey Academy. Someone with the dedication to search off-line sources could probably find a reasonable amount of RS material for it. Resolute 01:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I remember it well when I lived in Calgary. Just couldn't decide. But yeah what you say sums up my opinion. I won't prod it then. -DJSasso (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hartford Whalers Page

Can you allow me to edit the Hartford Whalers page. I was the one who added most of the relavent information that actually took place prior to the team moving in 1997. There is still one paragraph at the end of the departure from Hartford section that shold be deleted because it pretains to hockey in Hartford and not a a prt of the whalers actual existance from 1972 - 1997. I wish these people who keep putting in information on the cultural impact would just create a new page on Whalers Sports and Entertainment.Whalerguy1 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention that in the thread on the Hartford page, the page opens back up in a week and whatever the result is can be added. Since that paragraph was there prior to me locking the page I won't remove it since it would be part of the discussion I want people to have. I don't want to perpetuate the back and forth that has been going on. Perhaps discussion on the talk page will help to create a better page. -DJSasso (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hockey backlog

Thanks for the comment on removing the backlog. Though I thought that the list was finally under control when you go ahead and make it all large again. Will give me something to do on weekends for a while. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't gone through the entire category tree looking for tags in about 2 years so there were alot of articles missing tags. -DJSasso (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

Copied from my profile:
I am just writing to let you know a user has complained that you are following their edits and making inappropriate comments to them, I have looked at your edits and this does appear to be the case. I also notice your notice at the top of your page which also may be considered less than civil. The same policies that exist on simple[REDACTED] do apply here as well. While we are not the same wiki and whatever you have done there stays there, if you continue the same actions here that you were involved with there the results will be the same. Please keep that in mind. Good luck and good editing. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Griffinofwales whined to you? You purport that I made "inappropriate comments". I fail to discern how my comments were inappropriate; in fact, they were entirely appropriate in response his assumptions of bad faith and his incompetence on this wiki. You must explain because I won't let this false accusation and misrepresentation of my comments to stand unchallenged. I suggest you respect the notice at the top of my profile and understand that I am serious. Further bully threats from you will be deleted from my profile. Protector of Wiki (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat myself, continued harassment of editors and stalking of their edits will likely end up in a block. Your notice on your page should be removed as its completely uncivil. Calling warnings bully threats isn't going to gain you any sympathy. We don't take incivility here any more lightly than simple[REDACTED] does. -DJSasso (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why you deem my comments "inappropriate". It's also interesting to note that you, as a civility warrior, said this and this, revealing your blatant hypocrisy. If you are going to hound me about incivility, perhaps you should give the following users a visit: (a fellow mod), (another mod), (mod) (respected editor), and (respected editor). You won't? That's what I expected. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)