User talk:Djsasso/Archive 9

Latest comment: 3 years ago by MartinLutheran in topic Thank you Djasso.

A barnstar for you!

  The Admin's Barnstar
For your great experience in Wikipedia network, special thanks for your Admin contribution!  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 15:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

New chaser

There will be a new chaser on The Chase, so exciting! --2A00:23C5:7F08:6C00:4831:7189:62A0:BB9 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Reverting edit

Why did you have to revert my edit on Template:Clickable button? It is a Wikipedia template, and there is no reason to revert and remove the category.  CentralTime301 (📱, 📝) 15:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) @CentralTime301: It might have been to undo the overcategorization. Category:Miscellaneous templates is already in Category:Wikipedia templates, so you don't need to add that second one to the template. This kind of thing is discussed at Wikipedia:Categories#Choosing the correct category. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Abuse Filter

Wanted to ask why you disabled/deleted Abuse Filter #80? As soon as it was removed, the vandalism is was preventing reoccurred. It had few, if any, false positives. Can it be reinstated? Operator873talkconnect 15:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Because abuse filters for a single issue on a single page likely by a single user is an overreach for the same reason we don't protect pages that are getting hit by only one user. The reason I remove it is that it was FPing my own edits. -DJSasso (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Can we not fix it so that it ignores autoconfirmed users effectively? It's an extremely useful filter, regardless of whether it only prevents one person or many. Vermont (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Thanks to eagle eye Chenzw we have it fixed and enabled. -DJSasso (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Amazing, thanks Chenzw! Vermont (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Range Block

I noticed you had made this block which affects 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 unique IP addresses to block the edits of one IP address. Should we dial that in a bit tighter? Operator873talkconnect 16:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

That is an IPv6 address so it blocks exactly 1 user. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I beg your pardon sir... but ‎2409:4064:985:4509:c112:b4d8:cd:b874 is a single address. 2409:4064:985:4509:0:0:0:0/64 is a range. Note the /64 which indicates a cidr range. You don't have to take my word for it even though this is what I do for a living... Operator873talkconnect 16:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
It is what I do for a living as well, ISPs hand out the /64 CIDR block to single users, its standard on en as well as here to block the /64 of IPv6 editors when they are seen to be switching between IPs in the /64 range. -DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
 (change conflict)  (talk page stalker) RFC 6177 recommends assigning a subnet of at least /64 (up to /48) size to each end user/site, and that is being practiced by several ISPs (including mine, which issues a /48). This would be consistent with an IPv4 block of one IP address (one household). The idea here is that multiple devices at the same site/household will all get different IPv6 addresses in the subnet, unlike current IPv4 practice where network address translation takes place instead. Chenzw  Talk  17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
I just don't see the wisdom in nuking an entire range when we could have blocked the specific IP address. For all we know, we just took out an entire business or private school or etc instead of using the precise block with all 128 bits. Operator873talkconnect 17:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
That is sort of the point, to take out the entire site, just like an IPv4 block would. Especially when its an LTA using it. -DJSasso (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Since IPv6 affords the opportunity to block a specific machine, I would have thought blocking it first, then the range if necessary and only if necessary would have been more prudent. Operator873talkconnect 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
In this specific case it was just replicating the block. But generally I do just try the single IP, and then go up to the range. But being how this user has hit us with many many IPs over the last couple weeks I decided to follow en.wikis lead. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
FYI, this guy is actually active on /32. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I know but that has more chance of collateral damage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The archiving bot

Can you tell me why the bot hasn't archived my talk page in almost a month? I haven't changed the config parameters. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Logs say its cause you don't have enough sections to archive. But that doesn't seem right. I have to run out but when I have a chance I will look closer. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I guess that's it. There are six sections (including the one that you added a datestamped comment to). The default for minthreadstoarchive is 2. But if the bot archived 2 threads, that would leave four, which is under the default of 5 for minthreadsleft. I may or may not tweak the parameters later. Thanks for checking, and sorry for bothering you with something I could have figured out myself. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article

Hello, yes, I agree. My oversight, Til had also did POV pushing in major sense per the Global ban discussion, so I mistaken it. Apologies. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah just reading over that discussion now. No worries, your edit was definitely in good faith. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, will be more circumspect next round still. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

+could you help to RD these content+edit summary and same. Personal Information. Thanks much. The page QD deletion log had already been RD.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I will take a look. -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for handling. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

article has major problems

Hello, The entry "Bilal Orfali" has major problems, It was updated several times, but one administrator "Praxidicae" has reverted to the older version and is blocking any change. This person is mean and deleted any requests related to this page for no reason no matter how nicely one asks. His comments on all inquiries on his talk page are impolite. Can you please help me retrieve the older page and block this use "Praxidicae" from interfering with it? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditarab (talkcontribs)

This comment has been added to a number of user talk pages. It refers to a non-existent page. -- Brian R Hunter (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Categorization question

I saw you follow up on my edits earlier, and in the edit history of some of the pages in question, so you're probably a good one to ask:

I was going to go around and clean up the categorization of the redirect templates (all of the Template:R from [whatever]) but ran into a few different cases and wasn't sure which was right:

I'm leaning towards the tao sort since they're templates relating to the category topic, but I wasn't sure if that would apply the same way (since they're more of maintenance templates/categories than content ones). Would I be right to assume that? Brantmeierz (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I personally tend to sort templates to the top of a category. More often than not I just choose a space. Technically templates are supposed to be under τ. But I don't think you will find many people bother with that. However, since you are trying to actually do clean up of categorization that is probably the way you should go. -DJSasso (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I'll go with that - thanks for the second opinion. Brantmeierz (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rev. of RFRR

Hi, I'd like to ask you why you undid my request for my rollback to be removed? Thank you. rollingbarrels (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Because I was about to do it? -DJSasso (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ah, sorry. rollingbarrels (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Abdullah Alnefisi

Hi Dear, how are you? can I write this article Abdullah Alnefisi on English_Wikipedia? User:Djsasso --Ahmadqatari (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello, quite sad that you said I may not be acting in good faith. Btw, will a compilation of plausible / inplasuable typos in Wikipedia space helps in the future where redirects are concerned. Regards,--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say I thought you weren't. Just that it becomes hard to believe it. Because there is no plausible reason at all that you would prevent a redirect from a word that has a letter switched that sounds identical to the other letter. Exactly what typo is more plausible than that? That is /the/ most plausible spelling error of any spelling error. So to argue against it seems like it could be trolling. -DJSasso (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think it's a difference in understanding then, and my pronunciation of words / phonetics aren't the best in school either. I hope you can understand this. I am not trolling either, and if so presented, I apologize. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Like I said I didn't believe you were. Just that the opinion seemed shocking to me. No need to appologize. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Can I now withdraw the DRV as I know it's seems excessive now. Thanks. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am sure it will just sit there forgotten to be honest until it is archived at this hadn't been commented on for a few days until I had so likely people have moved on. -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, noted. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hello. I just noticed that there are 5 questionable IP edits on Blackpink from 17 January. I think they are good faith but you can see that some inserted personal comments or talk. I would like to roll back to before that, but I see that since then you made a bot edit to fix some tags. I don't want to undo your bot edit if I can help there a way to just undo the interim ones? Or can you reinstate the bot edit after a revert to an earlier version? Desertborn (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I rolled it back. Only part that I really changed was some templates on the external link. When this happens for edits I want to revert I usually just see what the person changed and then go back and edit the old revision I want and put whatever the other person changed back into it. That being said most of what was added was probably ok since they are members of a notable band, though blood type is a little odd and over the top. -DJSasso (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notice of AN discussion

A new edit warring discussion has been made on the administrators' noticeboard. You might want to weigh in as an involved party. Chenzw  Talk  14:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply


Djsasso is a great username. Are you a DJ? -- (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Ben Foster

I'm not sure of what to do with the leagues of the teams like Kidderminster and Tiverton in the aforementioned article's club statistics section. It looks like they are left blank only because they play in leagues which are of regional importance. But in my opinion, encylopaedias should rather be centred around the idea of fact distribution. So i'm leaving it upto your excellence to decide whether to include those leagues name or just put a '-' mark to show the negligible importance of the leagues. ClumsyMind (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am no expert on soccer. But I believe on they have the - in the columns for when the player didn't play in those Cups etc. But that is just my assumption. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would suggest you not copying it from english wikipedia as you did in your recent contributions. You are an administrator so with due respect im not going to revert your edit but i think the way the article looks after your revision is actually a degrade on the previous version as i left it. I would suggest you to please undo your edits. ClumsyMind (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
You came looking for help. If you don't want it, don't ask. Frankly I think it looks a lot better now. There is a reason most sports tables use dashes instead of seas of zeros. It makes it easier to read and conveys a lot more information to the reader. -DJSasso (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
My fault. But i remember that i read somewhere that simple english articles shall not be a copy-paste article of english wikipedia. With your edits, it looks like a much degraded version of english wikipedia which it should not be. I could have opted the easy way just like you and others but i don't because i don't treat this as a liability but enjoyment. Even though i asked for help only about a particular matter, i accept my fault. You won't see me asking for help any day soon. Thanks buddy! ClumsyMind (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
And a thing i want to correct you about dear admin, is that dashes and zeroes have a meaning. They are not just for convenience. Dashes means that he wasn't even eligible to play for the competition while zeroes mean that he was eligible but wasn't called to play. Take knowledge from where you can get it. ClumsyMind (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ahh so what you are saying is you were putting in incorrect information in the tables then. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I can judge from your tone that you are in no mood to accept what is right or wrong. And so i am leaving. No one is ever going to say to me after observing the contributions that you didn't help. I made the article one of the best. Now its upon you all if like upgraded standard or not. ClumsyMind (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Buddy I was trying to help you and you immediately attacked me cause you didn't like the help I provided. Maybe turn down the attacking and next time you will have someone more willing to work with you. You immediately went on attack mode when you could have said something like "Hey I like the old table because ..." instead you came flying in with basically "What you did sucks revert it". You are not going to find many people that want to play nice with you when you immediately attack someone trying to help you. -DJSasso (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
I put the dashes jn Europe section because no team other than Man Utd was eligible/qualified to play european competitions. Better watch what you are even talking about. That makes no sense. This is not a banter. ClumsyMind (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
"If you don't want help, dont ask for it" - Very Polite. I'm honoured. You may delete the discussion. And you can ask anybody if you want whether they encourage just copy-paste editing from english wikipedia. Signing off ClumsyMind (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Generally for data driven tables, yes we almost always copy from because we rely on their editor numbers to make sure the numbers are correct and not some interpretation by a single editor here on simple. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navbox

Your input is needed at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Navbox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sean Needham

Hello, you close as delete but the article still remains? Is it an omission? Thanks.--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think it was a timeout. Was sitting spinning. It is deleted now. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh I see. Noted. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
  The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

In 2013 I received a similar award (see 201 on that list). See where it got me :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply
Actually I forgot all about receiving this award in 2014 and 2016 as well. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Deleting without n0tification

Hi Djsasso/Archive 9

I happened to see a couple of pages that I started a while ago, which were deleted "silently" by you. I would really appreciate receving notice of such deletions as is the practice at Simple. Thanks n advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC) (please pong me}}Reply

It actually isn't the practice. You get notice when a page you created was deleted via your watchlist so a second notification is redundant. -DJSasso (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Interstates 95, 76E, 80, 94, 70

Did my editing there seem unconstructive? If so, feel free to block me for anywhere between a week to 1-3 years, I need time to learn how to edit here/potentially mature. User: Vermont told me that. You can also check my editing on enwiki. Anyway, I am taking a WikiBreak probably till 4/5. Adios! Gale5050 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Category question

Quick question, if I wanted to begin creating categories for deaths of COVID-19 by country would the category be titled: Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in France or Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in France etc. for every available country? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I would follow en with Category:Deaths from the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Brazil. Most of their categories are that way and it looks like they are changing the rest to match. -DJSasso (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

DJsasso's user scripts

It just adds some links to the sidebar of your page. When you click it, it makes the changes and puts up the edit window. Then you can preview the change if you like and then click save if you think it is good. -DJSasso (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Please re-add, thanks. BD2412 (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

We only give it out for specific projects with a set goal at this point and then remove it when the task is done. Did you have a task you wished to complete? We do not leave it on permanently anymore.-DJSasso (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
My intention was to address the buildup in disambiguation links. BD2412 (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Alright I will add you on. Let me know when you are done. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I'm done. Thanks. BD2412 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Djsasso/MOSNUM dates.js and User:Djsasso/Sources.js

which line do I copy and paste to activate this script? --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Try pasting something like importScript('User:Djsasso/Sources.js'); into your common.js (substituting the script name where necessary). Hiàn (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
importScript('User:Djsasso/MOSNUM dates.js');
Just add these two lines. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Djsasso and Hiàn --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 00:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Watchlist messages

Instead of "There is currently Requests for request for checkusership & request for oversightership open for discussion." For Simple English can it be "There is currently a Request for checkusership and a request for oversightership open for discussion." ?--Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually should have been two separate templates because one will expire before the other. I have fixed them. -Djsasso (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sounds Good! --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 18:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Removed a word from your edit at Dzongkha

Hello! Bhutanese is not the national language of Bhutan. It is misleading so I removed it. Bhutanese is the national group. Thank you. StarLightMe (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is the national group, but it is also an alternate name of the language. Words can have two meanings. -Djsasso (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

My general edits

Hi, appreciate you going through some of my edits. First, wanted to apologise if most of my edits are mainly general for now - particularly adding general stubs tagging (hat tip to:@Thegooduser: and @Auntof6:) for pointing me towards the right direction about stubs), then the categories and most importantly, the infoboxes. I know I still have a long way to go and I'm still in the process of learning about the specifics and will probably make a mistake or two, so I hope I'm not giving you unnecessary burden by doing those general edits because I noticed you have to go through them and sort of have to redo them for their specific settings. Thanks to you all for your patience and all the guidance. --Infogapp1 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, your edits were mostly fine. I was just expanding on them. Just happened you edited a couple that are on my watch list and I had a few minutes to spare at the time so I expanded on what you were doing. The only tip I might give, is that a "no sources" tag on an article that is only a sentence or two long is pretty much redundant if its already marked stub as well because most people will be able to see on such a short article that there are no sources without needing the tag which just becomes an eyesore in that case. But yeah in general good edits. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Awesome, I just wanted to make sure I'm being more helpful than causing the opposite, haha. Yeah, that makes total sense. Will keep this in mind in my future edits, especially for countries. Do you have to manually fill out the country and geographical details in the infobox when you do those, or is there some Wikiwand or tool I may not be aware of? I'd like to try and expand one of those pages once I get a hang of the process. Also, I learned from you about politicians and not just add infobox-person. Any other common categories I should be on the lookout for when editing infoboxes? I like to do those, so I just to make sure I gradually do more specific ones. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Most of the time you can look on English Wikipedia for infobox information. We don't always have the same type of infobox as them but the information is often similar enough for our uses. But a lot of the times we have the same infobox as them. You just have to make sure any language you bring over is simple, but for infobox information that isn't often a problem. -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ah yes, great advice. Thanks a lot for the tips. --Infogapp1 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Btw, about redlinks: I general add redlinks tag for articles that have more than 5 redlinks. I'm guessing it doesn't apply for categories? Like 1298 for example? TIA.--Infogapp1 (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The red links tag is a bit tricky here. On you might be more liberal using it because its pretty rare to have a tonne of red links on a page. On on the other hand it is very common to have pages full of red links so using that tag liberally here might end up with a bit of overkill. We only have about 30 or so regular editors so we are always going to have a tonne of red links on many pages for the foreseeable future. Personally I don't use that tag here at all. That isn't to say you can't or shouldn't but you will find you might need to tag almost every page if you are using 5 red links as a criteria on if you should tag. -Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I hear you. I'll use it sparingly moving forward where it makes the most sense. Thanks again for the guidance. --Infogapp1 (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. Noticed you've replaced Interwiki {Interwiki copy|url=XXXXXX|title=XXXXX}} notices with Translated notices instead for Harvard Business School. I thought this formatting is mainly if they're taken from non-English Wiki? Would appreciate the clarification as I may need to go through similar pages I've created for uniformity. — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

This format is for any language, we used to have many different templates to do this but they have all been slowly transitioned over to that one. You have to remember that this is Simple English which in wiki terms is a different language from English. So when you simplify you are translating it to simple english. That template in particular is more for when you bring it over from a site that isn't Wikipedia. For example Wiktionary. It can be used for both, but as I see instances of it I tend to switch them over. You are free to use which ever template you like though. Just you might see someone like me switch it. Either is acceptable. -Djsasso (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Understood. I was initially referred to the Interwiki documentation, which is why I used it in all similar edits I did. I will, however, keep this in mind for similar instances so you don't have to redo them ;) Thanks again for the clarification. — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure I'm not doing it right. Just added the translation notice for PayPal. I see there are two version IDs, which one is first and which one is the other? — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
The insert version is the version on simple.wikipedia where you added the content. That being said, if the other template is easier for you to use feel free to use it. It isn't required to use this one, its just that some of us tend to be nit picky about small things like this and change it. But I reiterate, either is acceptable. -Djsasso (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for fixing that; no idea how I managed to do that. IWI (chat) 16:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


do you have a moment or two? I wanna chat with you about some revdel --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead and send an email with the link and I will look at it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
sent --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
If they asked for it to be hidden I would. But if they haven't asked it isn't required. -Djsasso (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
I redacted the signatures though, but I'll just leave everything else as it is. thanks for your time --Thegooduser Let's Talk! :) 🍁 16:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for turning “External links” into “Other websites”!

I really appreciated the help! One question though: how did you do it so fast? I saw you making like 30 edits a minute... --sithjarjar666 (my contribs | talk to me | email me | see my enwiki profile) 20:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Treefrogs and tree frogs

Hi there, fellow froggy fan. I saw you move several "treefrog" articles to "tree frog." Could you tell me how to access the source you were using for common names? I seem to recall a three-letter acronym starting with A. I don't like to put "tree frog" if all the sources I find use only "treefrog."I tried clicking on ADW in the taxon bar for the West Highland treefrog article but didn't see much about common names there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


I see you're reverting me a lot. I just returned from an extended wikibreak, so I don't really know where to start. Can you tell me where to start? Thanks, ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Start with a topic you have knowledge of. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm mainly an antivandalism patroller on enwiki, but as sithJarJar666 said, this wiki only gets vandalized once an hour. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, we don't have so much as So our need is more with content creation. -Djsasso (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'll try to create pages on plants. ~Prahlad balaji (t / c) 16:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Infobox Finnish Municipality

I wanted to add an infobox for Kuhmoinen but it shows me the sub-categories (tax rate, land area, etc), but doesn't seem to load the main one? Is this normal, or probably just a bug? What would be a more apt infobox for such cases? — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it needed a redirect as the spelling was capitalized on the one from but not here. -Djsasso (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Cool, thanks. — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hey Djsasso, did you see the red error that appears at the top of the article? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wierd. Some template it uses must have changed. I updated the one it was complaining about. Looks like it's fixed on my phone. Will confirm when I get to a computer in the morning. Djsasso (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

My talk page

Hello Djsasso. Can you explain your change to my talk page? You did not leave change summary. The change that you made is: --HugoHelp (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I meant to leave one. Transcluding that page puts you in a category your talk page shouldn't be in. By all means use the text of that page on your talk page, but transcluding the whole thing is miscategorizing your talk page. -Djsasso (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thank you. --HugoHelp (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Reverting multiple changes

It doesn't happen every day, but I had a couple of instances today (e.g. Hysteria and Chemical change) where separate vandals made several edits, making it quite difficult to revert to the previous/last good version. What I do is manually copy that latest good version and make it as a new change. What other methods or tools would you recommend that will make those switch smoother and easier? — Infogapp1 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If you can't just click undo, one way to do it is go back to the last good version in the history and click on the date for it. It will open the page on that version of the page, at which point you can click edit and it will warn you that you are editing an old version of the page. Then just save it and it will save that version as the new version. -Djsasso (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh, that's neat. Will do, thanks! — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Unrelated, but I couldn't seem to be able to use 'red links' tag anymore? I wanted to use it for Toray Pan Pacific Open. Or, has it been decided it's no longer needed to use such taggings? — Infogapp1 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
As far as I know it still exists. I will look into it. -Djsasso (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
It still does, indeed. I was typing it as separate words when it should just be 1 word. You can take this off your checklist, thanks. — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again for leading me towards the right direction about rollbacks. That's quite handy as I didn't realise I can do it with Twinkle. I'm yet to get a hang of the process for proposing to merge a duplicate page. Is there somehow a feature on Twinkle that helps make this the merge proposal just like QD/RfD and the likes that I may be missing? — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm not seeing much media coverage about Decode Entertainment and the fact that it was acquired by DHX Media, IMO, I would like to propose for it to be either redirected or merged as the company that acquired it has more media coverage (despite the current copy being more in the Decode Entertainment article. What's the best way to go about this? Should I go through usual RfD and include my proposal in the comments? Or is there another process I may not be aware of? — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I finally got the courage to look deeper into archiving. I've set up your bot (at least I hope I did it right, haha). Thanks for introducing it to me, as despite several attempts, I couldn't seem to get ClueBot III to work. — Infogapp1 (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


Should we be adding the WP:ONESTRIKE note on this user's Simple profile? I'm not seeing the account being disruptive in this project [yet]. Instead, s/he seems to be cooperative when given objective feedback, but thought I'd double-check. — Infogapp1 (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Leave that to admins. We generally only mention it if it looks like they are heading towards a block. But really the point of one strike is that there is no warning. We just do it. -Djsasso (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
10-4 :) — Infogapp1 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

wikidata infobox

Hi, please do not revert a blank wikidata infobox as here [1] , i will sweep through wikidata to add references to fill these out. alternatively, you could change the wikidata infobox to drop the reference requirement, which is an english thing. cheers. Slowking4 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Generally we don't have empty infoboxes so they get removed when they are not displaying anything but the name. It is preferable that you add information before you add the infobox. Since you say you will be looping through I will give you some time to do that. But if they are still empty after awhile they will likely get removed. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
i would suggest not importing the bitey practices of english, but rather linking practices of catalan. if there is a reference in the article then nudge editors to edit wikidata. or change the wikidata infobox to not require a reference. wikidata infoboxes are a major innovation for small wikis. Slowking4 (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately the community at wikidata is very small, and because of this there is a very large amount of mistakes in their data so requiring references is necessary to ensure the integrity of our wiki. -Djsasso (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Archiving bot

I've managed to get your bot running, but looks like I may need to specify some parameters for it to work? For example, I'm seeing an error in the archived page. — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Took me a few to get it fixed. Looks like you are the first person to have it setup this way. Other people do the months but looks like they have been manually adding the links themselves. But you should be all good now. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would take me forever to figure it out, even if I tried, haha. Thank you so much! — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Fixed you over on as well. I don't run the bot there but the setup is the same. -Djsasso (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
You're heaven-sent, thanks very much. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)Reply


So you're saying that dab pages here are taken from normal English Wikipedia? (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes a lot of what we have here has been imported from English Wikipedia and simplified. In the case of dab pages, they typically already are simple other than the odd word here or there. -Djsasso (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Rahul Kumar Pandey

Hey, There were not at all any advertising content, Also the person is highly notable! What’s the point of deleting it? Had conversation with other admin and he said previous one was advertising, so I created this one!

Please help and undo the deletion admin sir! Raaahulpandey (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for making hard work EASY!

  The Amazing Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for being an overall pleasant person to collaborate with. Thank you for going out of your way making difficult tasks seemingly easy. Your SassoBot is such a life saver, thank you very much! - Infogapp1 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Editing an archived RfD

I just realised I badly and inappropriately misspelt a term in Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2020/Alif Laila (2020 Series). I actually meant it to be Google hits. Is it possible for me to edit that bit? I know I shouldn't be editing archived threads anymore, but I would appreciate if that bit could be rectified somehow. So sorry for the inconvenience. --Infogapp1 (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Infogapp1: that would be perfectly fine. -Djsasso (talk) 16:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply


My first instinct is always to try to save stubs, especially when they're notable (i.e. Dennis Villarojo, Katherine McNamara,Caity Lotz and then leave a note in the editor's talk page about how we treat attribution in this page. However, whenever an account keeps adding articles without taking the copyright notes into consideration, that's when I end up flagging some of their works. Do you suggest I should just try to save them by (1) simplifying the article (2) adding attribution myself? I'm fine with that approach, but I also want to be careful that I don't set incorrect expectations to new editors that the practice of adding articles without attribution and simplification is acceptable. Alternatively, I can just do this for obvious stubs and tag QD for full-on long articles (2000 bytes+). What do you suggest? --Infogapp1 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

That really is up to personal opinion. I personally try to save everything I can unless its just far too complex to save in a couple minutes. Most articles here start as copied articles from It is the not continuing to work on them and simplify them (along with lack of attribution) that is the real issue, not so much the copying itself. Some people worry that just outright deleting scares away a potential new editor as well, so sometimes just pointing out to them about requirements can be helpful as well. -Djsasso (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Copy that, thanks --Infogapp1 (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi Djsasso, Quick question regarding attribution. I've noticed several edits (new pages mainly) recently with edit summaries calling to check the page history following an article being copied from enwp. I was under the impression a permanent link was required either in the change summary or on the talk page. What's your take on this? --Yottie =talk= 12:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Technically exact link it is not required. It is however the much preferred way. But legally speaking as long as you say where you are getting it from you are in the clear as the reader can go an see the attribution history. I often only say "based on" if I am not using the import tool. -Djsasso (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good, thanks for the quick reply!--Yottie =talk= 12:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


I saw that you were the deleting editor for J-Pimp (songwriter). And it disappeared before I even knew it was existed - thank you.

But, I was wondering if I could have a list of the editors for that page. Knowing that vandal's editing history, I'd liked to do a cross-project (and outside sites as well) check on the edits to make sure it isn't being added elsewhere. Quakewoody (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

We sent you an e-mail

Hello Djsasso/Archive 9,

Really sorry for the inconvenience. This is a gentle note to request that you check your email. We sent you a message titled "The Community Insights survey is coming!". If you have questions, email

You can see my explanation here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

Thank you so much for your helpful comments and explaining things for me. I would really appreciate your mentorship in becoming a prolific editor here. --Synoman Barris (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply


Hi! They are actually pretty good, but they take their source from this website, which is just a mirror of Wikipedia and Wikidata (which means that it shouldn't be used for Wikipedia source, you get it). Here is an example. In my work, I use the official Swiss Statistics Office (example). Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Nadzik: Ok thanks, was trying to see an article he created with a bot since you mentioned it. We are having issues with them creating articles here as an IP and then doing work on them logged in. If he was creating articles with a bot that would explain why he is always an IP when the articles are created and when he is logged in when he edits the pages further. -Djsasso (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Prince Josias of Coburg -> Prince Josias o Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld

Yo. Considering you enjoy moving pages so much you may want to move the above to the latter considering it is the correct title and name. Unlike that of the the following articles you renamed and thus destroyed :

  1. Marie Émilie de Joly de Choin incorrect as Choin was her father's title.
  2. Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe incorrect as her name was M L then T not M T L)

I suggest you actually do some background reading on the things/pages you vandalise prior to doing so. Alternatively don't just copy enwiki. Bye. (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Please move the following to the latter thanks.

  1. Prince Josias of Coburg -> Prince Josias of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. (full name and correct title)
  2. Marie Thérèse Louise of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe -> Marie Louise Thérèse of Savoy, Princesse de Lamballe. (M L then T) (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
    You are aware your are blocked from editing this wiki. Please cease to do so. -Djsasso (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply


Automobile category names are very inconsistent too. Do these need a glance? Bobo. 13:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Probably. People change them or create them and they don't get noticed so they get fixed as people see them. We have less than 30 active editors here so lots of things to do/fix and few people to do it. -Djsasso (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Happy Holidays!

  Merry Christmas Djsasso

Hi Djsasso, I wish you and your family a very
Merry Christmas (if you celebrate it)/holiday season
and a very happy and healthy New Year,
Thank you for all your contributions to the Simple English Wikipedia :),
   --IWI (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

car vs automobile

How is car considered more complex than automobile? Car is only three letters. Angela Kate Maureen 12:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I second this. People who are visiting for its intended purpose are probably less familiar with the word "automobile". How can this appear on a list of simple vocabulary? Bobo. 12:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Length of word doesn't make it simple. Car is not used throughout the world. In many countries automobile is the more common term. But the most important reason is that it is not on Wikipedia:Basic English combined wordlist where automobile is. -Djsasso (talk) 12:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not arguing whether that is right or wrong, I'm just wondering how this can be the case, purely from a philosophical point of view! Bobo. 12:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
My guess is because automobile is the actual word for all moving vehicles, where as car is more specific and/or slang. I would have to look into why the various researchers whom the BE list come from chose that word, I don't know off the top of my head. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
In fairness, I would only ever use the word "car" when the vehicle actually *was* a car. You are right though, I wonder how the people who compile these lists made that decision! Bobo. 12:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
The same is true for most manuals of style though - manuals of style are very Americo-centric, in the main. Bobo. 12:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Automobile" redirects to "Car" in any case. Does this need to be altered too? Not an attack, just a question. Bobo. 12:36, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
Doing a very cursory look at it, it appears automobile comes from the international list, which if I am remembering right, its purpose was to standardize words for things like the UN to stop the competition of two words that mean the same thing in documents. Now of course that doesn't explain why it was automobile that Ogden settled on. It could also have to do with the time period in which he created his lists. At that point in time automobile may have been more predominant than car is today. I have been trying to decide what to do with the car page for quite awhile. I mostly haven't touched it because it explains in it that they are also called automobiles. It probably should be moved. -Djsasso (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)Reply
So I can just put [[car|Automobile]] in the article? --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 01:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Automobile redirects so you can just put [[automobile]]. -Djsasso (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
If they are learning British English, automobile won't be mentioned to them. Car is a pretty basic word for any English student and is not complex in my opinion (from this side of the pond). They are likely to be taught the much more common word car. --IWI (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah as I mention above its likely that automobile was choosen due to the time period the lists were created. That being said, we are supposed to use the Basic English lists when possible here, that is technically the mandate we were given when this wiki was created. It very quickly did become obvious for "things" that did not have words on the BE lists we would have to use judgement, but in cases like this where it exists on the BE list we are supposed to use it. -Djsasso (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
This may be an exception for following it, per WP:IAR. Of course, following the BE is only a guideline anyway I would imagine, and not policy. My common sense tells me that in the modern English language, some students may not learn the word "automobile" until a much later period. Some European languages have a similar word, but I don't think this outweighs the benefits. They will still learn "car". Do you think a discussion on ST is neccessery to gain community consensus on these two particular words? There is clearly a split of opinion within this thread. --IWI (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I don't know that it needs a discussion as the simple in Simple English Wikipedia is literally the fact we use the BE lists. The minute we stop using the sourced "Simple" lists is the minute we are using POV in place of referenced material. The entire purpose of Simple English Wikipedia was to adhere to the BE lists. Using car instead of automobile would be essentially similar to using a French word instead of an English word on English Wikipedia. But I mean of course anything can be discussed there. -Djsasso (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think blindly following rules without considering the actual reality is an issue that many Wikis like ours face. The idea of using the BE is that it is mostly effective at demonstrating what is simple and what is not. Regardless of what the BE says, car is more simple than automobile (at least in my version of English, I can't speak for North American English or others, but I believe car is more common). In this case I think the BE is outdated. So within this analogy, I would say using automobile instead of car is like using a French word in the English Wikipedia because a rule tells you so. Perhaps the community disagrees with me, but I think it's worth seeing what others think on the matter. Then moving articles can be considered. --IWI (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The biggest reason I think we need to remember the fact we are supposed to use BE is that we are very likely to be closed once we give in to not following BE. The fact we follow BE is what protects us from being shut down as a wiki. One of the biggest complaints against our wiki is how we randomly decide what is simple and what is not. The fact we can point to adhering to BE is what saves us. -Djsasso (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I think "car" is always used nowadays to mean "automobile". It was a more general word 100 years ago, but we won't go far wrong to use the short version because "automobile" or "motor car" seem too artificial today. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
 (change conflict)  (talk page stalker) We should use IAR very carefully, especially where it concerns the project's very purpose. To ignore these guiding principles does not help this wiki too, especially in the eyes of detractors who believe this wiki should be closed due to being "just another EN wiki". Now, perhaps I may be wrong here, but continuing to use "automobile" per BE 1500 is also good for ESL speakers who happen to be native German or Dutch speakers (where a variation of the word is also used in that language). Furthermore, since the project uses the BE 1500 list and it is established as such, they should be adhered to as much as possible to ensure consistency and avoid confusion when readers switch between different articles. Chenzw  Talk  17:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Chenzw: But this is ignoring students who will likely not understand the word "automobile". I find it hard to believe a student will not understand the word "car" but will understand "automobile", therefore it is problematic from a reader's perspective to use the latter. --IWI (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
And to answer Djsasso, I really don't think our main concern should be how other wikis will view us, rather than our readers. I am not suggesting we ignore the BE entirely - it is very userful and is almost always the best way to see which words are complex and which are not. I'm just saying in this case, it seems to be incorrect. If a researcher were to create a new BE, I would image "car" would be found in there. --IWI (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
And when a new researcher does that and publishes a study we will likely follow that as well. Our entire mission is surrounded by the fact we follow Basic English. And we very much need to be cognizant about how we are viewed, Simple language wikis have been all but outlawed at this point in other languages because of the fact they don't have authoritative lists to use in other languages. We literally only exist because we adhere to the BE word lists. Our purpose is to write articles using Basic English. -Djsasso (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
And I agree we should follow it, but as with any rule, there will always be some rare exceptions where it seems unecessary to make the wiki more complex for the sake of following the letter of a rule. This goes against one of the five pillars directly. I'm sure outsiders would look at the general attitude, which currently is to follow the BE in almost all circumstances, the only issues arise is when it is ignored largely or entirely, which I am not suggesting nor would I support. --IWI (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The problem is the automobile is specifically listed as not complex, the fact that car is now more common doesn't make automobile less basic. Deviating from the BE wordlist would actually be violating one of the other pillars in that it would be violating NPOV in that we are deviating from sourced material just because we want to. -Djsasso (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah I understand where you’re coming from, and I guess it makes sense. To me though, automobile is more complex, even if listed as a basic English word. I am aware that my take on that is mostly irrelevant when compared to a study. Nevertheless, it would seem strange to be replacing instances of "car" with "automobile". It is already naturally the case that users are more likely to use the word car when creating pages. And I mean, where does it end? Sports automobile? Super automobile? --IWI (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The talk page discussion has highlighted something none of us identified here. It isn’t that the BE is outdated, but that the word "car" has many uses but "automobile" has one. This makes sense to me, so I agree with using the word automobile, despite how old fashioned it is. --IWI (talk) 05:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the fact that car had multiple meanings definitely slipped my mind, which definitely explains why automobile might be on the list. -Djsasso (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

New Climate Normals 1991-2020

Hey it's a New Year now for the New NOAA Climate Normal please don't change the climate data back to 1981-2010. Fleestarkotz (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Until you have a source for the new normals you need to leave them at the 1981-2010. NOAA does not have them as being 1991-2020 yet. -Djsasso (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Djasso.

For restoring my article. --MartinLutheran (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Which article was your article? -Djsasso (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
The article titled Karim. --MartinLutheran (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Djsasso/Archive 9".