User talk:Alansohn/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alansohn. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please always check before revert an edit (see Wikipedia:Revert). Even if you do not understand Swedish you should understand the word hotel and think about how strange it would be to call an English king for Hotel Rival. Thank you.Ankara (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my edit to that page -- I wasn't paying attention to the rest of the sentence, and my "correction" didn't make any sense. Glad you caught it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.118.113.36 (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. Given your track record, I'll assume that this was a mistake? Powers ^T 14:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say so, and an embarrassing one at that. Thanks for catching and reverting my error. Alansohn (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you remove the warning I gave here? BigDunc 18:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't. It appears that both you and I (in my case via Huggle) attempted to edit the talk page at the same time and my automated edit overlaid yours. The best solution is to reinsert your edit. I have seen this reported as a Huggle bug and it's not the first tme that an editor thought that I removed their edit. I will follow up on this bug. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation it appears every edit that editor has made is vandalism so wont be long before they are blocked. BigDunc 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a MediaWiki bug where edit conflicts sometimes (very rarely) just bulldoze through. I have a feeling that this may have recurred. Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Helllo why did u delete my airsofting info I own evike.com i know more than you do so how was it no helpfull? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E3b68g (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The edit was primarily promotional of your website, in violation of WP:SPAM. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, though please note that you restored multiple instances of vandalism when you erased my edit. Since my information has now been corroborated by another user, I will look for some sources to allow the nickname to stay there! Bgwwlm (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

AREN'T WE FRIENDS ANYMORE NOW??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.65.62 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you in a position to block the IP vandalizing Mount Pelee? - I fixed the links at bottom, which you might have overlooked, as well as a little readability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.66 (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As I am not an admin, I can't do anything about blocking. I have been monitoring recent changes and will keep an eye on this article. Alansohn (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I just undid vandalism done by 204.185.173.120. That IP needs to be blocked. TwoScars (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter
Volume II - Issue 1 12 November 2009
Project News	Article Alerts
Education Task Force - The conversion of the former WikiProject Education is New Jersey has been completed. New Jersey education-related articles are now supported by the Education task force. The project banner has been updated to fully support the task force with independent importance ratings. No More Comments - A proposal at the Village Pump has resulted in the deprecation of comments subpages. These were usually found at Talk:Article title/Comments and contained little more than assessment notes. These pages were not widely watched, and are often a hidden location for vandalism and BLP violations. WPNJ has 104 articles that used these pages. A complete list of them, along with their contents, can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Jersey/Deprecation of comments. It is up to the members of WPNJ to decide what to do with this information.	The following articles may be in need of attention: Featured Article candidates: none currently Good Article nominees: U.S. Route 30 in New Jersey Hudson County Courthouse
Municipality template compromise; School Districts (almost) complete	New WPNJ members
Legislative templates in municipal articles - A rather lengthy discussion ran from the end of August until the end of October regarding the use of our legislative district templates in articles about local municipalities. Many WPNJ members commented on the concept, and a proposed compromise seems to have been reached. The templates will require some adjustments to fit the new wording, but should result in more directly relevant sections about County, State, and Federal representation in our articles on cities, towns, villages, townships, and boroughs. Hopefully, more dicussions like this can result is some kind of Manual of Style to bring greater standardization to all of these articles. School District articles now comprehensive - WPNJ Founder Alansohn recently reported that almost all of New Jersey's school districts now have articles - "I have created the article for the last missing (non-vocational) school district in the state." Congrats to Alansohn, who I am sure would love more members at the Education task force to help maintain these articles!	Please welcome the following new members to WikiProject New Jersey: A Stop at Willoughby 10 November 2008 Andrewmin 17 November 2008 cryptod 10 January 2009 marksdaly 15 March 2009 Aki Mononoke 23 May 2009 N2icv 14 June 2009 mannybrown1 24 June 2009 Madr1000 14 July 2009 Mr. Matté 15 July 2009 Christopher 17 August 2009 Rttam 11 October 2009
Watch These Pages	Help Wanted
Want to do more to help WikiProject New Jersey? Here are some suggested pages to add to your watchlist: Article Alerts New Articles WPNJ Talk	Newsletter writers and editor Photographers Ask a question, make an offer
Editor's Notes
Editor's news. OK, so I am going to try this again. It's been a little over a year since our last edition, and activity at the project was a bit slow during that time. Things have picked up again over the last few months, so once more into the breech I go. I will try to produce this newsletter on a regular basis (bi-monthly?) to see if we can get some more activity going at WPNJ. Help is always appreciated, and there is plenty to do. - Jim Miller See me | Touch me
You are receiving this newsletter as a member of WikiProject New Jersey. To stop receiving these messages, remove your name here.

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 14:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Alansohn! I always see you reverting vandalism with Huggle, and I am doing it all manually. I was just wondering if there is a tutorial somewhere that teaches you how to use Huggle effectively. I like doing things manually because I have more control, and can choose individual warning templates based on the specific situation. However, it takes up a lot of time, and I am guessing that Huggle is a lot faster, since you and other users sometimes edit a page before me. Thanks much! Kevinmon•talk•trib 15:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I spent years dealing with vandalism by hand and started to realize that there had to be a better way. You can see WP:HUGGLE for some details on the software, but I have learned most of what I need to know from using it. With Huggle, I am still just battling a small fraction of the vandalism, but at least at a faster rate (and with far less effort) than I could possibly do manually. You are eligible to use the software as you already have rollbacker status. I would recommend starting to use Huggle slowly and carefully, as the same speed with which you can revert vandalism can also be a recipe for making major mistakes. Please let me know if I can do anything to help with fighting vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Huggle is amazing! I just downloaded it. However, I can't figure out one thing: How do you rollback multiple edits by the same user, like in Twinkle? Kevinmon•talk•trib 15:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Recently I read a wikipedia page on Philippe Jabre, and noticed that a lot of information about him was left out about him. He is a hedge Fund manager most famous for receiving the largest fine in history from the FSA for insider trading. I noticed that this information used to be on his wikipedia page, but someone had covered it up. I re added this information, and since then this person has constantly covered it over accusing me of vandalising the page, and of having a conflict of interest???? This editor's edit history shows that they seem to just edit pages about lebanese people turning them into puff pieces. Their talk page is all messages from people warning them about vandalism. I noticed that you recently warned them about vandalism on their talk page, saying that it was their last warning. I am wondering how to escelate this problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:193.227.170.10

Writerofstuff (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Writerofstuff seems to be interested in only one stuff namely the article above and adds unsourced info such as that "he had to wind down his fund". Mr. Writerofstuff should start be a reader of stuff such as article on the fact that Jabre is, in 2009, one of the few Hedge funds managers to is above the high watermarks on all is funds (i.e. funds are above their 2008 highs), who has not winded down any of his funds or even created "side pockets" for his fund. I suggest that Mr. Writerof stuff reads as an example, this article: http://www.hedgetracker.com/article/Philippe-Jabres-Fund-an-Unusual-Success-Story or http://www.letemps.ch/Page/Uuid/e4ab2b50-55ff-11de-8d04-1ae19dfc7c72/Les_hedge_funds_de_Philippe_Jabre_cartonnent

As for the FSA fine, it is mentionned in the article, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.170.10 (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe I need to just close discussion without any comment then? I read through the discussion, I looked at the number of individuals who had opinions and which way they were arguing. I looked at all of the articles. While many of them did have sections about suicides, is this a defining characteristic for these places? Even with the addition of an introduction, the category still leaves open a large amount of ambiguity. Based on what is written there, almost every large city could be included as a suicide site. Is that intended? I also believe that the criteria is subjective which presents other problems. I will add that as the discussion went on, I went from 'well, this is going to close as a keep or no consensus to a delete'. Adding the introduction did help, but in my opinion, it was not enough to swing me back to no consensus on the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You have avoided a rather simple question: What category passes the standard you used to delete this category? All categories make better lists. I do enjoy your rather bizarre suggestion that "almost every large city could be included as a suicide site". Wikipedia defines site as "the location of an event, structure, object, or other thing, whether actual, virtual, abandoned (eg. an archaeological site), extant, or planned", a definition that doesn't pass your own test, nor did you offer that as justification for deletion. Even if the argument had any validity, what if the category was more specifically limited to structures such as bridges? They are the predominant site and there is a parent article that already exists. There seems to be far better solutions here than the usual delete first and answer questions later approach. Alansohn (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Number 661 (516 create/expand - 145 nominations)

On November 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unthanksgiving day, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for keeping an eye on User:Mpdelbuono for me. You reverted vandalism a few times there and I didn't even notice. Sorry about the late praise. Keep up the good work. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 20:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Wikipedia:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis^☂ 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page! Sophus Bie ^(talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I will be happy to leave Iceland to it's sad fate: Sharia beheadings and dismemberments and public beatings of females, honor killings, female genital mutilation and the other blessings of Islamic ignorance and superstition and anti democratic theocracy to boot - if those are the rules of Wik'a then those are the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.96.198 (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

if this is an accusation, it hardly is stalking. at most I have nominated 2 articles Norton has created in the last few months. I notice that you seem to without fail appear at every AfD Richard Norton and vote keep regardless of providing evidence of significant coverage. I can hardly say you're neutral on matters relating to your friend Richard Norton. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is far more than an accusation. While your case is not the worst I've seen, I do see your name popping up on a disturbing number of articles that one person has written. Targeting the articles written and edited by a single individual can be a remarkably effective means of harassment. It's always best to spread the net of deletion targets as wide as possible to avoid such troublesome patterns. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would nominate say at least 5-10 articles a week. so over the period of this year probably at least 300 over a variety of topics. feel free to check my edit history. 2 articles by richard norton does not constitute stalking. and coming from a dear friend and fellow consistent keep without fail vote (at almost every single AfD Richard Norton is involved in) is hardly neutral. it's obvious you like Mr Norton and will do anything to support him, why do you feel the need to turn up and vote with almost the same argument each time regardless of topic? it's a vote based on friendship not judging notability. LibStar (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I will stop at nothing to help bring that boy home. Why do you want to stop progress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.36.96 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not the sentiment. The issue is that this edit is not encyclopedic and I hope that you will respect that. Adding material about efforts to secure his release, backed by reliable and verifiable sources, would be appropriate, but personal pleas don't belong on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That user has not participated in a AfD before, and removing the tag is a predictable error. In any case, you reverted other undoubtedly good-faith edits that could not be construed as vandalism, so please be careful with rollback. ~YellowFives 02:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I report a vandal? This person (not an IP) has already been blocked before and has now vandalised my user page.Hohenloh ⁺ 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that there is a Wiki guideline that indicates that location links of the form [[City, State]] are preferred over [[City, State|City]], [State]] but I cannot find it. For example, Chicago, Illinois (one link) is preferred over Chicago, Illinois (two links). Or maybe it's the other way around. Any idea where I can find the guideline? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:

• Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
• Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
• Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
• Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
• Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
• Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
• Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
• In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges, iMatthew ^talk at 03:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kuru has blocked the anonymous editor who vandalised your page.Autarch (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! One vandal down, a few million more to be dealt with. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I made snide comments about your comment. See my latest comment there where I've withdrawn what I said. If you're willing to do the same I'm amenable to deleting the comments outright or collapsing them and putting this in the past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to either option. Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK; I've deleted them from the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I just want to say great job on your consistent anti-vandal efforts. --TomA8UDI 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

And my thanks to you for your efforts, especially for a newer editor! Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Aw thanks.. um.. I was curious and looked at the Sox tools... and I'm shocked you are not an administrator... and it doesn't look like you were ever desysopped or anything, so um why are you not an admin? A8UDI 19:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been able to do most of what I need to do without a mop, so far, and I've been in no rush to pursue adminship. It might be an option I'd consider in the future. Thanks for the thought. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am truly touched by this second recognition. It's always great to hear from you! Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I know how much work you put into meeting the Featured Article/Good Article criteria for New York City, and since NYC's importance to WP:WikiProject Cities has been dropped from "Top" to "High" because New York's not a capital city, I thought you might be interested in this revived discussion at WT:WikiProject Cities#Importance ratings. Happy holidays. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For your information, i did not vandalise the List of Shameless Episodes article. I improved it as it so clearly needed. You are the second person to do this today and the other user even admitted to the vandalism remark as being an error. In no way shape or form were those edits i made, vandalism. I suggest it be you who looks upon the rules of wikipedia. Because if editing an article that is clearly marked as "help to improve it" is cast down as vandalism then this sure is a site that should NOT promote "self" editing 92.10.173.136 (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Edgar181#I_dispute_that_it_is_vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.203.148 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this discussion and give an opinion if you have one? I am talking about the material regarding a planned attack at the school by a student, not the description of a former student's acting career. I have given my opinion but I think some "outsider" perspectives would be helpful. Neutron (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination) since you participated in the previous AfD. - Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That edit wasn't vandalism, look at the difference between the two, I was making it sound more professional. Don't give me warnings when I didn't do anything wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.131.175 (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Alan sohn perhaps in your opinion the factual additions I made may not constructive, but they are still relevant and factual, specifically I pointed that: German Nationalists were virulently racist and ignorant on the topic of human genetics, especially with respect to their idiotic and pathetic view that Slavs were a lower and inferior grade of human being. This was to done to inform the reader of the context these idiotic German attitudes, attitudes that lead to mass-murder. These facts might be uncomfortable and embarrassing for you, but they are facts; just like the German Nazi perpetrated holocaust was a fact, or are you also a holocaust denier? I taken the liberty of submitting your page to the internet archive. Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.175.116 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since you participated in the DRV for Secret Maryo Chronicles, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Maryo Chronicles (3 nomination). Tim Song (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Click there to open your card! → → →

Dear Alansohn,
Wishing you, your family, and friends a very merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and I hope that the new year will be a good one, in real life, and on the wiki. There is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit; it's a special time of year of almost everyone. ;)
Love and best wishes, Meaghan - ^Merry _Christmas! - 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy Holidays!} 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Alansohn. Seems like there are many errors on public schools in NJ that you have recently edited. The comparative spending guide that you added in the info box has the last entry on Median Teacher Salary wrong. At least in 5 school districts that I checked, you have the wrong info there. Basically the data of one school district is mixed up with another school district above it. For example, you have data for Irvington for Livingston info box, Livingston for Millburn info box, Montcliar for Newark info box, and Newark for Nutley info box, etc. Since you made change to so many pages, could you check all the pages that you changed and fix them? Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I don't know what eles to do. I can start fixing it one by one myself, but that is going to take months to do. Also, why only those indicators that you picked. Why not others? For example, indicator 13 is an important one to know how much school pays attention to extracurricular activities. Z22 (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that you have an interest and I will do my best to figure out what's wrong here. I just started on Essex County's districts and I hope that the bug is restricted there, though I will spot check my downloads against the data in the actual CSG. The indicators I chose are the ones that account for the bulk of spending. Indicator 13 was in my mind, but I was already overwhelmed with data as it is. I will review for any possible errors and hope that you wuill be able to help pin down any further mistakes. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the Median Teacher Salary is the only indicator without %+- vs average, maybe that is related to the bug. I hope when you fix the data, you can add % as well to be consistent with other indicators. Z22 (talk) 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing the CSG download files I used, all are in the same order, except for Indicator 16, Median Teacher Salaries. In the csg16.xls file, City of Orange is ordered under "O", while it's ordered under "C" in all of the other files I checked. The values for Indicator 16 for the eight districts from east Orange to Orange were off by one and have all been corrected. I will add the % chg. for teacher salaries to the template. Thanks for the excellent catch of this error. Alansohn (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems like indicators 12 and 13 are the only two that are not included in your list. Since less than 30% of schools have spending on indicator 12, so it does not make sense to add. I still think that indicator 13 is a good information to know. As you are overwhelmed, I will try to take a crack at it. I only know to add info manualy one by one. We'll see how long it will take me to do. Z22 (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me add it to the template and give me a heads-up when you add the data. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Done (with some pains) for all the districts that use the NJSchoolDistrict template. I originally thought that it would take me a month to do. Please spot check if you have a chance. I also fixed two 7-12 schools in Warren county to set the correct state average numbers as they are not 9-12. By the way, I found that something should be changed for graderange parameter. For schools in 7-12/9-12 dataset, we should set graderange to the actual range for that school whether it is 7-12 or 9-12. This is so that the Avg. column and footnote will not be misleading that the average is for all 7-12 and 9-12 schools combined. Also for vocational schools, we should set graderange to something like 9-12 (voc.) so that the avg. column and footnote will not be misleading. Right now, it is as if the average is for all 9-12 schools (vocational and regular) in the state. If you agree, I can make those changes. Z22 (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A "bot" (supposedly) removed an image (headline:JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY) you placed in this article. The cited grounds appear (as is usual for such bots) to be copyright considerations. Having tried to insert images into various articles and having had them removed on copyright grounds, I personally have quite given up on inserting images into articles, and even trying to figure out whether they may be permitted to remain.

But you are an administrator and, as such, perhaps more able to address the numerous vagaries of placing images in articles. The image in question (which is all over the Internet) strikes me as pertinent and valuable in this article, which itself is very valuable, so I hope you will give some attention to restoring your work.

If there is anything I could do to assist you (I have already invested a fair amount of work in the article), please advise me.--Joe (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Islam and Democracy are not compatible due to the natures of those ideologies. The term "oxymoron" should be included there. There is nothing nonconstructive about my edit and I do not mean to offend anyone. It is just a matter of fact. I'm putting it back on. Please keep personal ideology, views and emotion out of facts.

Thank you and have a good one.

ConstantlyDrunkRussian (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)ConstantlyDrunkRussian

Hey guy i posted that yemen people are terrorist and follow the religion of homos (Islam) why did you erased that? i'm guessing you should be a hater also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.71.36 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I was merging something from one part of the article to the appropriate section. Sorry about that. 75.5.4.125 (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check out the user page of Cutaran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cutaran

(Brownraise (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

Also, user which you warned yesterday at vandalized the UEFA coefficients page. Link to the user's talk page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:78.86.59.39--76.170.29.216 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Alansohn/Archive 29,
I just wanted to wish you and your family a happy new year, however you're celebrating it. Whether 2009 was a good year for you, or if it wasn't the greatest year, hopefully 2010 will be better. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.

December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 00:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, 71.5.113.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has vandalised Sidereel again. Can you please block him? Thanks. --58.174.73.169 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A question regarding your keep vote at Categories_for_discussion, according to whom those 3 people are Victims of Estonian political repression? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have create a page for episodes of chelsea lately.Now I need help improving so can you help me and and send this measseage to other users.PAGE:List of Chelsea Lately episodes.--Anesleyp (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for ysing this but i don't know another way to reach you.About the revert you did,i think that it is wrong to have the page still in existance.Because you don't inderstant why,so that the reasons: 1)Macedonia is a Greek teritory,since ancient times to today 2)Skopians,because they lack any culture and history,want to take the Greek teritory which is rich in culture and history 3)Even the smaleest word say that Macedonia is not Greek is insult to our fallen heroes,old and recent,who fought this northen part my country 4)Who would you feel if one country stated that new jersey does not belong to the states,but in that country?And what feel if that country want to do this so badly,that makes a fake history and presents it as the right one? Please,take those into consideration. P.S Is there another way to talk to others in wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyhakiasman (talk • contribs) 21:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help in the past with the dermatology-related content on Wikipedia. We have continued to make significant progress with the Bolognia push. Also, the most recent project popular page statistics are out, and the list of cutaneous conditions continues to rise, now #49, up from #65 last month. Thanks again for your support! ---kilbad (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Number 662 (517 create/expand - 145 nominations)

On January 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tim Costello (labor advocate), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Number 663 (518 create/expand - 145 nominations)

On January 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Loren Singer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 06:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Alansohn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 385 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Bruce James - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Ben Jorgensen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. J. Thompson Baker - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for giving your opinion #category:Prize-winners of the Paloma O'Shea Piano Competition|here. Categories related to music competitions winners are being targetted by a user, and I think it would be useful that you give your opinion regarding the neccesity of these categories and maybe later help proposing changes to the present guidelines (music awards and prizes). Other categories proposed for deletion are #Category:Prize-winners of the Leeds International Pianoforte Competition, #Category:Operalia and #Category:Prize-winners of the Besançon Conducting Competition. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

		The 500 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		On behalf of the Did you know? project and Wikipedia readers around the globe, I would like to congratulate you upon reaching the milestone of more than 500 DYK creations and expansions. As well, you are the first editor to reach this mark! Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

		The 100 DYK Nomination Medal
		Congratulations on passing the milestone of 100 DYK nominations. Excellent work! Binksternet (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you are participating in the 2010 WikiCup. I have been working on the Bolognia push which is a project to make sure Wikipedia has an article (or redirect) on every know cutaneous condition. With that being said, there are still many cutaneous condition stubs to be made, and Bolognia could be a source for a lot of DYK articles, etc. Therefore, I was thinking maybe we could help one another... a competative WikiCup that also serves to improve dermatologic content on Wikipedia. I could e-mail you the Bolognia login information if you have any interest? ---kilbad (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent assistance in reverting the edits of the gentleman from Detroit who keeps vandalizing the article on the Armenian Youth Federation. The IP in question has been responsible for a significant number of hateful and relatively mindless attacks on a number of articles relating to the Armenian Diaspora in the United States. It is encouraging to know that I am not the only one determined to protect the integrity of the information source I hold so dear. Odarmenian (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish I knew more details about the issue, but the vandalism was clear in this case and was removed as part of my standard patrolling. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that it's generally not a good idea to suggest that others are being "disruptive" by voicing their opinion. If I understand you correctly you are speaking of "disruption" to the category system, as in a category being deleted, but given the special meaning of "disruption" on WP, you might want to find a different word to express the idea. I mention this here rather than the CFD discussion because it's not particular germane to the issue being discussed there. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A rename here is the least disruptive approach, plain and simple, and I'm not sure what your motive is in opposing it as an option. No rational person would see an issue with the wording. The result you seem to prefer, to delete the category, remove the category from the 12 articles, have a new category without the word "Current" created and then have all 12 articles retagged, borders on a WP:POINT violation of deliberately trying to disrupt Wikipedia where there is a logical alternative of a rename that addresses the nominator's only legitimate issue. You're really grasping here to try to manufacture something where nothing exists, in a CfD that should be open and shut. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; I just agree with the original nomination. Users disagree; it's normal. (What you've set out as my preferred approach is not what I prefer though, so you must have misunderstood.) My point here was about the use of the word, not to continue the substantive disagreement. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, but your actions are disruptive here. You disagree; it's normal. The difference is that I have never abused administrative powers to impose or to threaten to impose a block where you have a rather blatant conflict of interest. Your continued threats are not normal or acceptable. Just voicing my opinion. Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see T:TDYK#Charles Kleibacker - you need one more ref for the article. Thanks, Ucucha 17:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Number 664 (519 create/expand - 145 nominations)

On January 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur E. Bartlett, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from name-calling and incivility at CFD. Calling me a troll out of the blue in multiple CFD discussions because I have criticized your lack of civility in other discussions is completely uncalled for.[1],[2],[3] The comments of yours that I criticized were unnecessarily personal arguments (in the most recent instances, against User:BrownHairedGirl), making them a comment and judgment on the contributor rather than the content.[4],[5] These comments, apart from doing nothing to advance any legitimate argument, violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and especially WP:AGF.

Perhaps I made a mistake by trying to bring this to your attention in the middle of the CFD rather than on your talk page, as that could be seen as unnecessarily confrontational, in which case I apologize. But the underlying point is that you need to comply with WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, regardless of how much you may disagree with others. Your comments often suggest that you don't believe anyone who disagrees with you is honestly working to improve the encyclopedia, and in conjunction with your personalized remarks, you frequently do not fairly restate the positions of others, and I don't know that I've ever seen you try at CFD to better understand them. I sometimes might agree with the underlying substance of your arguments, were you to present it neutrally rather than as an attack.

I'm very impressed with your contributions in other areas; I've noticed how many new articles you've written and expanded, how many DYKs you're credited with, and how prolific of a vandal fighter you are. That makes your hostility at CFD all the more disappointing, because I don't think you're someone who has to attack others in order to make a point. Perpetuating a hostile environment at CFD certainly doesn't make it any less "broken," but rather makes it harder for those with disagreements to resolve them, or even to listen to one another.

Please believe that my intent has never been to stop you from voicing your content-related opinions, however much or little I may agree with them. My objections have always been only regarding the manner in which you do so. postdlf (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are these issues going to be addressed? I too would be anxious to see a resolution to the problems outlined above. Nothing can happen without all parties coming together, though. Apologies if I've pre-empted your response preparation, Alansohn, but I just didn't see anything happening here and I wondered. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The incidents sited are so trivial and so in keeping with remarks from "trusted" administrators such as yourselves as to not be worthy of mention. If BHG has an issue, she will be given every opportunity to address it. While I will tone down my comments as it is clear that sensitivities among admins are rather delicate, I will not respond further to trolling and demands. Where there are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, I will continue to bring them to the attention of violators, regardless of an alphabet soup of claims from the Postdlf / Good Olfactory tag team. Any further trolling here will be deleted; any further trolling from either of you at CfD, where your comments are attempts to manufacture knowingly false disputes, will be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn, in the spirit of trying bring some resolution, I noticed one point in your reply that seemed to be specific: you said "Where there are clear violations of Wikipedia policy, I will continue to bring them to the attention of violators".

That seems to me to imply that you have already encountered "clear violations of Wikipedia policy" at CFD. Please can you clarify whether that's the case, and if so give some examples so that we can discuss them?

If you are right, and admins are violating policy, then I hope you can be relied upon to do the right thing and set them out so that they can be discussed ... and if you do not feel they have been resolved, you should take them to an appropriate forum for further action. However, sniping about them at CFD clearly isn't producing any solution that you find satisfactory, and this situation needs some resolution. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For starters, here's an easy one: Can you point to the policy that justifies deletion based on "superfluous for navigation"? Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that just a difference of opinion between editors? Not every opinion a user voices requires 100% policy backing. If it did, guidelines and policy could never develop in the first place. The OCAT, CLN stuff, etc. are all just guidelines, not policy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You folks have steadfastly refused to define "defining". Now you want to turn WP:IHATEIT into policy? This is merely "a difference of opinion between editors"? CfD deserves better than that. If you were closing this CfD, would you count that as a valid justification? Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of what postdlf is talking about. I didn't say I wanted to "turn WP:IHATEIT into policy". I'm just saying that I don't think an admin voicing an opinion constitutes a violation of policy by the admin. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The game resumes. Are you responding or just claiming that you've been misquoted? Is "superfluous for navigation" a valid justification for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In the user's opinion it is, and I suspect that in yours it is not, but that's not really the point. The point is that it's an opinion, not policy. There are very few "policies" that justify deletion (the speedy delete criteria being the only real exception). But we base deletions on consensus opinion and guidelines, not just policies. BHG asked for examples of admins violating policy, and you raised this. What is the policy that was violated? I'm not trying to play games here, but it would help if you could answer BHG's question. We are trying to help. Maybe you're just saying "policy" when you mean "guideline"? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You make life and (mostly) death decisions on categories an average of several times per day.If there are no policies or guidelines on deletion of categories, how is it that you manage to decide that some votes are more worthy than others? Is "superfluous for navigation" a valid justification for deletion or is it not? This is a rather simple question thatall three admins here have refused to answer. Alansohn (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Alansohn, you say that you folks have steadfastly refused to define "defining". Not so: I tried a few years ago (see Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive_10#Defining_attribute), but there was no consensus. I think it would be a good idea to reopen that discussion.

As to the incident you refer to, the documents you have cited are guidelines, not policies. They exist to to clarify existing consensus, not to form a code of law. They evolve over time, and they do not cover every situation; when consensus changes, the guidelines are revised. So, I'll ask again: where are your examples of POLICY violations?

Oh, and your final question: "superfluous for navigation" has frequently been accepted (by consensus) as grounds for deletion. Not every list or template needs a corresponding category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

More recently Alansohn started a discussion on it: here. I participated—I certainly didn't "refuse" to entertain a definition for it—I was just a bit confused by the proposal, because I had suggested a negative definition previously, which had been rejected by Alansohn, but then the proposal seemed to incorporate what had been rejected. I don't think repeated no consensus discussions constitutes anybody refusing to define it. We have all tried; it is very difficult to gain consensus on it. Again, an example of where it would be better if we could assume the best about everybody rather than the worst. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If you must have an answer on the beside-the-point issue: I would consider it essentially as I would consider any other non-policy based opinion expressed in a discussion. If consensus agreed with the point, then it would be a valid reason for deletion. Now, back to where are the policy violations by admins at CFD? Or are there some other things concerning you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I have this all in writing. There's no argument that's any better or worse than any other. We now know that "superfluous for navigation" is just as valid justification for deletion as claims of WP:OCAT and that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is just as worthy as an argument for retention as a stack of books showing a characteristic to be defining. Consensus is just a numerical counting of Keep vs. Delete. Yet somehow arguments for retention are routinely "discounted" as being less worthy than others by closing admins such as yourselves. Is that how this game works? Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we—just for this one conversation, if nothing else—put aside disagreements about how CFD should or should not work? Can we please assume good faith for the purpose of this conversation? Can you try to assume that our intentions are good—even if that requires a suspension of disbelief on your part? Can you cease paraphrasing what others have said to frame it in the worst possible light? The initial concern expressed by postdlf was clear that the purpose of this section on your talk page is not primarily concerned with content of arguments, we're concerned with manner and tone: "Please believe that my intent has never been to stop you from voicing your content-related opinions, however much or little I may agree with them. My objections have always been only regarding the manner in which you do so. " That's what is troubling me, at least. Could you address these issues, please? Perhaps you are uncomfortable with me participating here. I'll withdraw from commenting here, and let you (hopefully) respond to postdlf's original concerns. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed the supposed "tone" issue. See above. As both WP:CAT and WP:OCAT are not policy, and as any guideline can be safely ignored, how is any delete vote "better argued" than any keep vote? Remember, you do this several times each day and compile statistics (of whatever value) of the results of all such decisions for a year. Alansohn (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as there is no further trolling of the watch out or "problems result" bullying see here I cherish your participation. We are teasing out details of how the deck is stacked at CfD with each further contribution. Alansohn (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I somehow missed your question here; not sure if you're still wondering. I'll just briefly say that determining consensus in most discussions is not too difficult. The essay What is consensus? is a good place to start when you have a more difficult one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad to see your statement above that you will "tone down" your comments. But within the same paragraph, you accuse us of "manufactur[ing] knowingly false disputes." That's exactly the problem we've identified here and elsewhere. I take you at your word that you consider these incidents trivial, but you need to accept that we do not, and to take us at our word that we believe what we say. We have found the tone of your comments to be a non-trivial problem, which is why we have all tried to bring it to your attention at various times.

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or everyone else on everything at CFD, and I have no problem with explaining myself or my rationales, or discussing competing interpretations of policy, guidelines, and editorial judgment. I don't assume that you are trying to destroy CFD or undermine Wikipedia simply because you disagree with me, or because I don't always understand why you think what you do. I try to understand by asking questions to tease out your underlying premises (sometimes pointed rhetorical questions, which is fair game, but never personal ones I hope), and I try to make you and others better understand my arguments and conclusions. To the extent I want to change your mind about any substantive questions of content or policy, I only want to do so through persuasion. That's all I am asking from you, nothing more. Assume that everyone else is working here in good faith rather than playing games, trying to delete categories because we hate the category's subject matter (I've always been confused by that accusation), or saying or doing anything that we think is "knowingly false." On top of those negative assumptions being contrary to WP:AGF, they aren't helping either of us understand or persuade one another.

Re: your opinion that we have "steadfastly refused to define 'defining'", notwithstanding the obvious dictionary definition of that word (which I note you yourself use quite frequently in your CFD comments without elaboration as to what you mean, and without regard to whether the deletion nomination argued that the category was trivial or non-defining), I accept that you want more guidance on that. Apart from general concerns of instruction creep, I personally don't see how it could be more than a case by case judgment particular to the subject matter of the category. But regardless, you dropped out of the the last substantive discussion you started on this issue after several contributors offered their thoughts. Further, my comments in that discussion in particular tried to lay out the premises that I basically operate from in CFD; I'll leave it to others to say how much that explains their view as well. I was hoping for you to read that and better understand our different perspectives, and then we could have a real discussion, but for some reason you didn't participate further. postdlf (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)