Welcome!

Archives

1) August 30, 2005 - February 1, 2006 2) February 2, 2006 - April 28, 2006 3) May 2, 2006 - June 28, 2006 4) July 1, 2006 - December 29, 2006 5) January 1, 2007 - March 31, 2007 6) April 1, 2007 - June 30, 2007 7) July 1, 2007 - September 30, 2007 8) October 1, 2007 - December 31, 2007 9) January 1, 2008 - March 31, 2008 10) April 1, 2008 - June 16, 2008 11) June 17, 2008 - August 3, 2008 12) August 4, 2008 - September 17, 2008 13) September 17, 2008 - October 23, 2008 14) October 23, 2008 - November 16, 2008 15) November 17, 2008 - December 15, 2008 16) December 16, 2008 - January 2, 2009 17) January 2, 2009 - January 15, 2009 18) January 15, 2009 - February 1, 2009 19) February 1, 2009 -

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Why thank you!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rstebob (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with you? your like a wikinazi, i cant add anything or fix any typo without you reverting itMuffinman991 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Muffinman991 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try adding legitimate content. All else will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)you're like a wikinazi...seconded[reply]

I agree with

Wikipedia:Babel
en This user is a native speaker of the English language. de-1 Dieser Benutzer hat grundlegende Deutschkenntnisse.
Search user languages

vb.net-2 This user is an intermediate Visual Basic .NET programmer. This user thinks Ronald Reagan was an excellent president. This user is interested in the history of the Cold War. This user is interested in the MILITARY HISTORY of the 20th CENTURY. This user is interested in World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). This user is interested in the Vietnam War. This user is interested in the history of Russia. This user is interested in the Russian Revolution. This user knows that battleships rule the waves, not the bloody bird farms! This user bows down before the awesome might of Vodka. This user is interested in politics. ? This user follows his own political ideals. Dems This user knows both major US parties have been hijacked by special interests, can no longer identify with either one, and has no hope that the situation will ever improve. Reps This user identifies as a conservative. This user identifies as a Social Darwinist. This user believes that communism is the only solution. This user supports the use of nuclear energy. Overpopulation This user believes that people create more resources than they consume. This user prefers that the death penalty be used far more often. This user does not use drugs, but figures people should be able to use recreational drugs in their own home if they're responsible about it. This user is against strict gun control. Just say NO to political correctness. All this user is saying, is give WAR a chance! This user wished that Barack Obama had been impeached.

, correcting typos and minor edits should not be problematic. And when someone adds something, then has to step to the bathroom, so they save it, you should at least give them a few minutes to finish their editing. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

haha, i like how you deleted my slightly exaggerated comments, and even my slightly biased ones.. but at same time deleted the bit of true stuff too, excellent work for someone who claims to be against treating editors as good or evil binary code. also as a new jersey resident, have you seen the 'modern look' of the becket school. seeing as i live in the area i can have a slightly more accurate, albeit the accidental opinion based factor, view. hypocrite/wikinazi :) xx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.75.14 (talk • contribs)

I'm the user that keeps deleting the play house 22 section of the East Brunswick, NJ article. It was a relevant and necessary edit because I live in East Brunswick and the it's been announced that the project for rebuilding playhouse 22 has been stopped and the playhouse will no longer be an attraction to our town. So please do not block me for making important edits. If you have any questions or comments please email me @ paulkondratuk@hotmail.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.70.48 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for removing factual information! You are helping Wikipedia to stay a reliable source of information!

I didnt know how to email you, for the information about Jeff behar and hillsborogh

Professional bodybuilders | Mister-olympia, see: http://mister-olympia.bganzeige.de/professional-bodybuilders

also see:

http://botw.org/top/Sports/Strength_Sports/Bodybuilding/Personal_Page/

You can also just google him, jeff behar writer, jeff behar bodybuilder, jeff Behar NASA, jeff Behar ceo of Musclemagfitness.com

He graduated from hillsboro, 1983.

U can also see him on TV, on comedy central by googling his name and comedy central or going here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=70301&title=golds-gym

U can also confirm by checking the hillsboro area at classmates.com

Sorry for having to wroite in here. I did not know how else to email you back with the information you requested.

Already replied to user. Alansohn (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to World government has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you.

Fuck you! read the bloody message. this is not to cite your own info. source it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jor Monn (talk • contribs)

Number 298 (185 create/expand - 113 nominations)

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Kahn (shipping executive), 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.

WHAT VANDALISM ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SIR? I ONLY EDITED THE DICTION OF THE ARTICLE -- WHICH WAS LACKING! I SUGGEST YOU TAKE THAT OFF OF MY PAGE AND DISCONTINUE THE SLANDER. THANK YOU AND GOOD DAY. Ilovenc123 (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 299 (186 create/expand - 113 nominations)

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Howard Pack, 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.

why did you change fruity >=( fruity is a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beast778899 (talk • contribs)

I don't see any change about the word "fruity". It's the rest of your vandalism that's been a problem. Alansohn (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to know the ropes within the wikipedia. I submit you another case, theringess is again and again suppressing any independent material about Gurumayi Chidvilasananda including the transcriptiion of an article of the new yorker. Please study the history of the article. 82.67.232.89 (talk)

You can join me at cognominal@gmail.com

I'm not sure how much I can help, but I will look. Alansohn (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For tirelessly reverting vandalism...and beating me to it. :)

Nobody loves this poor poor soul. This is his cry for help, or in the words of Gary Larson, Helf.

what did i do wrong i added on more about the soup all of it was true why should i be blocked

Hi! I made a page about an author named Martyn_Godfrey. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyn_Godfrey. Could you please edit the page? Thanks!Neptunekh

thank you for the information but i have another question for you. are the admins contacted after an edit or is there a page for admins which shows the most recent edits and users that changed articles? sorry for the questions but i am just trying to understand the process better so i do not look like an idiot when i make my presentation and i want to be able to present the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.35.171 (talk • contribs)

My other edits were a mistake that I did not mean to make. North Carolina is a very urban state and I thought the article was wrong -- what about cities like Charlotte, Greensboro, and Raleigh? ARE THOSE RURAL??????? I WANT THIS WARNING CORRECTED. Ilovenc123 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you work for wikipedia? Because it is so sad that you care so much about it. Do you live in your parents basememnt and sit behind a screen all day making sure no one is "vandalizing". Get a job. While your at it get a life as well. Its the sad truth. Stop hiding from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.149.247 (talk • contribs)

Please check w:index.php?title=Arundhati_Roy&action=history and revert to include latest info about Roy's list. Each objection is carefully addressed, then the edit gets reverted anyway by two editors working in tandem. Thanks, 74.162.153.220 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to restore this edit. Please see this about "Roy's List" then this about the edit. Thanks, 65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the recent vandalism on {{bubble tea}}! For that, I give you...

Hello! By any chance can you help with making this a DYK? I am not sure how to add these things, but I think this referenced fact would be a good one to include. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been a great candidate for a hook, but the article doesn't meet the qualifications for DYK. Per WP:DYK, an article must be new or have been expanded fivefold within the past five days. As this article is a rather old one, and has not met the expansion requirement, it would not be eligible. I'll be happy to take a look at any new / newly-expanded articles. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what about with this? As you can see I expanded the article considerably? Could we ask, "Did you know that Will Kane's was Gary Cooper's second Academy Award winning role?" or "Did you know that Will Kane is ranked fourteenth on Entertainment Weeklys list of Top 20 Heroes of all time?" Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at a user's contributions and quite by accident I saw that the user had edited User talk:Alansohn2. Is User:Alansohn2 anything to do with you? If not, we might want to take further steps, as there's a possible risk of impersonation due to the similarity of your names. (The new account edited a page on NJ and also posted a warning on a user talk page, which is why I thought it might be you experimenting with another account, but if not this increases the potential confusion problems of a user using this name.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Lee is about 5 miles away, but it's not me. There is a genuine possibility that its could be someone else with the same name, which would be quite a coincidence but far from impossible. I'd keep an eye on the account. It doesn't appear to be someone trying to spoof my edits, but the person could be close enough that some of our edits might overlap. Alansohn (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you run into any trouble from it and I'll help if I can. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are so sneaky, Alansohn, selecting such an unguessable name for your sock. Good sleuthing, Good Olfactory! Keep up the vigilance! Bongomatic 02:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I never thought anyone would make the connection to my "other" ID. I am so glad that I've been saving my Dunkin' Donuts receipts since my last sockpuppet problem cropped up. Alansohn (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, wha? I never thought of this as a "sock" problem at all. Had this been the "real" Alansohn's other account I would have assumed, based on the accounts edits, that he was simply experimenting with using another account. My concern was actually that another user was trying to impersonate our fine editor here. If you're just mocking me for the sake of doing so, Bongo, I'm now going to laugh along .... (ha ha ha cough cough gurgle...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Bongo was joking here, as was I. No gurgling necessary. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought probably that was the case—I tried to laugh along and then it got stuck in my throat ... I can dish it out but I can't take it ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry Harris (director)

...For removing the vandalism on my talk page Dougofborg (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 430 (303 create/expand - 127 nominations)

On March 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Martin Knowlton, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with your comment about my "concocting an excuse" to close the Second Wrangler category as "delete" because I put my personal views above process. You may have missed my comment that I closed the 2008 discussion as "keep", so I don't know why you think my views accord with the outcome. Please retract your remarks. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 11:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to reply? Or do I have to raise the matter elsewhere, given your prima facie assumption of bad faith on my part? Bencherlite^Talk 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're entirely clear, this is the diff I'm talking about. Bencherlite^Talk 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen your earlier note. I will review and make a determination as to what modification would be appropriate to more accurately reflect your actions in closing this CfD under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When? You've been doing plenty of editing since I left the second message, let alone the first message, and I'm disappointed that you haven't given this a higher priority. Bencherlite^Talk 09:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had been trying to word my response and hadn't had a chance to stop by DRV. I have replied and made it clear that I do not believe that you "concocted" anything, rather that there was a misapplication and misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy in closing the CfD in question. I hope this addresses your concerns. Please feel free to respond further either on my talk page or at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing any suggestion of bad faith. The reasonableness of my closure is clearly something upon which people can, and do, differ, and so I don't have any remaining issues with your comments. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

|Bibikha is not a vandal, he is a sockpuppet for user talk:HugovivScientus (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been repeat vandalism from a shared user account that you have previously notified User talk:194.221.133.211. I guess that Aviva employees have nothing better to do than vandalise Wikipedia... Could you arrange a block? DiverScout (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, also great work in the recent changes, keep it up! All the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing this page. Do your reasearch and pay attention to the links, the proof was there all along. You can make Wikipedia more enjoyable by reading what is presented to you first before making assumptions on what is correct and not correct - got it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.108.255.76 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy between the title of Mansfield, Florida and the name in the article is what made this appear to be vandalism. I am investigating and will try to help resolve this issue. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I'm looking at it too. Ghost towns can be tricky, it seems. :) See the ref list I've added to the talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - After carefully investigating (and checking "Mansfield, Florida" as well), I'm satisfied that Mannfield is the correct name in this case. I have moved it. Like Obama, I take responsibility for this. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up NOTE: I did not remove the warning on 12.108.255.76 talk (did not want to act on your behalf without your approval). Proofreader77 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Since you are apparently offline, I have removed the warning in question (since the information I've added to the talk page has substantially changed the equation of available information for decision). If further evaluation suggests the warning should be restored, please excuse this ephemeral action. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC) (Edited: Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

SOME ONE NEEDS TO REMOVE IT AND STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE FACTS ARE ALREADY IN FRONT OF YOU.--12.108.255.76 (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Alansohn is off duty at this time. (I will respond further on your talk page) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hear hear!" for your words (on your user page) re "common sense."

P.S. re "poop" -- Here's to ever-smarter bots, so we don't have to scoop. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better bots would be one option, but leash laws might be even better. Alansohn (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansohn, I wonder if you'd be willing to look again at the warning you gave this newbie. It looks to me like Majid was blanking stuff he'd written after it had been challenged. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, and after further review of the circumstances, I removed the warning. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much. ϢereSpielChequers 19:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to apologize dearly to you, my friend, for my work on Sallust. I have ADD and cannot pay attention. So I sit with a book and read until I can't and then make Sallust different. I understand this is wrong and that I have no business doing it. Much love for the new Year. 128.197.244.131 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lawrence Salander
  • Thanks for the notice. Looking at the article, Salander-O'Reilly Galleries might be a better subject for this article, as there seems to be little about the person, and lots about his business. Alansohn (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I agree—the bankruptcy and crimes are personal, the gallery was 100% owned and run by him. As the articles point out, the art business is a trust one, person-to-person, not person-to-company. Bongomatic 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for getting rid of the vandalism on my userpage. I really appreciate it. MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 431 (304 create/expand - 127 nominations)

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothea Holt Redmond, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 432 (305 create/expand - 127 nominations)

On March 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Hedges, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Bill Bogash
• Earl Wood

Enjoy, Bongomatic 08:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the above article to the following location: User:Alansohn/Little tikes. ... discospinster _talk 13:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I have explained on Discospinster's page, the page was deleted multiple times as blatant copy-and-paste copyright infringement of [1]; I tagged for G11 the first time because I couldn't find the copyvio. MuZemike 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it to User:Alansohn/Little Tikes for you. ... discospinster _talk 19:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... was probably intended for User talk:Peteryesness, author of a deleted-by-me article about a non-notable backup singer. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. This is not the first time that Huggle has had me send a message to the wrong page, and I will be even more careful the next time (and will still screw it up). Thanks for relocating the message to its correct destination. Alansohn (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Hellions of Troy. Amy "Bitches Bruze" Moore (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Alansohn (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He/she is a vandal. Please have a look at its talk... --Calgaco (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 433 (306 create/expand - 127 nominations)

On March 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glenn Sundby, 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.

Shubinator (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 434-436 (309 create/expand - 127 nominations)

On 29 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Leslie George Katz, Jane Mayhall, and Eakins Press, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• William Schwartz (physician)

Bongomatic 07:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Monte Hale—already exists, so expansion may need to be significant for DYK, but could be fun.

My recent post on Alan Barton is factually accurate. Please revert your allegation of vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.39.210.185 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's accurate, I have been unable to find the details regarding the zippo lighter, nor does the wording provide a warm and fuzzy feeling. I will be happy to retract the warning if reliable and verifiable sources can be produced to support the claim, as I was unable to find anything. Alansohn (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spotted a comment on the Bernards High site saying that a reference is needed for the citation of J Geils as a grad. A while ago I saw the 1964 yearbook with his picture in it -also know people who knew him - & recently saw the following on the internet:
_ June 6th, 2005 BERNARDS HIGH SCHOOL in Bernardsville is celebrating its centennial this month. One famous graduate from the Class of 64 is John W. Geils Jr. Retired librarian and teacher Mary Elizabeth Young who worked at the school for 41 years, recalls J.Geils: QUOTE: "always wore nice slacks and tie and a white shirt and jacket," Source: Bridgewater Courier News - Bridgewater,NJ,USA http://www.funkyjudge.net/geils_newsround_2005.html

- so where does this bring things? no, it is not quite an ironclad reference- but it would seem that it does lend substantial support - what is the protocol in a case like this? and how should this reference be noted? as a total novice, I plead ignorance in regard to these details & and admit to a concern about making a hash of things- If an action is warranted & if it is rather straightforward & you would do it - that would be great & I'll watch & learn. JinNJ (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The item is a single sentence quoted on a blog from a newspaper article. While I am familiar with the paper, and I would accept it as a source if I could find it, I have been unable to find the original article. Another search of Google / News / Archive also finds nothing. I don't doubt that he attended, I just can't find a satisfactory source to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited that page, because the undoing of previous edit by Anthony Lynch seemed unfair. The link provided was valid after all.

--Fiachra Ó Raghallaigh (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the link exists as described by User:Anthony Lynch exists at Department of the Taoiseach is no reason for inclusion. While I would have little (or lesser) objection to inclusion of the link if it was covered by reliable and verifiable sources, it is not and no sources of any kind are provided. Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On March 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Billy C. Clark, 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.

--Dravecky (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Did You know you are a Champion?" Award Despite today's date, I am serious in communicating enthusiastic congratulations on you having having nominated 400+ DYKs total, of which 300+ DYKs you created or expanded. I don't know if anyone has made a medal to commemorate your singular level of great achievement, but nevertheless I hasten to laud your efforts and to deliver deserved kudos. Best wishes and continued happy editing! --Boston (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this article at FAC. Since you had an interest in it, I was wondering if you might want to take a peek at it and leave comments and views at the FAC page. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages Maen. K. A. (talk)

On April Fool's, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bob Backus, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section originally contained several sources about promiscuity and MSM, but were removed by Allstarecho. Of those statistics he only left those which positively portray MSM. What is your rationale for including only a portion of the statistics? Would you be opposed to allowing the other statistics be reinstated?  EJNOGARB  16:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustration. However, the solution is not a tit-for-tat removal of sourced information. I would suggest that you start discussing the issue on the article's talk page before considering any further actions. Alansohn (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered either of my questions. What is your rationale for including only a portion of the statistics? Would you be opposed to allowing the other statistics be reinstated?  EJNOGARB  16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently on Raw, the commentator, Michael Cole, said that The Big Show (Paul Wight) weighed in at 485lbs that very morning. Sorry for changing it without anything to back it up, I didn't realise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.40.74 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit to Garry's Mod? My change simply fixed a spelling error, and inlined a poorly-done (forcing the section into code layout), unnecessary numbered list into the sentence it was properly part of. John Darrow (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was conversational —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.83.75 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting the vandalism on my userpage?--Giants27 :  Chat  22:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For reverting the nonsense on my talk page, and above all for your decent work and watchful eye! Best regards, --Catgut (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Alansohn (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, In regards to your edit for the Dodge SRT4 hood scoop, I feel you are mistaken. You believe it is functional, but do you have a source? We can argue the rear wing is functional as well... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exploringonions (talk • contribs)

The issue is not the hood scoop. It's the edit that changed Curt Simmons to Richard Simmons that is vandalism. Alansohn (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello and tank you for the message you left me on the talk page. i would like to inform that originally i did give a proper explanation for why i removed the content however my original edit was reverted by a more misinformed user who did not know the content was misleading and as such the edit that you deleted was just my reversion of the respective user's edit (pretty confusing, huh?), and there is a topic in talk page regarding the respective content since last month. while i appreciate the you doing your part to help improve wikipedia i would like to give you a friendly piece of advice: please check the discussion page and the edit history before randomly reverting edits. thank you very much for your time and have a nice weekend.Adijarca (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw that you have dealt with POV problems with the articles for Chad "Corntassel" Smith and Wilma Mankiller in the past, so I was wondering if you could provide any guidance for the new wave of John Cornsilk-style defamation provided by User:Skeele. Thanks for any help. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

These articles are out of my core competency, but I will take a look. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! It's just a matter of clarifying Wikipedia rules about living people and POV policies. -Uyvsdi (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

I think I overreacted. Thought it was going to be this ongoing struggle, as Wikipedia has seen in the past on these articles. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Hello Alansohn. Your reasonable start for this article has been overtaken by new contributors who may not yet be familiar with our standards. Someone has begun a discussion at WP:COIN#Polypill and Polycap about the editing of Drmaseeh (talk · contribs). If you have any time yourself, I wonder if you feel like pruning out any of the excessive material? (bold text, etc.) There might be a copyvio in there, judging from the language used. EdJohnston (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please explain the reason for changing "Non Sibi Sed Patriae", is not what Wikipedia represents, a tool to build upon with a strong focus on historical reality. --PietroSavo (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Pietro[reply]

• Emory Elliott
• George Stoddard
• Dorothy Kelly (educator)
• Frances Blaisdell
• William Schwartz (physician)

I think I also ran across an interesting one that you'd created and added a reference or something. Bongomatic 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Arthur Richman, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem; I am quite happy to be using my interest in New Jersey politics for the benefit of Wikipedia. I also sincerely appreciate the DYK nomination and your addition of other facts to James Beach. I look forward to further collaboration with you on WP:NJ articles. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding your message at User talk:75.72.217.46 regarding this edit to the page Polygamy. I am obviously new to editing and while reading the article came across a typo so thought of fixing that. I did not give a detailed description as the fix was self evident but after getting a message from Tiderolls I re-edited and this time I gave a detailed edit description. But now I notice that the page has been reverted and I am given a warning. I would appreciate if you could could look into the page and see for yourself that I was just trying to fix an error. Cheers :) Umnmathtutor (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that revert. I don't know what it is that was imbedded in the IP change ("AlProxy-Connection: keep-alive" and "Cache-Control: max-age=0") or its purpose, but it looked troublesome to me. Do you have any idea? Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it before in vandalistic edits, but I have no idea where it comes from. I will try to research. Alansohn (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know, it seems very weird! Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the article Jacob B Agus, but an admin deleted it this morning and I rescued it, rewrote it, and recreated it. Can you spend a few minutes and help wikify and clean it up?--Jayrav (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was also surprised. --Jayrav (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to revert this image. The image that was added is no different to the one that was originally there, the person who added the second image is obviously just wanting their own images on the page. 67.193.221.128 (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I'm guessing that it got your attention because there was no edit summary. If so the mistake is mine. I thought I had entered that info but obviously didn't, I seem to have an issue with using Wiki rightnow as I just entered an Edit summary without editing the page. I should pay greater attention to what I am doing.67.193.219.104 (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can't log on to my account and have a different IP address? Have you heard of this elsewhere in your experience? 67.193.219.104 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Eva Evdokimova
• Jorge Preloran
• John Blankenchip
• http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-richard-oneill5-2009apr05,0,2602055.story

Bongomatic 06:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more!

• Jerome R. Waldie
• Rocco Morabito
• James G. Boswell II

Bongomatic

...Now how much would I pay??? Thanks for the updates. I need to catch up on obits, and will do so ASAP. Alansohn (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alansohn. You have new messages at Control-alt-delete's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alansohn. You have new messages at Control-alt-delete's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alansohn. You have new messages at Control-alt-delete's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Control-alt-delete ★ user◾talk◾favs 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read the reference? And I quote: "a DSM-IV diagnosis of Asperger's disorder is unlikely or impossible.". Hoax. Plain and simple. Please read the details before calling controversial papers "vandalism" if there is a lack of scientific consensus then perhaps it shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. In case you didn't see it the first time [2], also [3] provides a layman's introduction. 129.97.134.80 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you are quoting a reference to support your claim, the article I read does not use the word "hoax" or claim it as such. The article questions the diagnostic criteria established by DSM-IV for Asperger's. If you are going to expunge any mentions of Asperger's or refer to it as a hoax, you will need to rebut the thousands of other articles that treat it as a rather real condition. Do not remove any content without discussing it first on the talk page. Alansohn (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, for reverting that vandalism from my page. Best, otisjimmy1 (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the least I could do! Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informing everyone who participated in the AFD for Ferris Beuller's Day Off in popular culture that a merge discussion is now underway concerning the same material. Please share your comments here Dream Focus 04:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Cozy Coupe, and Little Tikes, 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.

Heh, could have used this one for April Fool's :) --Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure you don't get into an edit war under false assumptions. The IP you just warned for removing sourced content is a static one who regularly removes questionable content that is always being added by the same COI SPA. See my "Note for vandal fighters" on the IP's talk page. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. The content removed seemed more than plausible and the lack of an edit summary coming from an IP editor made it appear as vandalism. With subsequent edits to the article, I now understand why the content was removed. Alansohn (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange situation. The content looks more than plausible, but Grockl has in the past been making claims that are totally over the top, so I tend to err on the side of caution and decline to accept anything without bulletproof sourcing. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my talk page! Long time no talk. I hope all is well. Wishing you a חג כשר ושמח! shirulashem (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

free speech dingdong, its the talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.171.186.242 (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polycap, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gus Cifelli, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article H. Clay Earles, 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.

Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP recieved an level 3 warning before he replaced it with gibberish, please review page history(I ususally do when encountering a blank/nonsense IP talk page). Happy vandal hunting. Gsmgm (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I am confused as to why my edit wasn't viewed as constructive...? 169.244.116.11 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources show that he had a record of 33-4-2 as shown in the article, but your edit changed it a record of 730-4-2 in 736 fights. This is blatant vandalism, and is far from the first time you have vandalized articles. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you were paying attention, you'd realize that this is a school IP, and that was merely a classmate's vandalism, not mine. I don't appreciate you reverting my constructive post concerning Frankie Campbell's early life in Bath, Maine. Please do not revert it again. 169.244.116.11 (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might want to know about Orlady's Request for adminship. Kaldari (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, I've blocked you for 31 hours for violation of your editing restrictions. You've recently been uncivil to other editors at a number of recent CfD and CfD-related discussions, including most recently [4], [5], [6], [7]. Judging by your past comments to me about the editing restrictions you've been placed under, I can understand that you will probably not view this block as legitimate. Anyone can be misunderstood a few times and appear to be uncivil when no incivility was intended, but you're exhibiting the same pattern of behavior that originally led to the restrictions and the subsequent blocks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These admittedly trenchant remarks of Alansohn's seem to me to fall within the usual 'cut and thrust' of cfds. I've been called worse myself (usually by Otto) in cfds in the last few weeks. And he is now benefitting only Dunkin' Donuts franchise-holders. I appeal for clemency on his behalf. Occuli (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Diva Zappa, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I suggested over a fortnight ago that I didn't feel that Zappa was notable enough to have her own Wiki page and used the notability tag. No-one has made any effort in establishing notability and when I have searched for her on Google, I found little that suggested anything other than very minor claims for notability.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Fol de rol troll (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility, 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.

Dravecky (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for whatever I did to offend you. I was just trying to clean up various pages of university presidents. I'm not sure what part was problematic, but I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sassy Sylvia (talk • contribs) 02:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your interest, you can have her! I'll stay clear of her.

Sassy Sylvia (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)sylviaSassy Sylvia (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bring that to my attention! Keep again! CTJF83Talk 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 1963 Liberty Bowl, 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution to the category deletionmerge nomination, I chose Mercer, because he is a significant person and have never hidden the fact this a quite a minefield. I have put a note on the people who created these articles, also over at the songs project. Don't know what else to do to get a discussion and concensus going. It is further complicated by different eras viewing the sub-division of songwriting credits differently. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you submit someone for vandalization of a site. Regarding the Brian J Smart page, it has become clear that the person at the IP 24.2.95.62 is related to the case and trying to hide his or her involvment. Can Wiki block the access of this IP from future edits?

~~ 4waldopepper ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4waldopepper (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some material to Dan Pagis It still needs work. Perhaps we could add some of his poems and do a Do You Know? for Yom HaShoah. This is his most widely-cited poem:

Dan Pagis – Written In Pencil in the Sealed Railway Car

...כאן במשלוח הזה

here in this carload

אני חוה

i am eve

עם הבל בני...

with abel my son

אם תראו את בני קין,

if you see my other son

בן אדם,

cain son of man

תגידו לו שאני...

tell him i...Historicist (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope all is well with you and that you had an enjoyable chag. I wish I had known about this and would have done this for Holocaust Memorial Day. I will do my best to expand the article. Alansohn (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, it might be nice if somebody explained to the poor guy why his edits keep getting reverted. I just tried to do so, but got an edit conflict with you. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, if he doesn't pay any attention to what's on his talk page, what more can one do. (rhetorical question). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I am an actual students that attends Turner Fenton whereas you Don't. So obvoisuly i have a much more up to date info than you so therefore you causing vandalism by removing information that is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.91.84 (talk • contribs)

Thanks a bunch for reverting that vandalism on my userpage!

Oldlaptop321 (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie! Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Stern (journalist), 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.

Orlady (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made appropriate CONSTRUCTIVE changes to the page TWICE and you reverted them to their incorrect version TWICE. Are you a veteran? Do you know anything about military rank insignia? If not, leave the changes alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.134.36 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_23#Category:Wikipedia_users_who_oppose_Flagged_Revisions

If you inappropriately canvass other wikipedians again you may be immediately blocked by me or any other admin.

I have innumerable diffs regarding your canvassing (easily viewed in your contribution history).

The evidence is clear, and I don't think that there is anything further to discuss about it.

However, if you still feel that this warning is unfounded, please feel free to start dispute resolution regarding it. - jc37 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to read this threat several times before coming to the conclusion that you are actually serious about this claim. Can you point to any policy under which notifying the individuals directly affected by a proposed deletion constitutes what you allege to be "canvassing"? How else would they know about it? Alansohn (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read WP:CANVASS before and I have read it again. While I do understand a desire to exclude individuals affected from participating in a CfD that deletes a category they have chosen to use, the messages were sent to all of the users affected without picking and choosing, was worded in a clearly neutral tone, was not made selectively to one side once in partisan fashion it turns out that there will be another related category under discussion and this was done with complete transparency. I'm not sure why only those individuals who regularly participate at CfD should have been the only individuals to be able to participate here. If you have an explanation, please do so, before pursuing further action to address this blatant harassment. Alansohn (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a note here that explains why we shouldn't notify individual users of a category. Additionally I'll note that even offering to notify the users in the other category of the opposite view, the damage is already done. First of all, this opposite group probably would have addionally had a propensity to support keeping becuase it appeared both categories were going to be under discussion at that time. Secondly, it's no secret the more people you bring in to a discussion, the more likely it will end in no consensus, which we all know defaults to keep. My assumption of good faith makes me hope this wasn't the intent you had when you notified these users, and perhaps actually did believe you were being helpful by notifying them, but I hope my note on your talk page explains why such notification does not result in a community consensus, but rather just a consensus of people who are in the category (plus the few people who happen accross the Cfd normally, which is unlikely to be a factor when so many people in the category are notified). VegaDark (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell both of you that I disagree wholeheartedly with the unjustified block threat and with the underlying concern that daring to notify those affected is a negative. CfD is a kangaroo court, where .001% of Wikipedia users, maybe 20 editors in total, cast over 90% of the votes; This is a small fraction of the people who participate at AfD, whose participants are far more representative of the community as a whole, and who are notified on a far more systematic basis about planned deletions. I am reminded of public notices printed in my newspaper, which are printed on endless pages of microscopic print, which I describe as notifying the public about something you never want them to find out about. Where our own fellow Wikipedia users are directly affected, an approach that deliberately tries to hide reality, with a nominator making no apparent effort to contact the affected parties, should offend anyone's sensibilities. What's that saying about mushrooms? Having the CfD regulars pick and choose which categories stay and which are deleted on what amounts to an arbitrary ILIKEIT / IHATEIT basis helps ensure that the output of CfD in no form reflects community consensus. Your approach, and Jc37's block threat made to attempt to enforce it, only perpetuate the problem. Again, I will only refrain from this so-called "canvassing" because there appears to be no effort to support the existence of a level playing field. Alansohn (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were correct that CFD regulars do not adequately convey community consensus (which is really an issue with the whole CfD process), you can't possibly argue that a CfD of a user category in which every user in the category has been individually notified is a better gauge of community consensus than if only the CfD regulars saw it. The mere fact that the CfD regulars are generally disinterested in a category implies impartiallity in their decision making, unlike when notifying a group of people who common sense dictates have a predisposition to support keeping. VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your image of a sagacious group of CfD participants dispassionately weighing the pros and cons of each category, fairly and consistently applying a set of rules established by the community at large in impartial fashion so as to reflect the views of all Wikipedians, which is a rosy vision that I once too shared, though it could have been what a purple monkey told me while I was on an acid trip. What actually happens at the CfD kanagaroo court is a tiny group of editors who impose their own preconceived notion of what categories should be, applying rules and ignoring consensus in arbitrary fashion, where incivility roams free, unchecked by uninterested admins. I just took a look at CfD and saw one editor cast 13 votes, consisting of 12 deletes and a rename in the span of several minutes. Basically, the default result of any CfD where deletion is considered as an option is delete. Even multiple reliable and verifiable sources establishing "definingness" are routinely ignored when convenient. I look at a lot of articles using Huggle, and if I see an AfD notice on the top of an article, even one I've never seen before, I will often participate. We have no problem at AfD with editors participating, and quite often nominators will have the decency to notify all individuals who have edited the article up for discussion, without ever seeing an editor providing this notification hit with a threat to be blocked for "canvassing", even though common sense dictates that people who edit an article have a predisposition to support keeping that article. I've added tens of thousands of categories to articles, but I never navigate using them; Folks visiting Wikipedia do, and that's what they're designed for. The problem is that few of the people who might have a legitimate interest in the future of a category ever read them on a regular basis. The solution of putting every category on a watchlist is as impractical as it is unrealistic. If we selected a dozen editors at random to decide on each CfD, we would get community consensus. What we have now, where a deliberate effort is made to ensure that those who best understand a category are purposefully excluded, only perpetuates a conflict of interest from those at CfD who would prefer that all others were treated like mushrooms -- kept in the dark with excrement piled on top for good measure -- allowing categories to be kept at whim. If we can safely notify participants who have edited an article about an AfD and have reasoned community participation, we have a more desperate need to do so at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear about this, I have nothing against Alansohn directing me to the deletion page. I would never have found out about this otherwise. Antivenin 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this constituted inappropriate "canvassing." A page was going to be deleted, and this user contacted those affected by it (and even offered to contact those affected by the deletion of the sister page). The message was neutral in nature. I don't think that this user did anything wrong, and the suggestion that the discussion from certain editors should be ignored because we received a message on our talk pages from him is outrageous. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it wrong to inform people that a category in which their userpage sits is subject to a deletion process, and correct and laudable to delete such a category without any prior warning to its occupants? Goodness. (And there are those who believe there is a deletionist tendency at cfd.) There is not even a notification on the talk pages of the userboxes which populate this category (namely User:Neurolysis/No, User:Promethean/No2, User:Nutiketaiel/NoFlagRev) or on the respective talk-pages of Neurolysis et al (other than Alansohn's note to Nutiketaiel). Even the creator of the category User:Ronhjones has not been notified. Occuli (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a user category would ever get deleted if all the users in it were individually notified? Any category with 5 or more active users would likely at least default to no consensus. This is because someone in a user category is much, much more likely to support keeping said category than the average user. Since XfDs are supposed to have an impartial mix of generally disinterested users to review discussions, this quite obviously not true when everyone in the category is notified. You don't get a community consensus, but rather just a consensus of the people in the category, which can generally be assumed is going to be keep. I don't mind a notice on a Wikiproject talk page or even the userbox template talk page about the deletion, and notification to the creator is always fine (I was still considering notifying all the creators of the 8 cats I nominated by the time this was closed, and still am for the remaining 6 where it appears the creator is still in the dark...generally I like to wait a bit in hopes that it is on their watchlist), but notifying every individual user in the category is like notifying every individual user in category Wikipedians who support xyz being on Wikipedia that article xyz is up for deletion. Even worded neutrally, its obvious such a notification is with the knowledge and intent to get more keep supporters. I don't intend on nominating this again for a long time, so I don't think "discounting the editors that were canvassed" will be needed when/if I do, although I can't guarantee someone else won't nom it before then. VegaDark (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the imperative to keep CfD a closed club, where only those who are in the know have an opportunity to make decisions that affect all of Wikipedia. Were this an article, an AfD notice will be seen by any person who reads the article and anyone who has the article on their watchlist. Few experienced editors read their own categories on a regular basis and even fewer have them on a watchlist, other than perhaps its creator. This leads to the unavoidable systemic bias that leads to categories being deleted, almost by default. Were there a Wikiproject to notify, I would have done so. I saw no effort on your part to notify these individuals. Any deletion process where the affected Wikipedia users can be readily identified, notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate, and this is not done, is completely and utterly worthless, regardless of the merits of the category. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD do we insist that only people who spend most of their time at CfD and the stray individual who happens to see the CfD be given the opportunity to discuss deletion, while all else are effectively kept in the dark. I have taken no stance for or against flagged revisions, and I'm not even sure I understand the issue, even after reading the proposals. But I do know that a deliberate failure to notify fellow Wikipedians who are directly affected by a decision made exclusively by the CfD regulars is fundamentally unacceptable; there is no such thing as "community consensus" at CfD, when about a dozen editors out of hundreds of thousands cast about 90% of the votes. Despite my plain and simple intentions to notify people affected by the proposed deletion in the absence on your part to do so about a userbox I don't and won't use (I believe I have one userbox on my user page), I won't do any further alleged "canvassing", given what appears to me to be the clear opposition to the existence of a level playing field. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn is correct to abstain from further notices, but this kind of notification can be done by precedent, at least the way I read it. It's moot right now, but it seems that if we can notify every editor of an article that the article is up for deletion, we can notify everyone using a userbox that it's up for deletion. There was an administrator who was blocked for notifying everyone who had contributed an image of themselves to a gallery, and when the gallery was nominated for deletion, he started to notify them, and he was blocked for canvassing. And he left Wikipedia over it. But the action was found to be allowed. Now, a suggestion, put the userbox and category on your watchlist, folks, if you want to be notified if this comes up for deletion again. By the way, I support Flagged Revisions, but dislike repression. No process is open, so now would be the time to notify users of the userbox to watch it. Ask me how to do this with minimal disruption. --Abd (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, starting dispute resolution, if you care about the matter, is a great idea, and the admin is to be commended for recommending it. WP:DR works, but it's not for the faint of heart and the uncertain of intention. Still, it starts out very easy and simple, and the first stages are not disruptive at all. More people should try it. --Abd (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I've attempted to unify the discussion here (to prevent the need to copy-paste in several locations), except for one editor, who I had already responded to. This is merely a placeholder comment. I'll respond more in a bit.) - jc37 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should note that this post is in the middle of other posts (there are posts prior to this, below this), so this is a reminder for anyone else trying to follow this discussion : Please check timestamps/edit history, if you wish to discern the flow/context of the discussion.

That said, I think I'm going to post my comments under a new header for some sense of clarity. - jc37 02:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no interest for or against flagged revisions or userboxes. This was a good faith effort to notify users about something they would have no way of knowing about. While I still believe that the threat of a block was unnecessary, I have stated that I will refrain from anything that could remotely be considered "canvassing", though I still express my deepest concerns that the way this works helps ensure that those affected by a planned deletion of a category will never know about it. This notification was done exactly in the same way that I would have done in notifying editors of an article if a page is nominated for deletion at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In defense of Alansohn, WP:CANVASS says "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." While Alansohn did indeed notify a large number of editors, the message was neutral in its nature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was very careful not to miss anyone, and have any editor claim that they had been excluded. I had no way to be selective, as there seemed to be no selection criteria. The message was worded as neutrally as possible, simply stating that the matter was under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

To start with, a note (just a note, not a warning) - I debated with myself whether to address Alan's Arbcom prohibition concerning assuming good faith of others, or not. And decided that it's the 800# gorilla in the room, and is therefore "there" whether noted or not.

So for those watching, who may be perhaps surprised at the tone and tenor of Alan's comments: Alan has a history of not presuming good faith of others. It's been discussed and explained elsewhere (by him and others), including arbcom. I note it mainly due to the tone and tenor of Alan's comments here. I'm aware of this, and as such, these days, I tend to try to disregard those comments which I (or others) may find to be polemic or offensive. (That said, I took some time to read through his discussion posts of the last few months, and it's starting to appear that he may be again wearing out the community's patience.) However, that's only tangentally related to this discussion, and I think we can leave that for a discussion for another day. And to re-affirm: noting his prohibition is just that: merely a note, and in no way part of the warning concerning his recent inappropriate canvassing actions.

So anyway, let me clarify:

For those of you who in good faith, may be unaware, or perhaps are not understanding the issue, let me try to clarify:

The over-riding rule for XfD is: If you wish to know that a particular page may be under discussion, keep watch on the page.

To determine how long this rule has been in effect, I went back to WP:SPAM, where WP:CANVASS was eventually split from. (It was decided that the two were different, and so to reduce confusion they should be on separate pages.) A section on "internal spamming" was added to that page in 2004.

Here's a quote from the edit history of WP:SPAM: "Don't attempt to stack votes by encouraging people to come participate in a discussion whom you already know have a certain point of view."

This prohibition is further elaborated on currently at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking.

And there is a long history of immediately blocking editors who use user categories to canvass participants for an XfD discussion (or any other consensual discussion, for that matter), in order to prevent disruption of the consensus process.

And so Alan's action violated both long standing community prohibitions.

(There also appears to be a possibility that he's attempting to game the system, as noted by VegaDark, but I think we should table that for the moment, since the main disruption is more important to deal with right now.)

As an aside, I didn't block immediately, because Alan has shown in the past to be responsive to warnings, in that he tends to stop the directly disruptive action. (How he verbally responds is a whole other thing, but I've already addressed that above.) So I didn't think an immediate block was necessary in this case.

However, if he, especially now having been warned, engages in inappropriate canvassing of any type, including that outlined above, he may be immediately blocked by any admin.

And further, if it's determined that he's attempting to cause disruption through gaming the system, then obviously a warning or a block, at the admin's discretion, would likely be appropriate.

I hope this clarifies.

As an aside, I would like to thank everyone who showed their good faith in their comments here (User:Abd in particular).

That said, I think the best next course of action at this point would be to leave Alan alone about this, and allow him to return to editing. My understanding has been that he does good work in other areas of Wikipedia, and I'd like to WP:AGF, and suggest we try to be supportive of this editor, rather than further any possible drama.

If anyone has further questions concerning the policies/guidelines involved, or whatever, please feel free to ask.

And, as I noted above, I welcome comment on this warning by any other admin, and of course, WP:DR is still an option if that is wished. - jc37 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alansohn

Nightlife in Ulaanbaatar is for the most part restricted to the hotels, and thus reserved for foreigners and the few Mongolians, in one way or another, to get past the doormen. The best-attended bar is in the Ulaanbaatar Hotel, which is the city's largest hostelry. This bar opens at 10 p.m. and it accepts only American paper money; since a can of imported beer is a dollar and a half, there is a problem about change. in lieu of Silver, patrons receive packets of bubble gum. While I was there, the patrons included a BBC television crew, several print journalists, foreign diplomats, staff members of United Nations agencies, circus talent scouts, oil prospectors, an investment banker from London, a British agronomist, an American Peace Corps official, a South Korean highway engineer, a Dutch veterinarian, two English trekkers, an American promoter of outdoor-advertising signs, and hunters of both the rifle and the bow-and-arrow variety.

—Shapiro, Fred C. (January 20, 1992). "A Reporter at Large: Starting from Scratch". The New Yorker.

Bongomatic 13:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping you will see this, and I'm anticipating that you will—but just in case you don't for some reason, I want to make sure that this request has been brought to your attention again: [8]. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]