User talk:Alansohn/Archive 22

Request
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:. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoopsie
Oops! Thanks for correcting my accidental edit. I don't actually have a recollection of that happening, but it doesn't surprise me. I think I clicked the wrong link. While I'm still new, I have made huge leaps since then, so you don't have to worry about that happening again. Joshua Ingram (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Music of Zimbabwe
I got this message User talk:78.16.53.159 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Music of Zimbabwe 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. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea how you thought I edited page on music of Zimbabwe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.53.159 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There have only been two edits from this IP: the vandalism and this message. There is the possibility that someone else uses this same IP address, other than you, who vandalized the article in question. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Russian Armenia spam
who has been spamming the Russian Armenia page with that link to the "Armenian Highland" site (which fails WP:EL anyway) is almost certainly a sock puppet of banned User:Ararat arev (Richardson, TX ISP plus promoting Armenian Highland site is a dead giveaway). --Folantin (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Haven't I seen you before?
We must stop meeting like this ;-)  Yinta ɳ   20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Whitelaw Reid (journalist)
Number 448 (321 create/expand - 127 nominations)

tinyme.cksr
no damage done. but terming it as vandalism continues every time the page is being blanked. is there a way to request the administrators specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinyme.cksr (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

tinyme.cksr
objection to the attempt to blank the page "Alathur Srinivasa Iyer" being termed as vandalism. in edit summary it was clearly stated that the information on the page was spurious and misleading and that more reliable information on the same subject was available at "Alathur Brothers". a good faith speedy deletion consideration message was received from the administrators but no action was taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinyme.cksr (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Marisella
I added on an article that is pertinent to Pakistani Americans - their identity evolution. How does that constitute vandalism or an unhelpful link? Since when did you become an expert on the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisella (talk • contribs)
 * See reply on user talk page. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Warning

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_23

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Anti  venin  07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * (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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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  &#124; Talk 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I have not commented on any of these CfDs yet despite being aware of them thanks to my watch list (I was not canvassed). Though I suppose I should do given I was the creator of the support category. I did so purely because there was an oppose one, it just seemed fair, and I have not received any direct complaints nor seen any evidence of it causing offence or it being divisive. I can't say I have not being critical of your (Alansohn) actions in the past, but I have to say this issue have been entirely overblown in my opinion and I do not see anything hugely wrong in your actions. I have always been told that debates are decided by the arguments not by the numbers, and I will have many to make if this goes for renomination. I will also be requesting that a completely impartial admin closes the discussion (i.e. one that has not registered a view on the issue, has not had any significant involvement in previous CfDs for that category). Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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 Canvassing.
 * 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)


 * I think the village pump might be a better and faster way to get a sense of consensus. I personally don't see how notifying all users/contributors of something in a neutral way is a problem. So while not an admin, I just don't see a violation of WP:CANVAS.  Hobit (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that in most cases, dropping a neutral note to the Village Pump, would likely have been fine.
 * For your other comments, please see Canvassing (as I noted above). It clearly shows that this was inappropriate. - jc37 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Punjab (India)
Hi Alansohn,

Earlier today you warned a IP,, about vandalism on Punjab_(India). For some reason the IP went to my talk page (no clue why). Anyways, the numbers had been vandalized before and the IP was actually trying to correct them. The first sentence of the Demographics section says Sikhism is the most practiced faith in Punjab, and roughly 60% of the population belongs to the Sikh faith. Before, the article said 10.90%, because it had been vandalized earlier. I've fixed the numbers now, but in the future, do a quick check in the article, or its history, to see if an IP is catching on to previous vandalism. Shubinator (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had misread the sources and history, and I agree that the edit was valid. I will reflect your correction. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Knuckleball pitcher DrV
Hello Alansohn, I understand your frustration, but I suggest you refactor your comments to be a bit less accusatory. I'm not a CfD person, but I too have found that CfD (and IfD) tend to be a bit out-of-sink with the rest of XfD. That said, there are certainly less "ranty" ways to make the same arguments and anything perceived as ranting often results in people !voting the other way just to counter the rants (so people don't get rewarded for it I've assumed). Just friendly advice, take it or ignore it as you wish. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feelings are strong on all sides, and the task of trying to get CfD back in some semblance of synch with the rest of Wikipedia has left me quite frustrated. While I am quite gratified that all of the DRV participants from outside CfD have recognized that the close was out-of-process, I do agree that the rants and counter-rants may only discourage further participation from those who could help put an end to the CfD problem. Thanks for your comments, I will do my best to reflect them in future responses. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you
for the welcome

as there are two uses for the term head shot, do you think I should add the other use? it seems fair to show the different ways the term is used.

116.65.243.150 (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for dealing with my troll...
and the cleanup StarM 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression
This is to notify you that Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30 in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Charles Peebler
Number 449 (322 create/expand - 127 nominations)

DYK for Pork. The Other White Meat
Number 450 (323 create/expand - 127 nominations)
 * Other than more than my share of the recently deceased, I allow new articles to take me to where there are holes. The Pork campaign has been widely promoted, and I even heard a report about the Pork Board's response to the effects of the Swine Flu on pork sales (bottom line is there is no connection in US). This article led me to another ad exec, which may mean articles for other ad campaigns, and then I'll move on to whatever catches my fancy and wherever there are holes to be filled. Alansohn (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for National Pork Board
Number 451 (324 create/expand - 127 nominations)

April 2009 block #2
Alansohn, I've blocked you for 55 hours for your continued violation of your arbitration-imposed editing restrictions. Continued incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks will not be tolerated during your time under this restriction. In particular, this comment has more of the above violations than I really care to enumerate. But to summarise somewhat, you (1) stated that an editor willingly "spit in the face" of consensus, which constitutes an ad hominem attack and an assumption of bad faith; (2) made a generalisation that certain editors "come" from the "backwater of CfD" and are therefore somehow unfamiliar with or antagonistic to the "rest" of WP, which constitutes an ad hominem attack; (3) suggested that some administrators who work at closing CfD discussions are being "disruptive", thus constituting an ad hominem attack and/or assuming bad faith; (4) suggested that others have used personal attacks against you, thus constituting an ad hominem attack; (5) suggested that administrators have made "knowingly false misrepresentations of policy to abuse process", thus constituting an ad hominem attack and an assumption of bad faith. I also note that this comment was made after a relatively pointed warning from User:Jc37. I'm not sure if your comments were an attempt to "test" his warning or what, but it does make your violation all the more unacceptable. There are other problematic comments, both within the comment linked to and within other comments. I encourage you to use the time away from WP to consider how to avoid violating your editing restrictions in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, I didn't even know about the first block. It was only after seeing your heading that I scrolled through and found it. Sorry, I missed it. That an admin who persistently ignores the grossest incivility from his buddy User:Otto4711 while using repeated blocks for imagined thought crimes, only provides further evidence that the process is fundamentally failing, and that the problem of admins applying Wikipedia policy arbitrarily in inconsistent fashion, the same problem we chronically see at CfD, is very much alive and well. Per Blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", yet this appears solely intended to be as punitive as possible. I will have ample time to work on preparing to pursue administrative measures to address the clearest possible misconduct on your part in applying a block on multiple occasions, despite rather clear violations of conflict of interest with the apparent WP:POINT-violating intention of disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to silencing an opponent who has successfully exposed the deep-seated problems at CfD. There have been a few dozen articles I hadn't gotten around to creating, and I'll use the time to write those articles; Meanwhile, I will sit back and enjoy, watching how Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28 -- in which consensus is clear that the close was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy -- will be a first step towards ending the reign of error at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that important to me what happens in an isolated discussion. I can understand that you are upset, but this is not done to be purely punitive or to silence your opinion or to punish "thought crimes": it was done to silence your personal attacks and blatant assumptions of bad faith, for which you've received multiple warnings (and a block) in recent days. Acting that way in a discussion is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. What I am ultimately interested in here is getting you to abide by your arbcom-editing restrictions, which state in part: "Should [Alansohn] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month." This looks like your 5th block overall (6 really, but the one was overturned), so I do wish you'd learn to fly straight. You sound like you are still comparing yourself to how other editors are treated by me. Remember, you are on an editing restriction. Most others are not. I won't respond to any more inflammatory comments you make here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an an admin, and outsider to this discussion, and Good Olfactory has asked me to take a look at these blocks, and I just wanted to document that I don't see any conflict of interest, and I believe the block was justified. It's probably a good idea, Alansohn, to do as you say, just work on the articles until after this short block and then proceed from there. Your 1-year "sentence" (I guess you could call it) is almost over, and then you will be judged according to the same standards as everyone else. Until then, I'd be very careful, because admins have a lot of discretion under this arbcom remedy, and now have authority to block for up to a month. CO GDEN  19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had suggested to Good Olfactory that he ask another admin, because it was my opinion (and remains my opinion) that the degree of interaction between the two at CfD related items was such that--if it had been me--I would not have blocked, but asked someone else. Whether the block was unjustified is another matter; justified or not, I would not have made it in his shoes. DGG (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say I agree fully with DGG that Good Olfactory should not under any circumstances be blocking Alansohn (see eg User_talk:Alansohn/Archive_18 and linked cfd discussions, where Alansohn has a point). I say again that Alansohn's remarks are trenchant but so are the remarks of others at cfd. It is frustrating when categories are deleted by editors and closers who seem pre-disposed towards OCAT:SomeUnrelatedNonsense and unable to perceive a defining characteristic unless they possess it themselves. (A category that is kept by some perverse misruling in cfd can be renominated a few months later. A DRV in contrast is a real pain and is the only option for restoring a perversely deleted category.) I would ask Alansohn to count perhaps to 1000 or so before pressing 'Save page' in some circumstances, however provocative, as his absence from cfds plays into the hands of the usual suspects. (Am I alone in finding Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes rather bizarre? The subject of the arbcom is R A Norton and yet it is Alansohn who is given the restrictions and Norton is not mentioned in arbcom's conclusions.) Occuli (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism
Heya, just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page, much appreciated, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's a small part of the vandalism I've had to revert. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Benjamin Edwards (stockbroker)
Number 452 (325 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Bret Hanover
I saw you put a POV tag and said it was unreferenced. I tend to agree. I will try to improve the article and remove the POV "hype". I will then remove your tags, and inform you about this. You can always put them back, if you think I have not done enough. :) Wallie (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Perry Lafferty
Number 453 (326 create/expand - 127 nominations)

DYK for David Shaw (writer)
Number 454 (327 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Thanks...
seems to be a lot of sockpuppetry running amok. Wysprgr2005 (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Page corrected
I am new user, sorry.... corrected the confusion/misuse between the Cypriot Apolytirion and Greek Apolytirio. Quantoyster (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You undid a guy who was undoing vandalisim. 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mistake
Hello, you revert to the wrong version ;) David0811 (Talk) 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on QASMT page
I am so mad right now - my sister hacked into my wikipedia login and made these stupid comments on the QASMT page. Please know that I would personally never write those types of comments. I have as such changed my password and told my sister never to do such a foolish thing.(Rudolf Ondrich (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC))

Hey There
I thought my edit was very relevant and constructive. How did an article about Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 go without mentioning the amount of ass that it kicked relative to all other forms of electronic entertainment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.211.98 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliable and verifiable sources are needed to support ass-kicking levels. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Knukleball pitchers
I restored the category. I don't know what used to be in it or enough about pitchers to repopulate it, but I figure you do. Hopefully most of the edits removing the category link were recent or able to be un-done. Protonk (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never been prouder to be called a knucklehead. I have an article that lists the entries that were in the category and will do my best to repopulate it. Thanks all for your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

One question. Would the parent category more accurately be Category:Major League Baseball pitchers? Protonk (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these pitchers are from the Japanese league, so an MLB parent may not be accurate. Alansohn (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Knew there would be a reason. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
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)
 * Replied elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kondratuk
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)
 * No further action needed. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Michelangelo's last judgment
Thank you for removing factual information! You are helping Wikipedia to stay a reliable source of information!
 * No further action. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

December 2008
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)
 * No further action. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Joseph Kahn (shipping executive)
Number 298 (185 create/expand - 113 nominations)
 * Thanks for the notification. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Howard Pack
Number 299 (186 create/expand - 113 nominations)
 * Thanks for the notification. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bubble tea!


- down load | sign!  has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the bubble tea!


 - down  load  |   sign!  has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Series Overview

 * Unsure of what response is needed. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

???
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)
 * I enjoy the job I have already. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

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



 - down  load  |   sign!  has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the bubbliness of bubble teas by adding {{subst:bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism in my userspace a few days back :) Nja 247 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel like helping?
Here are a couple of good ones from the past couple of days: Bongo matic  07:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eleanor Perenyi
 * Sam Cohn
 * Alfred Appel
 * Reza Seyed-Hosseini
 * James Davant

Poop
Poop!

Just kidding. I had a look at your userpage. ;)

Do you think we should ask an admin about User:165.139.124.133? He has a definite history of vandalism, but I understand WP is wary of blocking IP addresses like this. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All one has to do is look at the IP's talk page to see it littered with warnings, but very few blocks. This IP could be a poster child for eliminating anonymous editing. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Already blocked. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

link dates
Right, I actually thought it was some WP:policy to provide date wikifications. Couldn't figure out why so many were missing. Thanks for letting me know. Metrospex (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a sweeper, it already said it before. Where does the local cleaner work? Metrospex (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Message ?
Hi...I don't know what the purpose of this message was, but I wasn't busy editing anything. Several computers in this network may have the same IP address coming from our gateway or proxy server...sooo.... meh. I don't know what you're talking about yfdsaoif??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.250.190.15 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx
..for this. I seem to have struck a nerve with the SPA. LeadSongDog come howl 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Message for blanking page
Hi I am author of Bhaktaraj Maharaj. I wanted to have speedy deletion of this article. And as I am the substantial contributor of this article I blanked the page to initiate the Speedy deletion. following is the policy that i followed. "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the page prior to the move.) If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request. "

Pls let me what is the right way to initiate speedy deletion otherwise.

Nikhil (An Enigma) (talk) 05:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

AVI
Hi there, Alansohn. I just thought I'd let you know that the bot at AVI is requesting attention from multiple admins because it's backlogged. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank
I have undone this version of the article, because the additions were unsourced (which violates Verifiability), and were written in the first person (which is discoraged per Manual of Style).

I note that the article has been the subject of edit warring recently, which is never good for the encyclopedia. I am posting this message to the talk pages of the involved contributors, and hope that they come here to discuss the issue and come to a solution, instead of resorting to coninual back-and-forth in the article itself. -- saberwyn 08:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit unhappy about this
Philip Trueman (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't blame you. It seems that our reverting tools collided with each other and my revert undid yours. I'm not sure how this happens, but I undid the revert and apologize for any confusion. Alansohn (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted, of course. IMHO it's a Huggle bug, but my experience of complaining about that tool has not been good.  Personally I don't use it, and never will.  Philip Trueman (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huggle works absolutely fine 99.9% of the time, but when it doesn't it has produced some bizarre problems. What tool are you using? Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I use PILT, which is my personal re-working of WP:AVT, mostly to make it faster, though it's still nowhere near as fast as Huggle. About six months ago Cacycle folded some of my better ideas into AVT, using rather more elegant code.  Since then I've not had the time to take PILT further forward - indeed, it has gone backwards, because I haven't kept up with some of the changes to automatic edit summaries - but it still works and I'm comfortable with it, and I know who to blame if it goes wrong. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of my large edits in Aldo Moro as vandalism. 1. I stated my reason for the deletion on the talk page. The sections I deleted clearly represent a "fringe theory". To summarize, it appears the information alleging that Moro was killed indirectly by the CIA was added by a conspiracy theorist who claims, quote: At this point, which is well after the terrorism of Gladio has been public acknowledged, the only thing "ludicrous" is the blind acceptance of explanation by government officials who time and time are busted in lies. Frankly, the story about "Red Brigades" is absurd, Aldo Moro was obviously assassinated by the US/UK/NATO. Furthermore, it seems that a reference to Webster Tarpley, who was commission by the Italian government to investigate Aldo Moro's assassination and who determined it be US/UK/NATO, is missing here. This yet another blatant case of Wikipedia disregarding its own NPOV standard for political reasons, covering up acts of treason not only against Italy but also the USA and the UK in the 9/11 and 7/7 articles and many others. Among its sources are an anti-CIA newsletter, Carlos the Jackal, the world's notorious assassin, and a member of the Red Brigades. The rest of article states in great detail the overwhelming evidence that the Red Brigades killed Moro. Frankly, it was a disgrace. 2. I had already reported the Cluebot's false positive when I reverted its edit. Joker1189 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for reverting the edit. I know you were only trying to do the right thing, and I probably would have done the same. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Joker1189 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Revert of a Creators Blank
Hello, just a quick message to say that when a page is blanked, please always check the page history to ensure that it is not the creator blanking the page, if it is then the page can simply have placed on it. A edit you reverted a blanking of a page by the page creator, thus please remove your  warning from. Also I know this is difficult when using huggle or twinkle, as I use huggle myself, but this is, in my opinion, a serious issue, as it means users are left with warnings they don't deserve, anyway, good work in the recent changes and thanks! SpitfireTally-ho! 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And Oreas Comma, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually check previous edits before reverting, but page blanks without any explanation will often appear to be vandalism. Once I saw the first blank, the second one seemed even more certain. Thanks for the catch and for bringing my clear error to my attention. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its no problem, I make little mistakes like this all the time, thank you for taking a postive stance to this. I know you've reverted vandalism on my user page in the past so I am indebted to you, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

thanks
for helping us with Pieface, on the Ronald Jones (Interdisciplinarian) page. malicious intent for weeks. . . don't know how to stop him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I.A.Contino (talk • contribs) 01:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of facts
A comment on your censoring my additions to the article "Hungarian discrimination against Roma people": I am representing and writing from a neutral point of view, check some official statistics if you don't believe me. There are several programs aiming at helping find gysies jobs, most of them still refuse to work. Same goes for education. There are UNFULFILLED scholarships reserved for them, they just simply don't want to apply, they don't wish to study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.250.158 (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements are written as your opinion. If you want to reinsert this information, it must be accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources from books, magazines or newspapers. Without the required sources, it will be removed again. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Cappalluci article
I dont understand why you would delete Anthony Cappallucci from the Little Falls page. Do you live there and know he isn't a professional Tanner and won the Competition in Sicily last year? If you deleted my comment thinking my facts were wrong Anthony Capallucci certainly considers himself an italian national, though his homeland is little falls NJ. This competition was recorded by the Gudio-National Directory and can be found online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.65.122 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to provide reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims, from magazines or newspapers. I'd love to see the article that supports the claims made in this edit. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

photo
hi you gave me good advice on my photo the other day.. do you know how i can drag photos into the body of my biography. i tried picture gallery but the photo didnt come up and it screwd my whole page up???? thanks--Charliedylan (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou
thanks so much for the help with the photo. in terms of sources i have added alot of external links that link to magazine articles and interviews and information about records. does this not count? i am still unsure of how to add the numbers that people seem to have at the end of a sentence which connect with the note section at the bottom(example Bob Dylan Chronicles, Page 112). anyway ill keep trying to work it out. thanks for the photo help. they look great!--Charliedylan (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PIZZA MAN PETER,

I was just warning people.

I DO NOT VANDALIZE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizza man peter (talk • contribs) 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

DYK Problem
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. --Giants27 (  t  |  c  |  r  |  s  ) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

List of administrative staff in school articles
Please be aware of WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG. In particular, it notes "While naming the head teacher or principal is permitted, lists or detailed information about ... administrative staff ... is usually inappropriate." The administrative lists sections you are adding are redundant to the infoboxes in those articles anyway. I've removed the sections. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , this WP:SCH you refer to is an essay. It's interesting, but it isn't a guideline, a policy or a foundational principle. What you've done violates the essay you, yourself, cite, by removing the entire section. Your rampage to remove the sourced material from several dozen articles is not only disruptive, it's intended to be disruptive. Alansohn (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you there is no intent to disrupt in any respect. I am simply trying to bring some school articles in line with the expectations outlined at WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. You are quite correct; it is an essay. Yet, it is the accepted article guideline by which we construct articles on schools. If you believe that what I'm doing violates that essay, I'm very much open to your input as to how it does so. As is, I'm not seeing anything anywhere in that essay that says we should be including such lists of administration, but rather the opposite. You may wish to bring any general concerns you have about this essay to the attention of the people at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. If you have specific concerns about what I'm doing, I'm quite receptive to any input you may have. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , This edit best exemplifies the disruptive nature of the edit rampage. The material removed from the article regarding the two lead administrators of the school district is sourced, encyclopedic and specifically "permitted" by WP:WPSCH/AG, an essay with no legitimate standing as a policy or guideline. It says a great deal about an editor that the names can be kept in the article as long as they're in the infobox, but the sources in the article are removed to support the details. This is the mindless imposition of an arbitrary essay that demonstrates that it serves no legitimate purpose. I'm quite receptive to your argument that sourced content should be removed from articles based on an essay, but until you explain why this material *MUST* be removed, I'll refer you to WP:BRD, which says that the status quo ante should be maintained. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you help me out here? Where in WP:WPSCH/AG does it say this should be permitted? I agree it is sourced, but that something is sourced is not a reason for inclusion in and of itself. It does say the listing of the principal is permitted, but adding a section to do so is completely redundant to the infobox, where it is already mentioned. So how does adding a section to list the principal enhance the article? I would appreciate your understanding that my edits are meant in good faith as I believe yours are as well. We're simply at an impasse that I think discussion would help clear up. Looking at five featured articles of schools (Amador Valley High School, Avery Coonley School, School for Creative and Performing Arts, The Judd School, Stuyvesant High School) I'm not seeing any sections on them regarding the administration of the school. The principal/headmasters are noted in the infobox, but there's no administration sections in the article. I'm just trying to follow best practices here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe that your essay requires removal about a superintendent or business administrator / board secretary in an article about the district? The presence or absence of any material in another article -- even a featured article -- is not dispositive; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nor can I understand why we need to follow the race to the bottom, by deleting source material unless it exists in every other Wikipedia article? You also appear to misunderstand how infoboxes work; see Manual_of_Style/Infoboxes, which is clear that infoboxes will inherently repeat information that appears elsewhere in the article, with the appropriate sources elsewhere in the article. I'm not sure what you're trying to do here to improve Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it because it says it. I quoted the passage above which I am following; it notes "While naming the head teacher or principal is permitted, lists or detailed information about ... administrative staff ... is usually inappropriate." I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is informative in such discussions. However, if you discount WP:WPSCH/AG as being an essay and thus something we should not follow, why should we follow the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I'm not trying to be argumentative here; please understand. If we are uniform and discount both, then referencing the featured articles is appropriate and dispositive. If we are uniform and do not discount either, then WP:WPSCH/AG tells us to not have such sections. I'm not advocating a race to the bottom here; the sections you are wanting to include are redundant to the information in the infobox. The information you re-included here is already in the article on the infobox. Why duplicate it? What does duplicating it bring to the article that isn't already there? The sources can be moved to the infobox. I'm quite well aware of the manual of style regarding infoboxes. However, the article guideline from the project is in addition to that. This is common among projects where there is a style/article guideline. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion regarding this topic at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools. Your input is welcome. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have no objection to a small handful of people discussing an issue; it's imposing those arbitrary decisions that creates problems. If you want to head down to Jonestown, join the People's Temple and drink the Kool-Aid, good for you; just don't demand that others are required to buy into your cult, observe its wacky dictates and drink up from the punch bowl.If you've edited articles before on Wikipedia, I'm sure you've seen that any information in an infobox will inherently be likely to be duplicated in the body of the article. Just read WP:INFOBOX. There is nothing in your WP:SCH that prohibits listing the information in the body of the article, there is nothing that prohibits a section, there is nothing that prohibits including a source and there is nothing that prohibits including a superintendent and business administrator of a school district. Yet that's exactly what you've done, removing material without any policy or guideline to support your actionsI'm sure that you believe that you are following the dictates of Reverend Jones to the letter, but when you start trying to force the Kool-Aid down the throats of other folks passing by, you're creating problems. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you feel as you do. I disagree with your interpretation of what I have done, as I'm sure you disagree with me. That neither makes me right and you wrong nor me wrong and you right. Regardless, as I've noted, I've started the discussion at the schools project. Your input is welcome. If there is general support from that discussion for what I have been doing (and have suspended doing, pending outcomes) I hope you will no longer find objection with me conducting those edits. Best regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I know you are on infrequently of late, so I wanted to give you a heads up now. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools has gone dormant now for almost a week. I don't expect anything to change. The discussion had six other people agreeing that the list of administrator sections should not be present, and nobody supporting their retention. I am going to resume removing those sections in the next few days. You've laid a number of accusations on my regarding my intent. I've tried to ignore the accusations and focus on the issue. I self-suspended removal of the sections pending further discussion, and twice informed you that your input at the discussion was welcome. I am taking the further step of informing you of my intentions moving forward, given the support seen in the discussion. I've tried everything I can to keep this cordial. I sincerely hope this ends our disagreement on this issue, and we won't find ourselves at loggerheads again when I resume removals of these sections. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not so sure about your self-assessment here. Repeatedly ignoring questions about the legitimacy of your actions hardly qualifies as being "cordial". Whether it be ignoring questions about infoboxes, sourcing, school districts and other aspects that you have consistently ignored, you have failed to engage in discussion let alone demonstrated consensus to go on another disruptive rampage of sourced content removal to which you feel entitled. Nor have you justified why your essay represents policy.I once had a mugger come up to me and ask me if I could please hand over my wallet in a rather pleasant tone of voice. He was quite generous in giving me some time to consider my response. The fact that he was so darn cordial made him no less of a crook. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not want to engage in a meta discussion about whether the conclusions you have drawn about my motivations and general competency are accurate, insults, or otherwise. We will disagree on such points. I am trying to follow best practices with dispute resolution. I suspended my actions, engaged in discussion with you which did not resolve in an agreement, took the discussion to an appropriate location for wider discussion, notified you and invited you to that discussion (twice), returned to you to advise you of the apparent consensus in that discussion, and what my intentions are moving forward. I had hoped you would engage in that wider discussion so you could lay out your opinion there. Given the consensus at the discussion, I intend on moving forward with removing these sections. I understand and respect (and I mean that) that you disagree. There are things on this project with which I disagree, but consensus is against my opinion. I do not move against that consensus. If you state here that it is your intent to revert such removals despite the consensus expressed at that discussion, then we will move on to the next step in dispute resolution. However, given that so far nobody has agreed with your position, it is doubtful that such continued steps will wind up in agreement with your position. I would hope you would see clear to this and understand that continuing further into dispute resolution on this is a time sink for everyone involved, you included, which would not resolve in a way that supports your position. Nevertheless, if you insist that these sections must remain, we will continue further into dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , you persist in misrepresenting the process and refusing to address the problems you are creating. This edit is a perfect example of how your misrepresentations of an essay and irrational overapplication of what that essay says end up being utterly disruptive, even ignoring the fact that this essay is *NOT* an actual policy or guideline. Let's start with your explaining why deletion of details and sources about the two chief administrators of a school district is appropriate? If you would make a good faith effort to explain this edit, for starters, you might demonstrate that you are trying to contribute towards a resolution of the "dispute" you have manufactured, and please note that this questions has been asked rpeatedly and ignored by you above. Alansohn (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I answered your question before you even asked it, in starting this section on your talk page. Apparently that answer is insufficient to you. You apparently feel that WP:WPSCH/AG is meaningless and has no bearing on any article on Wikipedia. Therefore, any attempt I make to appeal to you by referencing that will be rejected. Given that, I think the answer to your question is far better answered by the people in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools. The resolution of the dispute appears to be that a consensus of people feel such sections are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. We can discuss the underpinnings of why, but you've rejected participation in the discussion at the schools project. That's fine; nobody is forced to participate in anything here. But, the consequence of not participating is that your case hasn't been laid out in that discussion so as to help people achieve a consensus one way or another. I am simply trying to uphold the consensus regarding the content of such articles. That's the consensus I am following. I know you disagree with it, and that really is fine. Consensus can change, and perhaps it is time to do so in this case. That is one of the reasons I began the discussion at the schools project which I twice invited you to join. I was hoping you would lay out your case for why these sections should be included. Sadly, you've declined to participate. So, we are at an impasse. You believe WP:WPSCH/AG is meaningless, and I do not. We disagree, and there does not appear to be any way forward to resolve the issue amicably between us. This returns us to my question, which I perhaps was not as direct as I needed to be when I asked it in my last post; given the consensus at the discussion, if I or someone else removes these sections based on the article guideline and that discussion, will you revert such edits or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

, look at this edit and justify your action, using a Wikipedia policy or guideline that mandates the removal of the content, the section and / or the source. You've never answered this question.I admire your devotion to your essay; one day it might become a novella. When it's promoted to a policy or guideline, let me know. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC) I've begun a discussion at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard on this subject. I sincerely hope you will participate. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've indicated, I already answered your question. I recognize, and as I said I respect that you feel the answer is insufficient. Would you please answer my question? If I or someone else removes these sections based on the article guideline and the discussion I twice invited you to, will you revert such edits or not? To be clear, and this by no means is in anyway a threat; if you answer that you will revert, or that you fail to answer the question, I see no alternative but to take this further into dispute resolution. Specifically, the next step is WP:DRN. As I've said, this would likely be an exercise in wasting your time and mine, as the outcome is likely not to support your opinion. Though, of course, I could be wrong. So if you would please, answer the question; will you revert or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , no, you haven't answered anything. This is an article about a school district, which has two lead administrators: a superintendent and a business administrator. Your edit removed the details from the text of the article and removed the sources. You have never offered an explanation, rather repeatedly offering some mention of an essay committee that you're involved with, over and over, ad nauseum. You've offered no policy or guideline that demands the removal of the content and you certainly haven;t offered any justification for the removal of sources from the article. I've been exceedingly patient in trying to understand the basis of your actions and I hope that you will step up, respond to the direct questions and engage in discussion here. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I will once again point you to WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG, as that is the basis under which I am removing the sections. Since you disputed that as a reasonable basis, I took it to the discussion I twice invited you to at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools. I pointed at the discussion we are having here so people could reference your position, even if you didn't participate in that discussion. Nobody in that discussion supported your position. There is a general consensus that removing the sections as I have been doing is appropriate. As such, that too is a basis under which I would be removing such sections. Even if you disagree with WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG, the consensus at the discussion is against you and is a basis for removing them as well. I'm doing the best I can to answer your question. I would be most appreciative if you would please answer my question; will you revert removal of these sections or not? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I checked again and what you are referring to is rather clearly labeled "This page is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." I appreciate the discussions you've had with your essay group, but it's an essay, not an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline. I encourage you to seek that community approval, which would involve a level of review that this essay has never received by the community as a whole. Consensus can indeed change, but until then what you're basing your arguments upon is a rather thin essay.Whatever little value your essay has, it does not trump WP:V, a genuine policy. You have removed sourced content, removing the material from the body of the article and leaving it in the infobox, but removing sources about a school district, a topic not covered by your essay.Given that you have refused to justify your actions to remove sources and sourced content, and have refused to identify the guideline or policy that justifies your actions, I'm not sure what your expecting here given the circumstances that you've created. Alansohn (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Will you or will you not revert removals of these lists of administrators? Please answer. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I've tried everything that I possibly can to keep this cordial by trying to genuinely understand the basis of your position. I understand and appreciate your efforts to write an essay. Once that essay has reached an appropriate level of development, I encourage you to start an RfC to have the essay turned into an essay, a process that would involve the community vetting the suggestions formed by the narrow group of participants and determining if the essay should be turned into a policy or guideline. Until then, it's an essay and nothing more. To quote again, "This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."I've been very clear that the essay you reference makes no mention of school districts nor does it specify that sources added to articles should be removed. Nor have you explained why the two co-equal administrators of the school district should not both be listed. I have also tried to be as cordial as possible in explaining that WP:V is the basis of the sourced edits that I've made, and that this policy overrides any essay.I will ask again that you point to a policy or guideline to justify your actions. In the absence of any meaningful input on your part to demonstrate that your actions are backed by a Wikipedia guideline or policy, I hope that our disagreement has been put to an end. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wish to ignore the essay, that's fine, and I mean that. If you wish to not engage in the discussion I've pointed you to, fine, and again I mean that. Can you explain to me why your opinion on the matter should trump the discussion which has gone dormant with nobody agreeing with your position and six other people disagreeing with your position? Consensus is policy and you are currently standing against it. WP:V certainly is policy, but it does not mean that every scrap of information in the world that can be verified should be included in the encyclopedia. In fact, that very policy notes "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." (direct link: WP:VNOTSUFF). I do not see anywhere that there is consensus to support inclusion of these lists of administrators. If there is such a consensus, I would be glad if you could point me to it. As is, the content is most definitely disputed. The onus is on you to either point to the consensus that supports the inclusion of these lists, generate consensus via discussion, or not revert removal of the lists. Which do you choose to do? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there's a middle ground here that might be achieved. I'm trying very hard to understand your position, and I would appreciate it if you would give me the benefit of the doubt that I am doing so. We've been at this discussion for three weeks now. Plenty of other editors would have ramped this up to higher levels. I appreciate that you have backed off of bad faith assumptions and various accusations against me. Perhaps we're now at a place where we can truly work this out.
 * I think we're going to disagree that a "business administrator" is encyclopedic (example). For the sake of trying to reach an agreement on this, I'll conceded we just disagree on it and not remove it. I do note that I have removed sections from high schools in New Jersey (examples: ) and you have not restored them. This says to me that you object to their removal from school districts (and this appears to hinge on business administrator) but not from high schools. So are we at least in agreement that removing such sections from high schools is acceptable? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , let's review the history here; you've removed sourced material from dozens of articles with no previous discussion and the flimsiest of justifications, but I'm supposed to be appreciative that you haven't (yet) "ramped this up to higher levels"?I'm glad that you find value in working on and discussing an essay, but it's just that and not either a policy or guideline. I have demonstrated good faith through tolerating the unjustified removal of content and not engaging in the disruptive and pointless edit war you've started. The reason I've focused on restoring the unjustified content removal of content and sources from articles about school districts is because it is the aspect of your edits that is most egregiously incorrect; if you would refuse to engage in discussion to justify deletion of sourced content from school district articles -- a topic not covered by the essay you cite and for which only core administrators are listed, with sources -- what chance would there be to have a meeting of the minds on high schools?My position is simple. The core administrators are the only ones listed and they are only listed if there are reliable and verifiable sources to back them up. It appears that you don't have an objection to listing these administrators -- either for schools or for school districts -- as you've had no objection to including the listings in infoboxes. What it appears is that you have an "objection" to having those same administrators listed in a section and (far more disturbing) an antipathy to having sources. If you had a principled objection to including the material in articles you would have wiped it off from the entire article, infobox included. To say that there is a "dispute" here about whether or not the material is encyclopedic is specious; you're OK with the infobox, but you object to a section that includes the same information and also has sources?Maybe this has to do with the difference in the types of edits we each do. I create, monitor and edit articles, adding encyclopedic content with reliable and verifiable sources. Just look at the edits I've done in the past few weeks since you started this cycle of deletion of content. I'm not sure what your focus is, but I don't see that on your part. Maybe if you could explain why Wikipedia is better off with a principal (or superintendent) listed in the infobox, but not in the body of the article, we might be able to reach some consensus here. Maybe if I understood why it's OK to have a principal (or superintendent) listed in the infobox, but not have a source to support the fact, maybe we'd get somewhere.Take some time, think about this before responding and see if you can start to understand why I'm so baffled here. Perhaps then we can find a way to work together here. Alansohn (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Take some time? I've spent three weeks trying to work with you to achieve some understanding between us. I tried and tried. I never said I had any objection or antipathy to sources. Your argument there is a red herring. Please drop it. I have and continue to maintain that just because something is sourced is not a guarantor of inclusion in the encyclopedia, as I pointed to in the policy. You seem to be in disagreement with that policy. I asked you to provide the consensus that supports the inclusion of this disputed content. You've not provided a link to such a discussion. If I am in error in my assessment on your position, please correct me. For the record; you appear to be of the mistaken belief that I worked on that essay. I have never worked on that essay, nor am I part of wikiproject schools. I got here because I found articles with an overload of information on all sorts of administrators (example), and thought it extremely excessive. I went looking for guidance and found it WP:WPSCH/AG, an essay which you apparently believe has absolutely no bearing on the matter in any respect. I've tried for three weeks to engage you in discussion, tried to find some middle ground with you, tried to see if there is any way through this other than lock, stock, and barrel agreeing with your, in my opinion flawed, position 100%. There isn't one. My position is that naming the principal/head teacher is appropriate, per WP:WPSCH/AG and per the consensus at the discussion which I invited you to multiple times. We stand at polar opposites on this. I was trying to reach a middle ground with you without success. There does not seem to be any point in continuing our discussion any further. I thank you for your time. I'll advise you of when I start the discussion at WP:DRN so you can participate there if you so choose. I sincerely hope you do. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You stated in the DRN that I find it acceptable to include a list of administrators in the infobox. I'm sorry if I've given you that impression and did not state my position clearly. To be clear, as I said in the DRN, I don't believe that anything other than the principal/head teacher/superintendent should be included in the article, whether in the infobox or no, per the essay and the consensus at the discussion mentioned before. I hope that clears up at least this aspect of this issue. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You read an essay, misunderstood what it said, believed it was policy and then ran through 25 articles in just over ten minutes disruptively deleting content and sources. I spent the past few weeks pointing out your errors and asking you to explain the basis of your incomprehensible and irrational edits and you refused to do so, repeatedly claiming you had answered questions at some mythical previous time.Every single one of these 25 edits left the material about administrators in the infobox. In both edit summaries and statements in this discussion you justified your pointless removal of content and sources by arguing that it duplicated what was in the infobox. Just take a look at the first comment you left here in this thread, which states "The administrative lists sections you are adding are redundant to the infoboxes in those articles anyway."Now that you finally understand that your changes have no legitimate justification or purpose, you now suddenly come to the realization that your position is something completely different. The problem is that this sudden epiphany on the road to dispute resolution changes nothing. Whatever it is that you decided before, decide now or will decide in the future about administrators, there will be overlap between the infobox and the body of the article (unless of course you decide that no administrator can be listed). The material listed in the infobox should summarize what's in the article about administrators (whatever it is you decide to allow now or at some future point) and whatever is listed needs sources, but you have removed both the content and the multiple sources and you stand firmly behind that needless deletion; the only thing that has changed is that you now think even more needs to be deleted. You now feel that you have to destroy even more of the village in order to save it.Nothing has changed about my position; the material is encyclopedic and it needs sources. There is an optimal point where someone has just the right (or more accurately, wrong) amount of knowledge to do the maximum amount of damage. As I suggested, take a giant step back, take a few days to understand the ramifications of your actions on this encyclopedia and then come back with a remedy to undo the damage you've caused. I'm not sure that anything you can say here now will help your case. Alansohn (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinions characterizing my behavior here, no matter how inaccurate they are. I stand by my position that indicating the principal, and only the principal, is appropriate. I think having a section that lists the principal is redundant to the infobox, and rather odd given that it would have one line. But, if you want to include such sections, be my guest. That I hadn't yet removed vice principals from infoboxes doesn't somehow mean that I thought it was acceptable to include them, and I'm sorry you've concluded that was my intent. It wasn't. There wasn't some revelation on my part. My position is at is ever was. If I wasn't clear before, my apologies and it stands clarified. Regardless of your inaccurate estimation of my actions, we have the same purpose on this project; improving the encyclopedia. Sometimes that means adding things. Sometimes it means removing things. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , You make the point that *YOU* believe that having content in the body of the article that duplicates material in the infobox is reason to delete the content from the article; WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the first paragraph from the actual Wikipedia guideline about infoboxes, disagrees with you. You've removed several dozen sources from 25 different articles; WP:V, a foundational Wikipedia policy, disagrees with you. That you would place your own personal preference and your misinterpretations / misrepresentations of an essay above genuine Wikipedia policies and guidelines is a problem here that you have persistently refused to recognize. I hope that the next village you seek to destroy in order to save it is more appreciative of your actions. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've pointed you to WP:VNOTSUFF which, likewise, is policy. You've yet to point to the consensus discussion that says we should be including vice principals. We can keep throwing policies at each other until we're blue in the face. Actually, I think we're past that point; we are blue in the face. Hopefully the DRN will produce something positive. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Just as a heads up
If you are going to add hometown and high school for an athlete's article like you did for Garrett Dickerson. Don't put it in the lede, create a new section. Also, given that hometown and high school are already included in the infobox its best you expand beyond basic info and discuss his high school career. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I try to do my best to flesh out biographical details, but there is often little more than what's available in the source provided. I see no issue with including basic early background in the lead section, but I usually try to put the details into an existing section. Thanks for the thoughts. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I found some information regarding his time at Bergen Catholic and fleshed it out a bit to give the early life section more substance. Also, while you personally may not see a problem with it, it does not conform to the format decided via consensus by WikiProject National Football League. Because high school and hometown are already included in the infobox, there is really no need to add a separate sentence unless there is something notable besides those two facts, such as if he had specific achievements at his high school or how the town he grew up in affected his upbringing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Census Bureau map of ZCTA 08042 Juliustown, New Jersey.gif


The file File:Census Bureau map of ZCTA 08042 Juliustown, New Jersey.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned map."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

October 24: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hudson County Freeholder Table
Hi Alansohn,

Recently I noticed that you undid my edit to the page "Hudson_County,_New_Jersey". The table actually did add information. If you will notice in the current page some representatives are outdated AND not fully listed. Due to the revision, the page now contains invalid information.23:46, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , there were some entries that were missing or outdated; they will be updated. Above and beyond the fact that the table adds nothing to the article, the changes to the citation and date formats conflict with WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEVAR. Changes like this require consensus and if you want to make the case that they should change, let's take it to Talk:Hudson County, New Jersey and see if there is any reason to make the change. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , point taken on the citations. As for the table, I really don't think tabular versus list is worth the discussion, neither seems hugely better or worse. I am mainly frustrated that I added things of value and you reverted it without a message or without re-adding the updated information. It makes my attempted contribution worthless had I not saw the change. 17:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , seeing your work undone is never pleasant and it's clear now that there were some entries that were missing or outdated that had been added or updated, but that were hard to discern amid all of the other changes. Tables can be useful, but they add little here for the reader above a list. Alansohn (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
 * Library Card translation
 * Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Sunday Oct 28: Wikidata Birthday Party
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vineland, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Texas Rangers ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Vineland%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Vineland%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Clifton, New Jersey
Hi there, just wanted to speak with you about your recent edit of Clifton, New Jersey, in which you undid essentially all of my previous edit. I don't have a vested interest in the page, and only happened upon it because your edit broke a reference tag that I patrol for. But now that I'm looking at it, I don't quite understand the changes. Captions do need ending punctuation when they're complete sentences, list entries generally don't take ending punctuation, and phrasing like "from 1914–1919" isn't right (should be "from 1914 to 1919" or simply "1914–1919"). I also trimmed some unnecessary words and caps. I was honestly just wondering why you undid these fixes, particularly as your edit mentioned "standardizing wording," but my edits were in line with the MOS as I understand it. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , looking again at the article, I'm not sure what it was that I was in the middle of changing, but it seems that I had started an edit and saved it midway through my changes. I don't see anything wrong with your edits or what it was that I was thinking. Sorry. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I was hoping it was something like that. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Garwood
The revert of the grammatical error is inappropriate despite the assertion about its readability.2605:E000:9149:8300:31C4:932D:564E:94F7 (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't argue with changing "on" to "in", but this edit was entirely incoherent. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Sarah Knauss
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Sarah Knauss. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Nabi Tajima
An editor has started a deletion nomination for Nabi Tajima. Because you were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion discussion. 96.253.25.35 (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Governor Livingston High School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramsey High School ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Governor_Livingston_High_School check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Governor_Livingston_High_School?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * OAWiki
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!
Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are, , and. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border: 3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAE0; padding: 0.1em 0.2em; height: auto; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 Alansohn , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 15:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

January 13: Wikimedia NYC invites you to Wikipedia Day 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , ten years is certainly a long time. The kind words are much appreciated. My thanks for all of your work on behalf of the encyclopedia! Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Perhaps not to late to say Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Reversions to Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens
Regarding your reversions to these articles and the following edit summaries, "rv chg per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG re use for populated places)". Although MOS:INFOBOXFLAG does say, I am unable to locate the debates in which it was decided by consensus that their use is preferred in these three "settlements". My Favourite Account '  😊 16:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Why are you removing link to PogoData
Alansohn,

Why are you removing the link to PogoData.org from the Little Silver page? It is as relevant to Little Silver as is the links to school data, school report card, and school performance report. None of those are about Little Silver itself yet they remain in the Little Silver page.

The PogoData.org site contains many statistics directly relevant to Little Silver: population, geometric characteristics, crime statistics, voter statistics. How is that NOT about Little Silver? It includes thematic maps showing the distribution of property class and assessed value for parcels in the town. How is that NOT about Little Silver. It contains charts showing the distribution of many quantitative characteristics of the town. How is that NOT about Little Silver

Your first reason for the removal was 'remove promotional external link unrelated to the municipality'. PogoData.org is directly related to the municipality. The next reason you gave was 'remove link to site about properties in Little Silver, not about Little Silver itself; see WP:ELNO'. Neither of these reasons are consistent with the content of PogoData.org. It is not a promotional link any more than the link to the school performance sites are promotional and it is directly related to the municipality.

100.35.176.159 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 32, January – February 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * New and expanded partners
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Feb 27 WikiWednesday Salon + Mar 2 MoMA Art+Feminism and beyond
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

An RFC has been placed on the Wikiproject United States page regarding Infobox Flags
I wanted to bring to your attention that a request for comment has been placed on the Wikiproject United States page for infobox flags in human geographic articles. If you wanted to contribute, this is an opportunity to. Cheers --Simtropolitan (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

== March 20: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + March 23: Asian Art Archive/New York Public Library ==

(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

April 17: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC + April 4 and 5: LaGuardia Community College Translatathon 2019
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

NJ cities spanning township/county lines
I was browsing Compiled Statutes of New Jersey which contains information about municipal and county shifts throughout NJ's history. The one about New Brunswick from 1850 was intriguing. It transferred the western portion of the City of New Brunswick from Somerset County to Middlesex County and, subsequently, that portion of Somerset County (already within the City of New Brunswick) from Franklin Township to North Brunswick Township.

What this seems to suggest is that the City of New Brunswick had existed in two counties, and existed atop two townships. Even after the transfer, the residents of the western part of the City of New Brunswick (now all in Middlesex County) were said to now be residents of North Brunswick Township and not Franklin (i.e. the City of New Brunswick was within North Brunswick Township).

Today, municipalities are all separate entities. If you're in the City of New Brunswick, you are NOT in North Brunswick Township (a separate municipality).

When did this all change? What was the nature of a "city" in the mid-1800s? Since you've done so much work with NJ municipalities, I figured you might have an answer. Any sources available to read about these changes in state municipal law? Like I said, today, municipalities are separate entities and have been for as long as anyone seems to remember.

This sort of reminds me of the current villages of New York state which exist atop portions of towns, and can span both town and county lines. Did NJ once have such a system? Was New Brunswick a city in two townships in two counties? And when did we get our modern system? No one seems to know, and I can't find much information.

71.226.227.121 (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am more than familiar with the system that exists in New York State, under which villages exist within one or more towns, which exist within one or more counties, with some portions of some towns being unincorporated. It does seem that New Jersey had a structure in which there was overlap in the past, but at present, all counties are broken up into boroughs / cities / towns / townships / villages, which don't overlap and which don't cross boundaries. I think that the situation you saw in mid-1800s New Brunswick was an intermediate situation that seems to have been resolved by the end of the 1800s. I will follow up and provide more details. Alansohn (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. (On a side note, I believe that all towns in New York are considered incorporated, regardless of whether or not the territory is part of a village, though I could be mistaken.  It's as if the village in New York, or the borough in Connecticut, is an additional layer of government atop an already incorporated entity.  I say this because the article on Administrative divisions of New York (state) refers to all towns as being incorporated entities.)


 * Anyway, it's interesting to note that in the case of New Brunswick at least, there is an article listing mayors as early as 1747, pre-Revolution and unbroken to the present. But it seems the Township Act of 1798 only recognized townships as the subdivisions of counties.


 * Have you encountered this before? I'm curious how and when this was resolved and we ended up with the current situation, wherein all municipalities (regardless of title or form of government) are independent entities in their own right.


 * It's interesting to note that the article on Raritan borough in Somerset County suggests Raritan was some sort of special subdivision of Bridgewater from the 1860s until the 1940s when it was allowed to become fully independent municipality. This seems rather odd and rather late in the game, but it could be an error.


 * 71.226.227.121 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There were some weird relationships where New Jersey municipalities were in quasi-overlapping relationships at various points of time, but those overlaps seem to have been resolved by the early 1900s. All of New Jersey is part of an incorporated municipality. New York State (the five boroughs excluded) is broken into towns, but those towns have areas that are incorporated (usually as villages) plus other areas that are unincorporated. I always notice driving locally through New York State that you pass signs variously showing town speed limits and village speed limits. Alansohn (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All of New York state is likewise incorporated. The unincorporated (or "unvillaged") areas of towns are still part of an incorporated entity as the towns themselves are incorporated.  The villages are an additional layer atop an already-incorporated town.  In other states, towns/townships are literally unincorporated, with no municipal government whatsoever.  They're simply geographic subdivisions of the county, which the county uses for reference, but have no government.  But in NY, the towns are incorporated municipalities, all with municipal government (regardless of any villaged or unvillaged territory within their borders).


 * I wonder if NJ townships were ever considered unincorporated subdivisions of counties, or if they've always been incorporated. Not trying to clutter your page here, just looking for answers.  Again, no one seems to know.  And yes, it appears "villaged areas" like the city of New Brunswick once spanned and covered portions of two townships in two counties.


 * 71.226.227.121 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of John C. Bartlett Jr. for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John C. Bartlett Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John C. Bartlett Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter
The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, 🇺🇸 Ceranthor, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, and  Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and 🇩🇰 MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
 * Pirate_Flag_of_Henry_Every.svg (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
 * Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 33, March – April 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em">
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (stay tuned for Pride on weekend!)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Sunday June 23: Wiki Loves Pride @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter
The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * 🇳🇫 Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
 * Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
 * SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
 * 🇺🇸 Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sunday July 14: Annual NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Roosevelt Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Queensbridge Houses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Orleans Jazz ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Queensbridge_Houses check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Queensbridge_Houses?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 34, May – June 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
 * Partnerships
 * # 1Lib1Ref
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * Global branches update
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

IBAN reminder
Perhaps it was accidental, but in an edit here, you substantively undid the edit of a user you are in an IBAN with. I take no stance on the validity of either a) the original edit they undid, b) the reversion of Magnolia677 which undid that original edit or c) the reversion AND addition of source that you did. I have not, am not, and will not make any comment about the content of those string of edits nor on their veracity or correctness because that has nothing to do with what I am about to say.  Please take care to abide by the interaction ban you have with them, agreed to by mutual agreement and confirmed by community consensus here 4 and a half years ago or so.  I assume you merely forgot about it or were unaware of whom you were interacting with.  As far as I know, this is the first, only (and hopefully the last) time this has be an issue. If you would like to revisit the ban, please start a discussion at WP:AN or similar asking for community review. Thank you. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , the "interaction" here was utterly unintended and has been self reverted. There is no mechanism that I know of that exists to avoid such IBANs other than to monitor the edit history of every single article to be edited. The continuing existence -- and potential administrative enforcement -- of such IBANs, many years after they may have had any positive purpose to avoid toxic interactions, only creates a potential minefield where obvious good-faith edits are misinterpreted. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No troubles. Like I said it was probably unintentional.  If the IBAN needs to be lifted, as I already suggested, perhaps you could start a thread at WP:AN so requesting.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , again thank for the feedback. Alansohn (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Plainfield, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Geoffrey Lewis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Plainfield%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Plainfield%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * West Orange, New Jersey ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/West_Orange%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/West_Orange%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to JTA and David Twersky
 * Bridgewater-Raritan High School ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bridgewater-Raritan_High_School check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bridgewater-Raritan_High_School?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Clifton High School

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation/feedback (multiple NJ schools articles)
Hello Alansohn, I think this is how you do this (write back). I'm a new editor so hopefully I got it. This is my first attempt at doing this.

Thanks so much for your comment to me/explanation on some of the articles I've edited about NJ school districts. It seems like you know your stuff (you talked about a rule/policy or something I wasn't aware of) and because of that, I'll leave any edits you changed back alone going forward. I've been editing pages where stuff is outdated, especially in regards to....
 * Principals/superintendents/etc. who have since been replaced
 * School districts that have reconfigured their grade levels (in particular Franklin and East Windsor)
 * School district website links that are old and don't work anymore and have to go through some web archive thing. That's why I was removing those sources and adding different ones in place.

Thanks also for your comment about the criteria for notable people to be listed. I just read an article the other day about that girl from North Brunswick (the lacrosse player for the Puerto Rican U-19 national team). You're right how she is kinda unknown to the world at this point. I'll leave it alone for now, but maybe next year or sometime in the future if she makes headlines or something (when people know who she actually is), we can add her back to the list.

I also just read your info page and looks like you've been doing this for quite a while now. Keep up the good work!

Thanks again, Sean Cavanaugh (Cavanaughs)

8/8/19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavanaughs (talk • contribs)
 * , thanks for all of the work updating all of these articles. The only issue I raise is to make sure that some of the folks you've been adding as notables are genuinely notable by Wikipedia policy non notability. I will often see articles in the day's paper and think that some of these people should be added as notables, but individuals who don't have their own Wikipedia articles should probably not be added to such lists (see Wikipedia policy on adding entries to lists like these). Be sure to "sign" your talk-page messages with four tildes ( ~ ), which will tag your posts with a signature. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Bridgeton, New Jersey ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bridgeton%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bridgeton%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Distinguished Service Cross
 * List of people from Cherry Hill, New Jersey ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_people_from_Cherry_Hill%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_people_from_Cherry_Hill%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to WHYY

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

August 28: WikiWednesday Salon and Skill-Share NYC (+editathons before and after)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

DYK nomination of John A. Spizziri
Hello! Your submission of John A. Spizziri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Summit, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sándor Szabó ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Summit%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Summit%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Saturday Sept 7: Met Fashion Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woodmere, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Real Deal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Woodmere%2C_New_York check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Woodmere%2C_New_York?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Roseville
Can you please leave it as civil unrest instead of "riots". I would greatly appreciate it if you can. Thank you Doriden (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , this wasn't my wording. The title of the article is 1967 Newark riots and we should generally try to match that. Why not seek consensus there to rename the article to "civil unrest"? Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Woodmere, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page News 12 ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Woodmere%2C_New_York check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Woodmere%2C_New_York?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Re: Hamilton West, Steinhart & Nottingham
Hey I just read your message on my talk page. I initially felt it was unnecessary to add “(also formally known as ________ High School _____)” especially since I listed that in the infobox, but I can agree that both should be mentioned. The only change that needs to occur should be on Hamilton West as the actual name of the high school is Hamilton High School West  which I will change on all articles later today. Banan14kab (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Clifton, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stewart Airport ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Clifton%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Clifton%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Accusation of disruptive is bad faith
I resent the accusation in your edit summary that my edits on the Cynthia Sayre article were "disruptive". They were certainly not. I have a long list of over 70,000 edits showing the improvements I have made to Wikipedia. You are suggesting that I am intentionally making it worse. That is bullshit. I am always to trying to improve—and to learn from my mistakes. Many Wikipedia editors, perhaps even most of them, are more interested in being stubborn than in learning from others. It takes humility to learn and it takes courage to change one's mind. The use of "from" when referring to a person's birthplace is at the very least debatable. If it were not at all debatable, then maybe you would have a point. As a practical matter, saying that a person can be "from" more than one place necessarily invites people to pile on more useless categories and fill Wikipedia with more junk. There is plenty of that already. We can debate logic. We can debate practicality. We can't debate whether I have acted on bad faith because destructive edits are something I have never engaged at any time in my life when I have edited. So let's cut that out right now. –Vmavanti (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , Your edit to the article for Cynthia Sayer makes the bad faith accusation that the only reason the categories were added is because I'm one of those "proud New Jersyites". This is bullshit and you know it; it certainly doesn't justify your arbitrary deletions across multiple articles.Sayer was indeed born in Massachusetts, but as I've repeatedly pointed out -- and as the article states -- she only lived there as a small child; she developed as a musician growing up in New Jersey. I fail to see how she is only from Massachusetts and in no way from New Jersey and you've never explained that.Again, as I've repeatedly explained, the format of the structures across the entire encyclopedia is "Category:People from Foo" (not "Category:People born in Foo"). The only three such categories that even start "People born" are Category:People born at sea, Category:People born in Saifai and Category:People born with cleft palate and that's it. This structure is designed to allow people to be from more than one place. You are indeed correct that the ability to be from more than one place invites categories to be added beyond the limit of one you demand, but you have never explained why the category here is wrong or inappropriate; In fact, it's backed by reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. Exercise some of your ample humility and demonstrate in any way that she is *NOT* from Scotch Plains, New JerseyYou are a distinct minority of one in advocating this position. You've offered no support for your claim and you have persisted in imposing your idiosyncratic demands even after multiple attempts to raise these points with you in edit summaries. This is the definition of disruption. Alansohn (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no way to know how many people "advocate this position" unless you have asked everyone that question. I don't accept the "everyone else is doing it" excuse because although conformity isn't always bad, it isn't always right either. My deletions are not aribtrary if I have explained them with reasons, which I have. I would like to see a larger discussion of this matter. It may be that we are dealing with customary usage that invites ambiguity. It may be generational. To resolve the ambiguity, what do you think about changing the categories so "from" is never used? You could say People born in New York City or People born in Albany. What's wrong with that? Would you be willing to support a change like that? Such a change would reduce the clutter.

–Vmavanti (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC) –Vmavanti (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have over 100,000 WP edits and I do alot of work on Notable people sections and categorizing biography articles by where the person is. AS and I have had more than our share of disagreements, but he is right here. The article has two IC, one of which clearly states she is from Scotch Plains. A person who went to HS in New Jersey or any state can be safely said to be from that state....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Then explain your reasoning. Why does "from" automatically mean "from right now" rather than "birthplace"?
 * From doesn't automatically mean from right now. I just edited Stew Cliburn because he lives in Fort Myers, FL. He was born in Jackson Missisippi. His article now says he is a sportspeople from both....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I had someone else in mind when I wrote about New Jersyites (perhaps my aging memory mistook you for him) and it was meant in a sarcastic and humorous way. I apologize nevertheless. I agree that accusing someone of bad faith opens the accuser to the same objection, and there's already too much of that on WP. I continue to think "from" is relatively important subject and one whose ambiguity should be addressed. It's impossible to know whether my view is "idiosyncratic" on such a matter unless you know everyone's view, which is itself impossible. But we can at least widen the circle of discussion, right? I'm a plain speaker. I don't give out love-dovey cheeseburger awards. Call it my age and experience.

Dean Gallo
My 1988 Almanac of American Politics says he was born in Boonton and grew up there. Not born in Hackensack or grew up in Parsippany though he was a politician from the latter as the Almanac lists his residence there. The Almanacs are very reliable sources. Any comment?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:20, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Also note the IC for him being born in Hackensack, also has him playing baseball for the Brooklyn Dodgers organization(According to this, he didn't)....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , this source from Fitzgerald's Legislative Manual for 1984 puts his place of birth in Hackensack as does this source from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. This source used at the Hackensack, New Jersey article does list him as playing "minor-league baseball for Brooklyn Dodgers organization", which wouldn't be picked up by Baseball-Reference. I can't account for the choice of Boonton as his birthplace by the 1988 Almanac of American Politics.Thanks again for all of your edits; I think that there's much more that we can do working together. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added Gallo to the NP section of Boonton saying that he grew up there. I will also add a mention of his growing up in Boonton to his article with the Almanac as a reference. What I won't do- Make any changes to where he was born. We have WP:RS in disagreement. As for the baseball playing claim, I think it should be left out of his bio because Baseballreference has no record of him....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I saw the addition to the Boonton article. I have no reason to doubt that he resided in Boonton. In terms of playing in the minor leagues for the Brooklyn Dodgers, Baseball-Reference would not have picked that up as it only includes play in Major League Baseball. Again, thanks for all of your attention to detail; this is not the first time that either you or I have seen conflicts between different sources regarding a birthplace or hometown. Alansohn (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BR does include minor league baseball players and statistics. Here is the listing for 46 minor league players whose last name players whose names started Gallo. There is no Gallo named Dean or Anderson or anything similar for a player in the 50's. I saw your edit to Charles Sandman. I remember the Nixon impeachment hearings (I was 13 at the time) and Sandman defending RN. I will continue to use the Almanacs (I have a 2014 one too) to improve Congressman articles....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:43, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I encourage you to continue using the Almanac as a source, but with a grain of salt. The sources for Gallo clearly locate his birthplace as Hackensack, not Boonton. I'm also leery about the minor league baseball claim for Gallo, despite the source. I would wait until a truly independent reference, say from historical newspaper clippings, backs the claim. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Government representation in municipalities
I recall a discussion (in which we were both involved) some time ago as to whether NJ municipalities should include fed, state, county, & local government representation. I believe that consensus was to include that information. Do you recall? And if so, do you know the location(s) discussion took place? Thanks. Djflem (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I do recall and this has been the consensus for more than a decade. Why do you ask? Alansohn (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I do recall edit conflict in January 2011 that led to a community-based discussion. These AfDs


 * Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 11
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 24
 * seem inconsistent with consensus reached at:


 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey/Archive 4
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 19
 * And I was wondering if you knew of any other places where the topic was discussed since I do believe the consensus is being challenged by the AfDs and would like to point that out. Do you think it wise to include the above on the talk pages of other Category:New Jersey government templates so that the community is aware of the consensus?Djflem (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * , this consensus has been in place for more than a decade and has never been challenged. I'm a bit disturbed that these TfDs were created without any notification to me as the creator or to the available NJ noticeboards. I'm not sure how I could have missed these discussions, but the lack of notification may well play a part. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I had been in the middle of some edits when I saw your message and posted my previous response. I now realize who is involved and I need to be extremely circumspect about anything I do or say in this matter. You are free to act as you see fit but I need to review the terms of my restrictions in dealing with this matter. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I do also find it strange that there was no notification regarding the TfD. It is normal procedure in the case of templates to notify the creator? Also, do you know of other places where this topic has been discussed? Djflem (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Springsteen
I've deleted these categories because the article doesn't support them. He can't be an alumni of Ocean County College because he only attended the school before dropping out (check Early life section: "He briefly attended Ocean County College, but dropped out."). Also, where do you have the information that he is connected with places like Bradley Beach or Ocean Township? He was born in Long Branch. The "attended Freehold Borough High School" part is also unnecessary because it is already listed at the end of this section: "In ninth grade, Springsteen began attending the public Freehold High School, but did not fit in there either." Besides, we list the categories in alphabetic order, see Michael Jackson. BartSmith85 (talk) 13:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , for starters, regarding Ocean County College, see WP:ALUMNI: "All alumni meeting these criteria are to be included on an alumni list, regardless of how much time they have spent on a school roll, from one day to several years, and whether or not they graduated." The same applies for categories; It's attendance that makes you an alumnus, not graduation from the school. All of the other places are appropriately supported by reliable and verifiable sources. I have no objection to removing duplicate mentions of any facts. It's nice that your goal is to keep categories in alphabetical order, but no policy requires it. Alansohn (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , could you point out these sources or at least show me where I can find them in the article? I'd like to also add some categories that you've reverted like "People from Long Branch" (birthplace), "20th-century American male writers" (he has been writing songs since 1960s), "American hard rock musicians" or "American male pianists". I'd like to keep the alphabetical order of the categories as well (if you don't mind). BartSmith85 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , of course I have no objection to reinserting any categories I erroneously deleted; it's just impossible to tell what had been changed given the reordering. If you want the categories in alphabetical order, go for it. Alansohn (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm glad that we have worked out the details. Thanks. I've also managed to find Springsteen's connection with "Bradley Beach" & "Ocean Township" places. They are in the "Notable people" sections in each article respectively, not in his wiki page. No wonder I had problems with them. Cheers. BartSmith85 (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 35, July – August 2019 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * Wikimania
 * We're building something great, but..
 * Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
 * A Wikibrarian's story
 * Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John A. Spizziri
Hello! Your submission of John A. Spizziri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oct 23: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Notable alumni
But most of the Solomon Schechter Day Schools don't have individual articles. As with Chaim Bloom. So this is for now the only place to reflect them all in a list. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A8C0:1F73:ABE1:8A5E (talk) 03:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm still not sure that any list is needed in the Schechter school network article, but if they are listed they'll need Wikipedia articles *AND* reliable / verifiable sources to connect them to a specific school in the network. Alansohn (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is that a wikipedia rule? One that is followed?

First, if the person is obviously notable, say - an Olympic athlete - why would they need a wikipedia article? I don't think there is a rule that says they do, but educate me, because maybe I am wrong. Anyway, all of the people I added did have articles, so this isnt really relevant to what you deleted.

Second, look at List of Harvard University people. Lots and lots of people who don't have sources in the list itself, but only in the person's article. I have a feeling you would not just go ahead and delete those entries (maybe at most you would tag them). If you did delete them, I think there would be a storm of protest. So why apply tougher rules here. Isnt it better to be even handed?

(Also, the question for a list is never whether it is "needed," because no list is "needed.")

Let's just collaborate. Work together. One person improves an article, the next person improves it more sort of thing. --2604:2000:E010:1100:A8C0:1F73:ABE1:8A5E (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:LISTPEOPLE, the Wikipedia guideline on such lists, which states that "A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met: 1) The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. 2) The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." If they're an Olympic athlete, they'll have an article. There are limited exceptions listed at WP:LISTPEOPLE and there are lists that fail to comply with that policy. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Script Accessed -> Retrieved
Has the script got it the wrong way around? If so, I'll let Ohconfucius know. First time it's come up in years. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  11:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I raised the issue with Ohconfucius already, who said that this was done for consistency with wording used in templates, not based on any guideline or policy. There's no reason to change it in either direction. The bigger issue was about the use of flags, and I appreciate your efforts in that regard, with Maple Shade as the model. Alansohn (talk) 12:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK. It's only reluctantly that I'm agreeing to retain the US flag (as opposed to the local one) in that class of articles. I suppose it lends more symmetry on a very local scale—the only possible recommendation. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  23:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is, who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:


 * 1) with 964 points
 * 2) with 899 points
 * 3) with 817 points
 * 4) with 691 points
 * 5) with 388 points
 * 6) with 146 points
 * 7) with 145 points
 * 8) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!


 * wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
 * wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
 * wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
 * wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bloomfield, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Essex County ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Bloomfield%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Bloomfield%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of John A. Spizziri
Hello! Your submission of John A. Spizziri at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Final call; nomination could be closed at any time due to lack of action. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jersey City, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Half Moon ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Jersey_City%2C_New_Jersey check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Jersey_City%2C_New_Jersey?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Saturday Nov 16: Wikipedia Asian Month Edit-a-thon @ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

UEZ zonr
Don't the urban enterprise zones pay half of the NJ sales tax which is 7%, so the uez cities pay 3.5% at eligible businesses, not 3.3125 like you stated in the Camden article. Also why did you remove the there are still some well maintained streets and homes in the Orange article? Who is that bothering? No one Doriden (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

NJ sales tax
Ok I see that the sales tax is no longer 7%,. However I am putting back some homes and streets are well maintained in Orange. That's not bothering anyone else but you for some reason. ThankYou Doriden (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , the issue with the statement about some homes being well maintained is that it's probably true about every place in the world (so it's trivial) and it doesn't have a source to back it up (so it violates Wikipedia policy). It seems that the statement was added to serve as a contrast to the preceding sentence about the city's "urban ills", and I understand that the characterization of the city deserves some greater context, but no one believes that "urban ills" means that every single property is run down and that there is not more than one home that is well maintained. I searched Google tried to find anything that would be a meaningful reference and found nothing. That's why I very purposefully deleted the addition. Alansohn (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Nov 20: WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)