User talk:Alansohn/Archive 8

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 01:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

School Clubs

Was it necassary to delete so much info regarding the topic Schol clubs from the article Thomas R. Grover Middle School?? respond back on my talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umm killer (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

AWWWW o well it was indeed too detailed but w/e--Umm killer 01:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NJSCR Newsletter 6

The New Jersey State and County Route Newsletter Issue 6 – October 1, 2007

Issue #6 The 6th edition of the WP:NJSCR newsletter. This one will hopefully start a monthly streak of newsletters.

Project News Many articles are starting to reach Start and B-class. New Jersey Route 55, New Jersey Route 47, New Jersey Route 74 all got upgraded to B-class. County Route 622 (Middlesex County, New Jersey) failed its 3rd Good Article nomination due to unreliable sources and other conditions. We currently now have over 10 B-class articles. New Jersey Route 75 has reached Start-class. A to-do list has been posted on the project page, with a more detailed version at WT:NJSCR#To-do list. The simple version: Ensure that all freeway exit lists are up to exit list guide standards. Make sure all infoboxes have the new maint= parameter. Make sure the straight line diagram is properly referenced in the infobox. Add a major intersections table to each article.

Member of the Month Mlaurenti The member of the month for this edition is User:Mlaurenti. He joined in March of 2006 and has been a worker ever since. Works include starting the Garden State Parkway's exit list. Thanks for all your hard work, Mlaurenti!

Want to help on the next newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it transcluded next time? – It's all here.Mitch32^contribs 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Please help

Centre 2000 The deletionist brigade is after this article which you helped save once. Please weigh in again. Also in the debate on Macleod Mall and Centennial Mall68.144.31.71 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alan

Hello Alan, I am wondering why you deleted information on recreation and historical landmarks in Montvale? I don't see how it would infringe on copyrights, particularly the recreation information. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annieherman (talk • contribs) 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Taxicabs of New York City

Hi, I have moved New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission to Taxicabs of New York City. This is to allow consistent naming with other similar articles; I have spent much time in producing a coherent set of taxicab articles on a world-wide basis. Also the article deals with taxicabs in New York as a whole, not just the Commission. I have to say that I don't see why the article was split out but since we work well together I won't fight over it. However, it is important to maintain a proper structure. TerriersFan 15:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Amy Handlin.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Amy Handlin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Messina

Wow, you did a great job with that. I e-mailed Frank to let him know. I'm starting to look into transcription services for my interviews. I'm really backed up - I have five recorded but not yet transcribed, which is the most laborious task in the process. But the going rate is $1.25 per audio minute! My interview with Augusten Burroughs is 2.5 hours! So, I need to find a high school student or something. --David Shankbone 19:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD'd related articles

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme. Cool Hand Luke 08:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Queens

You're welcome, I just hope he'll stop. Corvus cornix 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully. Corvus cornix 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Abuse

I wish you would rephrase your accusation of abuse you leveled at me. I made a mistake, it happens. As you may have noticed, I worked on finding citations for a high school with you, so you must know that I am not on some sort of crusade to wipe out all school articles. SolidPlaid 21:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, let's hope that the question of notability in the case forms a precedent so that truly non-notable elementary schools can be deleted without the exercise of an AfD. SolidPlaid 21:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

Number 6 (6 create/expand - 0 nominations)

On 13 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank Messina, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

HEY, WHY DID YOU DELETE MY EDIT ON ELIZAETH HIGH SCHOOL

WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT ELIZABETH HIGH SCHOOL? I AM A CURRENT STUDENT AT ELIZABETH HIGH SCHOOL AND MY WHOLE FAMILY GRADUTED FROM ELIZABETH HIGH SCHOOL. WE KNOW MORE THAN YOU. EVERYBODY THAT WHEN TO ELIZABETH HIGH SCHOOL KNOWS THAT THE SCHOOL HAS A GANG PROBLEM AND IS THE WORST IN THE STATE. SO WHY DID DELETE THAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzey jon (talk • contribs) 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Monsey

Hi. We either use categories or a list page, but notable residents should not be on the page about the location itself. Thanks. -- Avi 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just much cleaner this way. See List of people from Monsey, New York. -- Avi 05:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Shkoyach, und a Gut Voch far dir oychet. -- Avi 05:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Elias Moore

I take it you brought the birth and death dates up and used the names of the months. I don't mind that too much, but any Quaker would know that the minutes book from which the death date was obtained would not have used the names of the months, because Quakers don't use the "pagan" names for days and months. Broadcastinglive 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Check the history of the Elias Moore to see who used the pagan dates. Alansohn 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was I. Wiki style. Moriori 22:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Middle years

Well, AfD is an inconsistent process. I think we should WP:DRV Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme on grounds that the discussion for the other two suggests a non-consensus. I would support undeletion. It's absurd to have deleted only the one. Cool Hand Luke 15:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

McGreevey article -- "homofecal" vs. "gay"

NPOV and basic accuracy demand the most precise terminology available. Without making any value judgements, it is reasonable to point out that "gay" is an imprecise term at best (at the time, McGreevey identified as heterosexual) and by all accounts the affair was purely physical rather than emotional.

Such physical intercourse without an emotional component is colloquially referred to as "homosexual" rather than "gay". However this is not precise either, since "sex" is not possible in the technical sense between two males. Hence "homofecal" is sometimes used as a substitute. See for instance http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1799

I want to make it clear that I have nothing against homosexuals/gay people. If this had been an affair between two self-identified gay/homosexual people, that would be one thing. Since this is not the case, my edit gay-> homofecal has the virtue of accuracy. This can be debated one way or the other, but it was certainly not vandalism as alansohn falsely termed it, and should not be labeled as such. Watcher On The Wall 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

David Null

re: David Null, Clifton High School Notability standards set at WP:PROF for professors are not the notability standards for high school alumni. Please explain how this edit violates the notability standards for high school alumni if you disagree with this edit.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pupluv (talk • contribs) 06:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Siyum HaShas

Number 7 (7 create/expand - 0 nominations)

On 16 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Siyum HaShas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Peacock tag

Please do not remove valid tags from articles without fixing the underlying issue. Quatloo 02:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the revert which inadvertently did re-add some peacock text, which I did not realize (I should have more carefully examined the edit, your edit summary implied all you did was remove the tag, and I apparently didn't read far enough down the edit). However the article is full of laudatory adjectives, "winningest", "sprawling", "sharpshooting", etc. Much of the athletics section, while sourced, is largely inappropriate and probably should not be in Wikipedia. Also there is no issue with tagging articles without editing, if the tag is truthful. Quatloo 04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I left cleanup tag since I didn't think the length of the article was appropriate considering the lack of importance of the subject. My fix would have been to remove the athletic section entirely, and prune down other sections as well. I'm still willing to do this, but I'm not willing to work on content that I don't feel should be there in the first place. Quatloo 04:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Helpful hint

Before deleting unsourced content from articles, you should first make a good faith effort to find a source for the material, and then place a tag (for example to request a source for encyclopedic content. Going on a rampage and deleting content is considered bad form. Alansohn 04:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pupluv Comment noted.

Andy Papathanassiou

I expanded the article. I saw no evidence of him racing, so I move him from Category:NASCAR drivers to Category:NASCAR people. If this is incorrect, then please cite that he has raced in NASCAR at any level and revert my change. Otherwise, you could leave a message on the article's talk page - it's on my watchlist. Cheers! Royalbroil 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits (second nomination)

If you have an issue with Daniels conduct, take it to AN/I or daniels talk page - not the MfD. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Message to User:TBL Al Capwn

I hate to second-guess a more experienced wikipedian, but I thought that your third-level warning to User:TBL Al Capwn was a little harsh, considering that it was for an edit that was self-reverted a minute later. That editor has not contributed anything useful yet, but I was trying to be gentle (perhaps too gentle) in admonishment, hoping that they could still become a useful contributor. I just wanted to get your thoughts. Do you feel that I treaded too gently? -- Pawl 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 15

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your 3RR report

You, too, are edit warring, even if not breaking 3RR technically, and you've carried on with this for far too long. I've watchlisted the article to watch both you and ILike2BeAnonymous. If you continue the edit war, I will block you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ranney

Alan Sohn Russel G. Ranney's real middle name is actually Gaylord. I'm not vandalizing it, just making it as accurate as possible. Get your mind out of the gutter and into the fact books. Excuse me for not signing. I'm a wikipedia noob. Stop using twinkle to change his middle name. Why are you the boss of the Ranney wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.15.76 (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Andy Papathanassiou

Number 8 (8 create/expand - 0 nominations)

On 23 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Andy Papathanassiou, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thank for for listing the article in the DYK section! I had no idea that it was suggested. I would have added a wikilink to the hook, but it's a minor matter. I feel like I made major contributions to the article, so I'm adding it to my DYK infobox total as a "major contribution". It turned out well! I'm curious why you decided to start the article. Royalbroil 20:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

An IP asked for instruction on how to email you on your userpage, i reverted it and gave my email address to the IP and said I'll forward you the email as I don't mind just giving out my email address directly on-wiki. Is that OK with you? If not I'll have another chat with the IP. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Jessica back... again?

As much as I don't like to make accusations... User:Nitsirk edits the same articles, already tried to change all of the infobox's to 'senior high school' out of style... I haven't been active editing in a while, but it smells fishy to me, what do you think? MrMacMan ^Talk 23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Sure smells like it. I don't understand the perceived distinction, but I am keeping an eye on these Great Neck school articles. Alansohn 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks for that. (I don't really get the difference either) MrMacMan ^Talk 23:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littlemoss High School

Hi, I have substantially expanded the article and I wonder if you would revisit your recommendation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littlemoss High School, please? TerriersFan 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yakir Forman

I was about to "Afd it," but I saw your opinion on its talk page so I didn't. I disagree with you, but I have too much respect for your work to go against your opinion. I tagged it, however. If you don't like the tag, then remove it. All the best, --Brewcrewer 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

• It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Hills High School

Hi, perhaps you would revisit your 'weak' keep, pl? TerriersFan 18:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Sturgis article

I believe that the Cape Citizen For Open Gov't blog is a reliable source. The Cape Cod Times speaks with the site's administrator regularly, and Mr. Lopez is pretty well-respected as a government watchdog... I revered the edit but am open to discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.105 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Essex

Not sure what you're doing here, but you've recently changed occurrences of Essex, a county of England that is referred to as Essex, to a peculiar phrase Essex County. The later may have a meaning in the US, but not, sadly in English. I think you should consider where the place is, before making the change. Thanks Kbthompson 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC) ...

OK, mea culpa, they have more complex errors than I thought, and yep! it's not your fault. I'll look at them again. Cheers Kbthompson 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassment

Hello,

Someone is harassing me on Wikipedia. They left this message for me:

Hey, high school dropout, get a life. 71.124.133.4 20:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please let me know how I should proceed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.105 (talk • contribs)

Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:DennisMcNerney.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:DennisMcNerney.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Arbeit Sockenpuppe 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Unused Highways continuity

I saw in the WikiProject New Jersey State and County Routes that the naming convention states "New Jersey Route X" should be used instead of what I was using for NJ state highways but that only pertains to articles specifically about NJ highways or interstates within NJ. The unused highways article is obviously not just about New Jersey so it shouldn't be included. If there is some other mandate/law/rule that states "New Jersey Route X" should always be used to refer to NJ state highways, please show it to me because I am unaware of it. I have been working hard on the article, making it accurate and cited and written the same way for every state. Thanks!!Bodo920 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• The article is a tremendous undertaking and the scope is very wide. The changes I made were to conform to standard usage for the New Jersey highway names and to the Wikipedia article titles. As a result of a massive nationwide effort at consistency in naming state highways, the agreement was to use a number of different formats depening on state. New Jersey's roadways were all renamed from "Route xx (New Jersey)" to "New Jersey Route xx". While every "New Jersey State Route xx" article is set to redirect to "New Jersey Route xx", the actual titles are all in the form of "New Jersey Route xx" and there is absolutely no one who will refere to any one of them as "New Jersey State Route xx". In subesequent references to a roadway, "Route xx" (if a New Jersey-only article) or "NJ xx" will be used, which breaks up some of the stiltedness of using "Mew Jersey Route xx" for all references to the same highway. I hope this explains my changed. Alansohn 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to as a tremendous undertaking? The Unused Highway one? I was just confused which you were referring to, but I think I got it right. Nonetheless, I'd still like to find this "standard usage" reform you're referring to. I completely understand what you did and why you did it because I am doing the same thing, in a sense. But if this is truly a "massive nationwide effort," I would have thought I'd come across it or heard about it. Can you provide a source for your claim? Like I said, I saw the announcement about naming the highways within a New Jersey-based article. I'd like to see what it says about broad articles. The Unused Highway page is actually way too long and if you've seen the discussion, there's been talk about dividing it up into state-specific redirects. Then changing things to NJ xx and such would definitely be appropriate and warranted based on what I've read.!Bodo920 21:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I was referring to the unused highways one, and I agree that at this point it would be wise to split it into separate articles by state, e.g. "List of unused highways in New Jersey", with the original as a directory. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (U.S. state highways) has the end result of highway naming standards by state, which was formulated about a year ago as the result of a very extensive (and contentious) debate. This "standard" actually means that there are 50 separate standards (some are the same), one for each state. I hope this helps. Alansohn 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the info I'm looking for, because, if and when the article gets split, each of those individual state articles will need to be state specific. And I bet that the debate was a pretty good one. Thanks again!Bodo920 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Holywood, New Jersey?

Mr Jersey: Look at the redlink at Agnes de Lima. Do you know what it is? --Brewcrewer 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

a Walk in the Park (Amuro)

Can you tell me why this can't seem to get capitalized?--Brewcrewer 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, I figured it out. --Brewcrewer 01:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Dasburg

Number 9 (9 create/expand - 0 nominations)

Did you know? was updated. On 4 November, 2007, a fact from the article Andrew Dasburg, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 17:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

School Prods

You might like to take a look here where a large number of schools have been indiscriminately prodded. TerriersFan 19:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed the prod tags from all the high schools, left snarky edit comments for the prodder. SolidPlaid 06:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dane Rauschenberg

Could we please do something about Dane Rauschenberg's sockpuppets, who are determined to restore his article to its former, WP:COI glory.Xcstar 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ocean Grove

Hi, Alansohn- We seem to keep running into each other on various articles - small world, isn't it? :o)

I've reworded slightly Ocean Grove, New Jersey since your edit, to clarify that although the court quashed OG's status as a separate borough in 1921, the Camp Meeting Assn continued to exercise local ordinance powers for another 60 years (until the newspaper deliveryman sued the Assn in 1981 because he couldn't drive his delivery truck into the Grove on Sundays).

Just didn't want you to think me rude for changing your edit.

Cheers, JGHowes ^talk - 19:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious what you are implying

Yes, CelticGreen and I work together on the soap projects and often cross paths but she does nighttime shows too and I tend to avoid those. I work on the soaps, and have been a project member longer than her, but we met on a mutual page through a mutual editor, Flyer22. She rarely backs my arguments for deletion unless it gets crazy like the West Garden Grove is getting. If having similar names is a prerequisite for suspicion would that make you and Alanraywiki the same person? He's editing the article and you are fighting for it. Now, I'm not accusing, just pointing out with a limited number of names, there will be similarities. There's also a user named IrishGuy that I have only seen reported on the admin board. Try to not throw accusations at people. Especially those that are unwarranted. You really need to stop that practice in general. It's rude to assume you know why someone nominated an article for deletion and to assume someone is ashamed of their home. IrishLass0128 14:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Number 10 (10 create/expand - 0 nominations)

On November 8, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Balfour Brickner, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Hi there Alan. Very unusual. Just the thing that DYK wants! Keep it coming! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Robbinsville, New Jersey

It's not a CDP? My mistake. That's what I get for assuming again...lol. I could have sworn it was a CDP, though. Anyway, you're right, it needs something to differentiate it from the (now) Robbinsville Township. We could do "Robbinsville, Robbinsville Township, New Jersey", but that's way too wordy. Why not just merge them together, since it's nothing more than a neighborhood of the township now? It seems like wasted space to have them separate. It'd be like having a separate article for Pedricktown and Oldmans Township; the names are interchangeable in Salem County, so there'd be no need to switch them.

Speaking of, you got something against Salem County, saying my examples weren't good enough?  ;-) LOL EaglesFanInTampa 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Woodhaven Boulevard

Why did you eliminate a cite to this:

• The headquarters of the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee is located on Woodhaven Boulevard. ?

Bearian 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Is there any proof that Rego Park, or Woodhaven Boulevard in particular, has been a filming location for King of Queens? All I could find is this from IMdB. Bearian 21:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

USRD leadership

If you believe that you can do a better job, then you have a try at it. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Personalising things

There may be a thin line between commenting trenchantly on editing behaviour (allowed) and personal attacks, but I think you crossed it with this edit in your deletion review. Your anger at mistakes you believe JzG has made may be very real but it does not help your cause to express it in this way. Sam Blacketer 00:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Northfield NJ Election Info

Thanks Mr. Sohn for the info and updates...forgive a Winki neophyte. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by KenRTrackman (talk • contribs) 04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Indian King Tavern

Sweet! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note

It doesn't bother me at all if we disagree on something -- in fact, it's got to happen. I appreciated your points, and they helped me to think about the matter. What annoyed me and caused me to take the deletion discussion off my watch list was the attitude of some of the other editors. I find I don't feel nearly as bad about being on the losing end of a deletion discussion if the article is kept -- I guess that's my inclusionist attitude at work. Cheers! Noroton 23:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting reading

I found a source[1] that gives information about education in the in the United States, put out by the Department of Education. It is full of data; by my reading (see Table 89) in 2001 there were 26,407 public high schools and 10,693 private high schools in the United States, and 92,858 elementary schools (68,173 public, 24,685 private). Interestingly, there were still 423 grade schools where one teacher taught all the grades. There were 14,928 public school districts in 2001. See if you can find other useful information in the source. SolidPlaid 05:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I used it to put a few facts in some articles just now. I don't have time today, but I think the structure and relationships of the articles Primary education in the United States, Secondary education in the United States, Education in the United States, Primary school, Primary education, Middle school, Secondary education, and High school needs a revamping. Each of them has a section on the other, it's crazy. SolidPlaid 05:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

West Garden Grove page

I removed content from a banned user per guidelines. If you would like to find and source and reword the information about the government, feel free, but do not restore comments by banned members. Any banned member using a sockpuppet is not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia and their edits are justifiably removed. Thank you for understanding why this was done. If you can find and source the removed information, feel free to add it in, again, in your own words.`IrishLass0128 13:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Copied from my talkpage.

• After the text had been removed, after the user had been blocked, the material was reviewed, verified and reinserted. Sources were added documenting the information added. If you have any question about the sources or the material added, I have already taken full responsibility to ensure that the content is reliably and verifiably sourced. Any further removal of sourced content (and this is not the first time) will be treated appropriately as vandalism. I can have no issue with efforts to improve the article, but I will not tolerate playing games whose only goal is to diminish the quality of the article. Alansohn 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kindly verify your FACTS before making accusations. I removed one link that was broken a while back, nominated the article for deletion, added a period, changed "middle" to "intermediate", and removed the banned users contributes once. I have NOT removed sourced materials other than that of a banned user, per guidelines. Please check the edit summary before making such accusations. I only removed the content this morning because it was put in the document by a banned user. So check your facts before being uncivil without cause. IrishLass0128 16:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, when I add a comment to a page, I put it on watch so you can reply here and I will see it. I do believe you are mixing me up with another user based on your accusations. I did clean some of the references, more needs to be done in clean up. IrishLass0128 16:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I had already checked my facts. The advantage I have here is that my facts actually have sources. This is not the first time that you have removed sourced material. The link you have claimed was "broken" was to an article where the supporting text is available without fee; the link was never broken, nor was any fee ever required as claimed, yet you have removed the link on multiple occasions. There is no guideline whatsoever that requires removal of any and all content added by a banned user; it does not exist. The material removed was reinserted with reliable and verifiable sources, and was removed by you for a second time. I have checked every fact before I inserted information, and I rechecked every fact before I reinserted it after your vandalistic deletions which were entirely unjustified and without cause. I will warn you again that any further efforts to disrupt this article will be dealt with appropriate severity, as mandated by Wikipedia policy. Now that I have established the facts here, a little opinion; it seems that above and beyond your efforts to deny notability in the AfD, that you have been rather aggressive in trying to remove content from the article that would further establish such notability. This hardly seems WP:CIVIL on your part. If you are operating on on good faith, I would hope that you would be a bit more accepting of continuing efforts to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, please refer to the edit summary and what I did. Please do not accuse me of doing things that I have not done. Because of the conflict of interest I have done very little on that page. The only two things I ever removed was a link I clicked on that went to a page that did not exist and then this morning. If you look at the edit summary, you will see it was User:CelticGreen who removed content, not I. That's where I ask you to check your facts. This is twice now you've made accusations toward me that should be leveled against another user. Thank you so much. This, is the ONLY link I ever removed [2] and at the time, it didn't work so I removed it. That's all I've ever removed. Please check the edit summary of the page before making further false accusations. [User:IrishLass0128|IrishLass0128]] 16:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits are a step in the right direction. Alansohn 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have made the decision, since you are accusing me falsely of removing sourced information other than when I removed content from a banned member (something DanielCase told me to do when I see it happen) that you are the one not acting in good faith with your false accusations. Please refrain or it will be YOU that is reported. IrishLass0128 16:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever

I give up. I try and clean up the page, you revert my edits. You make false accusations toward me that I removed links to references without justification, fine. I have evidence on my side that I did no such thing. You want the WGG article to look like crap, go for it. I'm done. Now I do hope the article gets deleted. IrishLass0128 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to continue to talk about this, talk to yourself. I said I'm done, I stepped away. Why can't you just leave people alone? IrishLass0128 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• You contacted me. You removed sourced content. You made several factually incorrect statements regarding the article and Wikipedia policy. I hope you understand that when you leave such statements on the talk pages of other people that they might actually respond. Alansohn 17:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I still want an explanation of the false alligations of-- removing a link multiple times I claimed was broken that was not. Perhaps you should actually look at the only link I removed before this morning. IrishLass0128 17:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from my page:

After further review I really want to know why you are being so nasty about this? I removed one passage with a very nice edit summary and gave you a courtesy note telling you what I did. You immediately called me a vandal even though I did an edit summary and advised you of why I did what I did. Rather than show good faith, you've jumped on my case and made false accusations: I had already checked my facts. The advantage I have here is that my facts actually have sources. This is not the first time that you have removed sourced material. The link you have claimed was "broken" was to an article where the supporting text is available without fee; the link was never broken, nor was any fee ever required as claimed, yet you have removed the link on multiple occasions. As I proved, I only removed the link to the WGG Citizens webpage, and then this morning. Where do you get the I had already checked my facts. The advantage I have here is that my facts actually have sources. This is not the first time that you have removed sourced material. The link you have claimed was "broken" was to an article where the supporting text is available without fee; the link was never broken, nor was any fee ever required as claimed, yet you have removed the link on multiple occasions. accusations toward me? Where is your reference and "facts" that I removed the same link multiple times. I made one error based on what an admin had previously told me to do and you accuse me of vandalism and multiple times removing links. I have done no such thing. Please apologize. Here is the page before I removed the only other link I've ever removed [3] check the link to the home owners association and see where it goes. IrishLass0128 17:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did contact you with a nice message explaining what I did this morning and you went off, accused me a vandalism, made ridiculous false accusations. You're the one that couldn't just say "okay, well, I had done this...." to which I would have said "great." Instead you hurl all sorts or repeated false accusations. Your behavior is baffling. IrishLass0128 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• What happened to "If you want to continue to talk about this, talk to yourself. I said I'm done, I stepped away. Why can't you just leave people alone?" Alansohn 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I realized the false accusations were more than I could take. I don't like being called a vandal when I did no such thing. I was nice this morning, I said thank you, and I simply told you why I did what I did. You were then very nasty and mean. A behavior I just don't understand. IrishLass0128 17:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Deleting sourced material is very nasty and mean. A behavior I just don't understand. Removing sourced material is vandalism, plain and simple. If you cannot improve the article by Wikipedia policy, walk away from it. It comes off as rather poor faith to argue that an article is not notable AND to remove sourced material from the article that supports the claim. Alansohn 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had deleted it out of spite, pretended I didn't do it, that would be mean and nasty. What I did was done in good faith and I informed you of what I did. All you had to do was point out a mistake made, you had no reason to be nasty. But that's okay, you won. I withdrew. I don't need to spend my afternoon in tears because someone sees it ask okay to falsely accuse someone else of vandalism and intentionally trying to mess up the page of her hometown that she loves and just IrishLass0128 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Spray painting the side of a building without authorization is vandalism, even if you had intended to make it look pretty. I didn't mention spite, but it seems that the main reason the text was removed was to spite a banned user, not to rid the article of unreliable or inaccurate content. He didn't add the sources, I did. I understand that this is the place where you live, which seems to be behind the tenacity of your efforts to delete the article and to remove material that might establish notability. The Garden Grove article has been untouched. This article merely seems to document the fact that there is a well-defined neighborhood called "West Garden Grove", and to support that claim using an extensive array of sources to demonstrate that it exists and is notable. Alansohn 18:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You are so wrong but you are beyond the point of being able to admit it. I'm not a god, I make mistakes, I admitted mine. You just won't. You won, okay, you made a girl cry with your meanness and I withdrew the nomination. You should be quite pleased with yourself and all your false accusations. You don't know the town, you don't know me. You've fought for something that makes Wikipedia less credible and your behavior is less than civil. You have succeeded. My efforts to delete the page were because it truly lacks notability enough to be an article. Your stats don't change that, it just "makes it look good on paper." IrishLass0128 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm trying to make it look good by Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 18:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, you're making it look good on paper, you're not lending to adding an article with real information about the area. Oh, you can dress up a mule in a tux, but it's still a mule. It will look good on Wikipedia, but that won't change the real facts about the area. IrishLass0128 18:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• A mule in a tux with reliable and verifiable sources? Now that's notable! Give me the sources and I'll write the article. Alansohn 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You must be very young to not know or understand that reference. Again, you win, the ADF is closed now. IrishLass0128 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility and vandalism

I see you've been making accusations of vandalism, but it appearz that you aren't using the same definition as the rest of Wikipedia. The term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on WP and it shouldn't be misused in editing disputes. Basically, any good faith effort to improve the project, no matter how misguided, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. See WP:VANDAL. It is uncivil to make threats about the material, Saying things like: "rv earlier vandalism of sourced content"[4], "rv removal of sourced content; any further removal will be treated as vandalism"[5], or "Any further removal of sourced content (and this is not the first time) will be treated appropriately as vandalism. I can have no issue with efforts to improve the article, but I will not tolerate playing games whose only goal is to diminish the quality of the article."[6], are not helpful. We've all been in editing disputes, but the best way to deal with them is with patience rather than threats or name calling. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• Even the most cursory examination of Wikipedia:Vandalism demonstrates that removal of sourced content is grounds for a vandalism warning. The material was reviewed, verified and properly documented with reliable and verifiable sources, and is directly relevant to rebutting the claim of notability that was rejected at AfD. An editing dispute in which an AfD nominator removes content at odds with the nominator's claim is the worst kind of editing war, and is not only uncivil, but needs to be roundly rejected as one of the most insidious kinds of vandalism. It seems that your definition of "vandalism" is quite at odds with the rest of Wikipedia. Alansohn 20:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that you think the other editors were acting in bad faith, and were intentionally harming the project? Are you aware of another policy that calls on us to assume good faith? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you believe that this particular example of removing sourced content was a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". If not, it's vandalism. Are you aware of some other policy that allows this practice? Alansohn 20:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, any effort that isn't obvious bad faith should be assumed to be good faith. That's the clear intent of the policy. Calling fellow editors "vandals" does not build a collegial, civil editing atmosphere. It's fine to say that a good faith edit was in error, that it doesn't help the article, that it isn't sourced right, etc. But to simply call it vandalism is dismissive and uncivil. Please be more careful in the future. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Removing sourced content that contradicts one's AfD aimed at deleting an article is in bad faith. Deleting such content does nothing to establish "a collegial, civil editing atmosphere." When multiple editors pushing a POV remove content, it reaches a point where an indication of vandalism is appropriate. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism, the relevant policy, which specifies that there must be a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". Please explain how this edit "improved" the encyclopedia. I would love to work with you or the nominator to build this encyclopedia. But someone who removes sourced content because it contradicts their personal bias is more destructive and disruptive than those jerks who insert nonsense, as it is individuals like this who are using their knowledge of how Wikipedia works to subvert the process of actually building an encyclopedia. Alansohn 20:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
          • I'll explain it again, see my first comment to you. I removed information because I BELIEVED it was only from the sockpuppet account. It had nothing to do with the AfD, it was the user who added it and previous information I was given about sockpuppet edits. I wish you could see that and that I didn't do it to enhance the AfD. That alone is yet another attack on my character. IrishLass0128 21:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
            • In the interest of having all of us move on to improve articles, and given the end of the AfD, I will accept your explanation. Alansohn 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
              • Removing material added by banned users is allowed no matter how useful the material may be. This particular banned user has a history of adding incorrect sources or making dubious inferences. It would help the project if you'd keep an eye out for his various socks that seek to promote a few suburban neighborhoods. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
                • The material removed in this case had been reinserted and appropriately sourced before being removed a second time. I will always keep an eye out for sockpuppets or any other disruptive editors. Alansohn 23:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • Are you still accusing me of removing the materials twice? If so, I advise you check the edit summary and see that I did not remove the information twice. I removed it once and then left you a note. If you actually believe I removed the information twice, please provide proof. IrishLass0128 13:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • For someone whose walked away, you sure keep coming back. Let's review; The material in question on governmental representation was removed. The material was reviewed, verified and reinserted with sources. The material was removed, again. That makes two times. Hence the statement that "The material removed in this case had been reinserted and appropriately sourced before being removed a second time." No names are mentioned. No need for any further emotional duress. Alansohn 13:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • Until you say that you are not saying I removed the content twice, and take back the accusations that I did it "multiple times", and since this is under incivility, I'm not walking away. This is a different issue, it's about the behavior and the accusations. All I want is for you to say that NO, I did not remove the content twice. Even Will Beback said what I did was allowed. Is it so hard to admit to a mistake? I admitted mine. IrishLass0128 13:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                        • Another editor had removed the text that had been added by a subsequently banned editor. While the practice of removing material added by banned users is permitted, it has a tendency to become a Stalinesque purge in which all edits from the now-verboten user are expunged regardless of their usefulness or validity, in a largely spiteful effort to avenge wrongs committed by the departed editor by means of a rage-driven spree that usually ends up damaging and disrupting the effort at building an encyclopedia. While this seems clearly to have been the case here, you were not involved in the first removal of the content in question. Having reviewed what was added, and verified that the information was valid, relevant and useful to making the case that West Garden Grove was a notable and distinct community separate and apart from the rest of Garden Grove, I reinserted the material with appropriate sources included to support the claims made therein. It was at this point that you became involved in deleting the sourced content I had inserted. The material was removed twice; you were the individual responsible for removing it once, only when it had sources included. What Will Beback indicated is that removal of content from banned users is permitted. The edits you removed were my edits and had been appropriately sourced. Even he could only insist that your removal of the content did not meet his interpretation of "vandalism". Alansohn 14:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                          • Lot of words to use just to say, "No, you didn't remove the material twice." Fact is I didn't remove it twice and Will Beback agreed that I did not vandalize the article. Too bad you can't just admit that people are human and we all make mistakes. IrishLass0128 14:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan Veingrad

Is it necessary to quote the text from the reference in the article itself? Isn't that the purpose of the reference - to provide text in support of a particular claim made in the article? Also, the article itself makes no mention of what Shlomo means. SWik78 20:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize. I incorrectly assumed your explanation of the meaning of Shlomo was directly realated to the quote from the reference. I should have checked the history first. SWik78 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote parameter in references in Ghost Town, Oakland article

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that the existence of that parameter in the template is idiosyncratic: it's the overuse of that parameter in this article which I'm objecting to, and removing. Look around you; I challenge you to find another article that makes such heavy use of that facility. As it was, there was more meat in the references than there was in the article, which after all is just a stub. It's a matter of proportionality. What's idiosyncratic is the way the editor who stuck them in in the first place stubbornly keeps putting them right back in, without batting an eyelash or giving a word of explanation. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.

Thank you again and, best regards. VanTucky ^Talk

This RFA thanks was inspired by Lara❤Love's

Raleigh School

Hi, you might want to have a think about Raleigh School that I just rescued from a speedy. TerriersFan 12:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

International Relations

Thanks for your edits on diplomats relating to India. I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations if you are interested in additional work in this area. there are alot of diplomatic articles that need sprucing up like the edits you did (and I have been doing). Thanks and regards Mikebar 16:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New England town center CDPs

Hi. I know you're familiar with municipal government structures and their treatment by the Census Bureau and I would like your opinion on a prooposal of mine. I have suggested merging town center CDPs articles into the town article. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont#Merging town center CDP articles into town articles and Talk:St. Johnsbury, Vermont#CDP change for details. I'd like to hear your comments about whether the town center and the town should be treated as two different places or if my merger is acceptable. Please see St. Johnsbury, Vermont (my most recent version) for an example of my proposal. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates

I notice you are still hand forming your citations, just use this quick cut and paste. Move them wherever its more convenient, I keep them on my home page. That way if Wikipedia decides its going to switch to "First name last name" instead of "Last name, first name", all they have to do is change the one citation template and all 1 million ones using the template are rearranged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-10-31 |quote= |publisher= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |quote= | url= |isbn= }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |publisher=[[New York Times]] |date= |accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref>
• <ref>{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |url= |quote= |publisher=[[Time (magazine)]] |date= |accessdate=2007-10-31 }}</ref>

Sorry

Sorry about that. I'm reverting about 25 edits a minute, so I probably slipped up. Thanks for catching my mistake! Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 00:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't mention it; Wikipedia is a godsend when it comes to any school project, and I felt guilty using it without giving back, as I was hibernating for a year. Is it just me or are there more vandals then ever? ._. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is sad, isn't it. I'd rather be contributing knowledge to help improve the site rather then fending off immature mouth-breathers who have nothing better to do than break things. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

ironfurnaces.com

Greetings. I would just like to introduce you to my site, ironfurnaces.com, that is dedicated to cataloging all of the historic iron furnaces around the world (no matter how little content is available). I do not take information from places to put it on my site, instead I would rather have people come and put information on there themselves. I invite you to become an editor on the site and load some photos and a brief history if you would like. This site is completely free to use or edit and contains no advertisement or pop-ups of any kind. (And uses the Wikimedia software.)

All the best, Raymond Hammond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhammond (talk • contribs) 09:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your excellent work on Edison High School (Fresno, California). If you can change my mind on an AfD that I created, you must have done something deserving a barnstar! Rjd0060 16:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Clarke‎ /Gordon Wilson‎

Hi, we seem to have competing articles being developed. See:

• User:TP kelli/Sandbox/Jeff Clarke
• User:TP kelli/Sandbox/Gordon Wilson‎

To avoid wasted work you might like to liaise with User:TP kelli? TerriersFan 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Alansohn/Columbia High School (New York)

Hi, would you take a look please at User:Alansohn/Columbia High School (New York) which I think now has enough meat to be moved across? In particular, you are much better than me in spotting athletics awards. TerriersFan (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 16

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got two things

You've got email and a barnstar. NHRHS2010 talk 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Delbarton

Sorry about the arch remark! Didn't realize you had edited the soccer remark as well. Just looking at an earlier edit.Student7 (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

User:TerriersFan/Lakelands Park Middle School

Hi, would you take a look at User:TerriersFan/Lakelands Park Middle School, please? This was deleted in an AfD but I have progressively improved it since. What do you think, please? TerriersFan (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Character Education Partnership

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Character Education Partnership, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. ElKevbo (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words. I really don't know whether to stay or not. There are a lot of great contributors on WP, but alas they seem to be the voiceless majority. DuncanHill (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian

Quote from bottom of AFD - "Comment I agree with Agavtouch that one needs only to match just a few of the users who voted Keep here with the client list of 5W Public Relations which is listed on Wikipedia as adverts. It is a sad sham. Also transparent spin tactics used by the employees of 5W Public Relations to attempt to divert attention and attack those who have voted delete from the many gross and documented violations of SPAM and NPOV committed by Torossian and his paid employees. Lastly, please note how Torossian & Co. continue to delete any mention on this article of the New York Post news story illustrating malice and bad faith created by Torossian against the NYC PR industry. Not very objective.[2] Heathspic (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)"

• Perhaps you can add your Checkuser piece to the delete page, I am not certain User:Heathspic and User:Agavtouch are aware of it.

• Maybe I should no longer be involved, but this has become more of a circus and an exhibit into Wiki tolerance. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

I invite you and anyone to scrutinize any of my edits. While placing an article about something I have involvement with may be seen by some as a blatant Wiki violation, I also know that many articles are started by people who have deep knowledge, hobby interest, or first hand experience with a topic, even if there is no financial interest, it is a closeness that drives the piece. If done right and notability is there, there is nothing wrong with it as I see it. Being open about it helps too. I know that these three parties to the deletion are a person with little Wiki concern and a huge axe to grind. I have edited and added articles for a year and a half on many topics, most of which I am familiar with and have researched. Enjoy the holiday. Juda S. Engelmayer (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Valerie Vainieri Huttle.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Valerie Vainieri Huttle.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed that a number of the images you've uploaded (Image:Linda Stender.jpg, Image:John S. Wisniewski.jpg, Image:Marcia A. Karrow.jpg) seem to be living people, which are usually excluded by policy. Those need rationales as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

James M. Cahill

Hi there--he actually went to New Brunswick's St. Peter's High, not St. Peter's Prep in Jersey City. I'm slowly creating a page for the high school here; I'll wikify Cahill's entry when it's ready. Dppowell (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Just wanted you to be aware of my reasons for the partial revert. Dppowell (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Jan Adams

Technical question: In the "edit this page" version of the article there are two paragraphs that refuse to show up in the actual article. Would you know why? --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! you are good! --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NYSR notification

Your imput is needed into a weekly collaboration for articles under the jurisdiction of WP:NYSR. Comments are at WT:NYSR. Regards.^Mitch32^contribs 02:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Columbia High School (New York)

I have now moved Columbia High School (New York) back to mainspace. it still needs a lot of work on both academic and sporting achievements but it is not now deletable. TerriersFan (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution

Hi, just a note to make sure you haven't missed Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution. TerriersFan (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wesleyan Christian Academy edit

You wrote a comment in the page that says that "Hannah Keifer" needs to have a source tying her to the school. I am the source...but I don't know how to quote myself. I went there and so did she, and I know her personally. Any help would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makbrandon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are right. It's too bad she was in college at the time... so no article refers to her as a graduate at Wesleyan...just a student in college. not sure if i should remove her from the Wesleyan article or not. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makbrandon (talk • contribs) 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Fiddy2

I am trying to understand the view point that you expressed in the AfD/Fiddy2 comments. Perhaps where we disagree is that I view the entire fiddy2 enterprise as non-notable self-promotion. The materials deleted from the Dane Rauschenberg article may have been significant to the author of an autobiography, but would not be of value to the reader of an encyclopedia article. Many people run marathons slower than 3 hours. Many people run multiple marathons. The concensus of the AfD on the Dane Rauschenberg article was that the only item worth mentioning was that he ran 52 marathons in 2006. I was not the editor to cut it back to that, but I have honored that conclusion. The two articles, fiddy2 and Dane Rauchenberg, reduce the credibility of Wikipedia in the eyes of committed runners.Xcstar (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please review WP:SOCK#LEGIT in the context of a 180 lb post- collegiate boxer with a short temper. Xcstar (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to be acknowledging that you are indeed a sockpuppet. If so, your next step should be to read WP:SOCK#Alternate account identification, which explains how you can properly identify your use of multiple accounts. The Dane Rauschenberg article was infested by sockpuppets, and an investigation resulted in about ten users being permanently blocked for their actions. You have followed directly in their footsteps. Of your approximately 65 edits, only eight are unrelated to Dane Rauschenberg. Your rather single-minded obsession has had you editing the Dane Raushenberg itself, pushing for that article's deletion, editing Fiddy2 about his efforts and pushing to delete that article, editing about the organization he raised funds for, discussing attempts to delete the article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Running and other efforts to canvass other editors. That expression about ducks seems to keep on popping up in my mind. Your continued focus on this one article, all of which is consistent with improper use of multiple accounts, some of which may already have been blocked, will almost certainly lead me to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets as my next step. It's not your weight or your sport that concerns me. It's your actions. Copy of text deleted at Xcstar's talk page. Alansohn (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I think you have my characteristics confused with those of Dane Rauschenberg. See: [7] and [8] If you want to improve the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of running, please consider joining WP:RUN. Xcstar (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:South Jersey High School Ice Hockey League

Category:South Jersey High School Ice Hockey League, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Roxbury Mall

Roxbury Mall, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Roxbury Mall satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roxbury Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Roxbury Mall during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Handbra

You reverted my edits claiming that "synthesis claim is false, see AfD. Restore source that provides clear example of use of term. Deleting sources to "support" a claim of non-notability is not legitimate." The same can be said for adding irrelevant sources and deleting those tags. Consensus on the AfD recognizes both the invalidty of those sources and the use of synthesis in the "modern prevalence" section. If you remove those tags or reinsert those references again -without giving an explanation or giving the discussion time to reach consensus- I will report you to an administrator. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• You are the only one who is promoting the view that those sources conform to WP:V. I don't know what imaginary consensus you're basing your judgement on, but if you actually read the AfD, you will see where you are in error. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you revert this article again I will report you for WP:3RR. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Further, if you request that another user revert it for you, I will report you for canvassing. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• You reverted my edits, for which I responded in kind. I have not violated 3RR since I was the one making the original edits. Please read WP:3RR for more information on this policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not add profanity to my talk page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Under that criteria, you have also violated 3RR in removing the synthesis tag three times. I won't make any further edits to the page and I would expect the same from you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dane Rauschenberg

Is it possible that the reason why we are both a bit testy is that we both walked into the middle of an edit war between Dane's sockpupets and the anti-Dane sockpupets?Xcstar (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• The positive development is that the "contributions" from the IP-address-only editors which have injected POV in the past are winding-down, and the "silly jpg of the day" vandalism has stopped. Let's hope the article has stabilized. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your note. I was willing to live with the article as it existed before User:Runnerguy's last round of edits. When I placed a tag after a sentence, and then a well-meaning editor replaces it with a reference to a local penney-saver quoting the subject of the article, the underlying problem is not solved. It is possible that the Presque Isle run had neutral officials counting laps, but is also possible that it was an informal "come when you want, stay as long as you want, and we will post your self-count on our website" event. Citing to the results website does not prove whether someone other than DR counted the laps.
• If an unrelated person thought that DR was sufficiently noteworthy to take the time to research and write an article, I would be satisfied, but here we have an autobiographic article that appears to be caught in a year-long battle over WP:COI edits. If this article had never been written, would you take the trouble to research and write it from scratch? Xcstar (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your last message. I will still try to find out the format and officiating of the 2003 Presque Isle event. If it is a self-report of 84 miles and that data is repeated on the website and on the aggate type results page of the Erie paper, we can deal with it. There are a lot of great people in WP:RUN and I invite you to join us. Xcstar (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Although there strong feelings on the running blogs for the pro- and anti-Rauschenberg camps, let's strive for a fact-based neutral article that let's the reader reach his own conclusion regarding DR's achivements or non-achievements. Wikipedia is under some scrutiny regarding this article. Thanks. Xcstar (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule on the L'Arche page. You are not adding any new content. Xcstar (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of school districts in New Jersey

You may want to look at the comment I made here and the associated article edit. Funnily enough, after I decided to edit the article, I looked at the talk page and realized that it related to a discussion that you and I had almost two years ago. If you'd like to revert what I did, I would not feel too badly about it, but this is how I think it ought to be done. If we are going to leave it this way, then the intro probably should be edited to say something like "Non-operating districts, when listed, link to the corresponding municipality's article." Or maybe that violates some rule against self-reference on Wikipedia. I don't know. I just hate red links, and as I said two years ago, there is never going to be a viable article on a non-operating district, or in my opinion, a one-school district either. They are, nevertheless, officially school districts. No need to respond to my talk or here, you can just comment at the article talk page. Neutron 18:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Megulla Dotata

Your input would be appreciated on the article Megullia Dotata.--Doug ^talk 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Woodburn, New Jersey"

Hi there and thanks for the message. The Zolotow article says "Woodburn" NJ, which I knew was odd, but I left it in, since I wasn't sure what was meant. Ancestry.com doesn't have any directories for New Jersey, so all I know is what the article says. Perhaps one could put "Woodbury" with a footnote? kosboot 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reality Show Contestants are Notable

Considering reality shows and many of their contestants have pages on wikipedia, it can be easily inferred that they are notable enough to be listed as a graduate on the school's page. Because one person does not recognize the value or notability of a certain genre does not mean it is not notable for others. Unless the school itself denies an alumna's stature, I will continue to submit Kelly Chang Rickert as a notable alumni of Montville Township High School. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.1.84 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath School

I have now expanded the article so you may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heath School. There is still more to be done (do you feel moved to make an infobox (I'm not good at those)?) and still some sources left to incorporate, but sufficient is now there. TerriersFan (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

be more careful

Please see this edit I think you were possibly editing an old version, or had some other edit conflict. It will be a lot of work to individually undo the little damages you caused by not being more careful. -- Thisis0 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how this happened, but I had no idea that anything would be overlaid. I will see if I can do anything to reinsert any changes lost by this edit. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You should just be able to "undo" your edit, and the software will make a pretty good attempt to not lose any changes since then. You'll have to check and verify all those little red areas, to make sure we are left with the best edit, and all the good contributions since then. -- Thisis0 (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Samson

Would you be willing to review the Samson article to see if it deserves to be upgraded to Good Article--69.153.74.192 (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Context

Thanks for the message. There are pages like Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, which proposes:

• Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.
• State facts which may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader.
• Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? Imagine yourself as a layman in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?

As a dedicated random-page addict, I like to see it as setting the context so an article explains itself fully, in a self-contained way, in the intro. Sgt Pinback (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Jennifer Beck.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jennifer Beck.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. High on a tree (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Princeton Crime Index

Crime Index for Princeton Borough and Township

I have removed the crime index data that you had added for Princeton Borough and Princeton Township. While I agree that this could be very useful information in this and other articles, the data as added provide no context as to what the numbers mean, how they compare to other municipalities or what the source of the data is. Are the 161, 164, 106 values for the past three years good or bad? Is the change an improvement or not? With additional information these issues could be clarified for readers. I will be more than happy to help you structure this information if the source for this material was available. Please let me know where this data cam form and I can assist you in adding the required information. Alansohn 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Average for US Municipalities is about 400. Lower numbers are better than higher numbers, which indicate more crime. The numbers 161, 164, 106 are good, the crime rate is dropping.

Holy Cross confusion

I was looking for more citations for Holy Cross High School, and found this one where the Illinois House of Representatives congratulates them on winning the "United Performing Association (UPA) Varsity One Division Champions and being crowned High School Cheerleaders Grand Champions, the highest honor cheerleaders can receive". The problem is that the article says the school is all-male. Unless the school happen to have boys named Audrey, Marissa, Courtney, Claire, Lisa, Christine, April etc., the article must be wrong. Right? AnteaterZot (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Overbrook

Yeah it probably would have been a good idea, but I don't mind changing it when the time comes. Speaking of which, Bridgeton High School is applying in January to become a member of the Tri-County Conference and moving out of the Cape-Atlantic League (CAL). So, we might have to change those member schools again sooner rather than later. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"Disruptive Editing"

Look moron, I don't know who you think you are, but don't tell me what to do. In addition, do not threaten me either. You are unable to ban me from wikipedia in the fact that I have contributed large sums of money to the site. An apology from you is expected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfalko01 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

My recent mall AfDs

Regarding Wilton Mall at Saratoga and Regency Mall (Racine) and my other recent mall AfDs, I really did do a search for sources, but found none. Just so you know. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Collierville Middle School

Hi, Anteater has prodded a whole bunch of elementary and middle schools here that you might want to glance through. In particular, please watchlist Collierville Middle School that is a Blue Ribbon school (82-83). I will pull the prod when I've cleaned it up a bit. TerriersFan (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Obama rally

So what? "One of the biggest of the year" in one election, in one city. This strikes me as recentism at its silliest. How many rallies have been held in that park over the long decades? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see anything particularly "dog bites man" about a big political rally in that park. Didn't mean to get into an edit war or anything; but to me there's nothing unexpected about getting that many people out to support a leading Democratic candidate with a strong ethnic appeal. Well, it's certainly not a big deal one way or the other. Have a good holiday season, if you're not doing so already!--Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 17

Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Want to change your method of delivery? – It's all here. —O bot (t • c) 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from your user page -Complaint: Harassment/Attempted outing on the Sturgis Charter Public School Wiki-

Reversing my edits repeatedly and defaming me on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sturgis_Charter_Public_School

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk • contribs)

Please Block user

Please block the user who referred to "disgruntled former student".

This is ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion.

Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why you are wrong about Sturgis

The fact that Sturgis isn't in the US News list is relevant as it puts the Newsweek rating in context -- one publication thinks it's top 60 in the country -- one doesn't think it's top 40 in the state.

If one is relevant, so is the other.

It's similar to the fact that it's relevant that George Bush lost the popular vote in Election 2000. This adds context to Sturgis' victor in Newsweek

I have posted this on the sturgis talk page -- no one has responded affirmatively or negatively... Shall I go ahead and revert the edit to include the material? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OR

Re: [9], Synthesis and primary sources contradict the text of your edit summary that "...helpful hint: if it has a source, it's not OR..." OR can be done with sources. TableManners ^U·T·C 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did some research at WP:OR, which states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." which would seem to clearly contradict your position. I fail to see any support for your position. Could it be your own original research? Again, if you have particular issues with content, tag it and I will be happy to add an appropriate source. Alansohn (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Those links I provided, Synthesis and primary sources, are sections in Wikipedia:No_original_research. You have to scroll down some and read those other sections, too. I am just correcting the error in the edit summary. TableManners ^U·T·C 06:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not too sharp...

It isn't just a publication that it isn't mentioned in! LMAO.... It's a competing list that didn't include Sturgis and that's relevant. It's like if an athlete is named rookie of the year in a poll of fans but not by BBWA, it would be relevant to say that "Won the fan's vote however did not not win the award granted by the BBWA".

I honestly am shocked you can't wrap your head around the idea that it's different from saying that Sturgis hasn't discovered oil... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here

Actually several IB schools did make the list -- if you actually take the time to read what they wrote. They just weren't able to include that as a metric the way they included AP, but being an IB school did not bar a school from the list.

And since, as you said, Newsweek ONLY LOOKED AT AP/IB tests, shouldn't a note to that effect be placed in the article on Sturgis?

And, PLEASE BAN THE INDIVIDUAL WHO REFERRED TO ME AS A DISGRUNTLED FORMER STUDENT. That's a personal attack, it's a form of outing, and it has nothing to do with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do block the one who made those comments on the discussion page for hte school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.116.216 (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Louisiana Baptist University-AFD

Though I don't give a fig if the article is deleted or not, I wanted to point out to you that it has not been recently "abusively gutted". It has recently been stripped of information which was improperly sourced. The article has been a magnet for editors from one side trying to put a promotional spin on the article, and editors on the other trying to provide some balance to the hype through unallowed original research, speculation, and a self-published source. Unfortunately when there are few independent sources available, editors are often impatient to ignore WP:RELY, WP:NOR, and WP:SYNTH to fill gaps in the article space. Gaps in the available sources do not justify the abandonment of core policy. Removing non-compliant content is not "abusive", it's essential. And what should happen next is that editors source all edited claims, properly. If you can't source it, you can't say it~that simple. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not file the AFD, and do not have enough history with the article to have an opinion whether or not it was possible to find qualified sources to fulfill WP:N. I can agree the AFD was hasty, considering the very recent appeal to secondary sources, however that does not justify restoration of crap content, it simply justifies a keep vote. And I beg to differ, I did discuss on the talk page, and the fact that I, as a completely uninvolved editor until yesterday, received buy-in commentary from editors who were on strongly opposing sides related to the disputes in the article, while you made no such comment prior to restoring it, leaves me more than a little peeved at your dismissiveness rationale here. So your analysis of the situation is completely amiss. I am the editor chiefly responsible for pointing out very little of the article was sourced properly, and editing accordingly. Other editors (2 come to mind, both on opposite sides of the issue btw) thought the article should be deleted, not me. Those two editors did not edit any content prior to AFD. One filed AFD, the other applied completely legit original research and third party needed source templates-that's all. So please, stop bringing strawmen into the dispute. And no, I will not be commenting on the AFD. As I said initially, I don't even care about the AFD. I care that articles at WP aren't filled with improperly sourced claims. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

legistorm

Look, Alan, I appreciate all you do around here, especially with the New Jersey content but I really wish you'd try to be a little kinder to the people that disagree with you on the legistorm link issue. For instance, I was trying to find a path forward where folks could calm down and we could then move forward on a controlled removal of legistorm from the blacklist. Instead, I felt like you were not very nice in response.

I'd like to find some sort of collegial solution to all of this. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lawless Elementary School

Hi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lawless Elementary School; I think your second sentence is missing a 'not' :-) TerriersFan (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempted outing

There is a user attempting to out me on his edits on Wikipedia's Sturgis article -- If you do not take the appropriate action, I will go to the proper authorities. Thx.

Coker article

Please do not get into an edit war over this article. or risk violating 3RR. No There is room for discussion, and as this is a BLP issue, it should be discussed before adding to the article. Please keep WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV in mind. There is room for dicussion, which is not the same as censorship. See talk page. — ERcheck (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility

This comment is uncivil, please moderate your remarks and be more cautious in the future. Dreadstar † 23:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a totally unacceptable personal attack. I strongly advise you to focus on the editorial content of the article and stop making comments about the other editors. If you continue being uncivil and making personal attacks, you will be blocked. Dreadstar † 06:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Making an accusation of a personal attack, while ignoring direct personal attacks from other editors in the same conversation is worthless and baseless. 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for your accusations and I'll be happy to look into it. Dreadstar † 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's pointless. This is just part of the same effort to disrupt the article by making continuing accusations of policy violations. It's truly amazing how you and this whole swarm of admins comes to circle the wagons to work to prevent sourced, encyclopedic material from being added to an article. Keep up the great work! Alansohn (talk) 06:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Why not add the quote(s) to Wikiquote, and then include a link on his page? For an example see Mo Udall. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Zot, thanks for the suggestion! That may well be an excellent part of the solution. Alansohn (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Alansohn, I would like to invite you to take a look at the comments I made at the George Thomas Coker talk page, and I do hope that you find that a satisfactory resolution, and I look forward to your response there. Cheers! Ariel♥Gold 00:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy Cross High School (River Grove)

Thank you for spotting the cat removal. I have warned our friend that any repetition will be treated as abusive editing (he blanked it straight away). If he does it yet again a level 3 or 4 warning template can be used. TerriersFan (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coombabah State Primary School

Hi, can you revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coombabah State Primary School, please? After some rounding out by DoubleBlue the page now looks quite decent (I'm barred from extensive editing sessions until tomorrow night else I'm dead meat :-)) TerriersFan (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

New article you'd probably want to add to your watchlist

Hey Alansohn- I created the Cape-Atlantic League (also redirects from "Cape Atlantic League") tonight while I was bored. I haven't added the wikilink to each school's page yet, but I just thought I'd let you know because you like to watch these types of pages. I also added it in the dismbig page to CAL, too. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Woodstown High School

Created this tonight. It was long overdue, considering it was the only Tri-County school that didn't have its own page. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

Threat versus warning. Compare those. You have been warned several times on both this page and the Coker talk page about your behavior, by me and others. Focus on the task at hand, stop changing other's words around, making obviously inappropriate assumptions about others opinions, calling names, etc. You've been uncivil and disruptive. Lara❤Love 19:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Neighborhoods

Please do not restore the neighborhoods to the Essex County template: as neighborhoods, they are not separate communities, and templates nationwide do not include them. Nyttend (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of Texas or Wisconsin only. Check Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Louisiana, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New York, and Vermont. All these states have such templates used on all their counties, and I'm pretty sure that none of them have neighborhoods of cities. This is my demonstration of consensus. I've searched everywhere I can see on the New Jersey project page and subpages, and I don't see anything requiring inclusion of neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Two things on your two points to my evidence:

• • • City boxes, whether New York or others, are radically different: as there's only one community in the county, there's no need for a county template per-se; they're simply listed in the county boxes category as a matter of convenience, being the closest those counties have.
    • Do you know what towns and hamlets in New York are? A town in New York is somewhat similar to a civil township, not a town or any other type of government in New Jersey; while a hamlet is simply the standard name for an unincorporated community. Please pardon if you already knew that.

Moreover, the thing is that we're using a nationwide template: unless you're proposing using a separate form of template, you're using the same thing as other states do. It is obvious that you've decided to go against the established practise nationwide. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to go through an extended discussion of this, and I'm not going to fight about it, even though you've never presented evidence that anybody else concurs with you. I may bring this up in the future, however. You might want to ask the opinion of VerruckteDan, another editor who works with these templates; he's as experienced as I, and no need to worry that I've asked him to support me on this: unless he reads my talk page or watches the Essex County template, he has no idea of this matter. Nyttend (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that they aren't separate communities. This is what neighborhood templates, such as Template:Atlanta neighborhoods, are for. Neighborhoods are subsets and therefore regions of cities — as if we listed civil townships in a template of counties. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My turn to be confused: I don't see how you could be confused. Look at the five communities in Fulton County: none of them are incorporated, and all are located in unincorporated areas. Perhaps a better comparison is Template:Windsor County, Vermont: the places listed in the Communities line are scattered through the towns but not in any of the villages. I'm aware that New England towns are incorporated, as are New Jersey townships, but they're still minor civil divisions, unlike cities and boroughs and towns and villages. Therefore, places within the towns, as within New Jersey townships, are listed, but neighborhoods within cities and boroughs and towns and villages are not. Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

dyk

Number 11 (10 create/expand - 1 nominations)

Did you know? was updated. On 30 December, 2007, a fact from the article The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wauwatosa West High School

Hi, Wauwatosa West High School that you worked on was, in my view, wrongly deleted. I have moved it to my user space and have already substantially expanded it prior to recreating. There are still loads of other sources available. Please feel free to contribute. TerriersFan (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I have premièred the new page at Wauwatosa West High School. We shall have to see if the deletionist headbangers challenge it, 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

citing problem

Could you check out Woodbury Junior-Senior High School and fix the citation error in the new infobox? I don't know what's bad about it but reference #1 at the bottom of the article says something is. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division Street, Manhattan

Hi, sorry for being a pest. I made some more comments at this AfD. I still don't get what makes it notable. Am I missing something? Is there a WikiProject ongoing to list all named Manhattan streets, or all Lower East Side streets, or whatever? Did someone notable grow up on this street? If so, I have no problem with keeping this article in the goal of being inclusive. Please get back to me or at User talk:Bearian. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I may be splitting hairs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Street (Manhattan), to which I'd keep if sources could be found. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)