User talk:Alansohn/Archive 28

DYK for Joseph Zack Kornfeder
Number 632 (492 create/expand - 140 nominations)

Thanks...
...for the help here. Also, thanks for your efforts on the recent changes page. When I see you there I know I don't have to work so hard :)  Tide  rolls  04:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks are necessary, but it's greatly appreciated. There are times when it seems to be me against the vandal hordes, and it's great that there are folks like you chipping away at the damage. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for American food policy in occupied Germany
Number 633 (492 create/expand - 141 nominations)

Cheers
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page so quickly -- I barely even saw it myself :P Much appreciated. SMC (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeking assistance
Apologies if this is the incorrect place or manner with which to pose this question.

I would like advice and guidelines on efficient editing and general practice in relation to editing. What tools can be used etc

Thanks LordAradon (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, Alansohn, for reverting vandalism to my user page. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 13:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for G. McMurtrie Godley
Number 634 (492 create/expand - 142 nominations)

DYK for Riverdell Hospital
Number 635 (493 create/expand - 142 nominations)

DYK for David I. Shapiro
Number 636 (493 create/expand - 143 nominations)

Hiding the truth!!
Bat's are extremely untrustful! They push Koopa's into pits of lava!! Don't hide this from the world!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.250.162.175 (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lucysim / Christina Billotte
Hi Alan. I'm guessing by now you've seen my response to your AIV report for. There's more on his/her talk page. Usually, your reports are spot on, but I wanted to personally respond to this one. The editor appears to be somehow connected to the subject of the article and persists in removing poorly sourced and unsourced personal information which is OK. I think with a little deeper look, you'll agree. I'm un-protecting the page. Best regards, Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help block
Hi Alan, Thanks for your vandalism fix on user/vandal 193.1.209.251 but he really needs to be blocked for good, check his talk page. Please assist, some of his vandalism is highly defamatory. Thanks, R Rpersse (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me see what I can do, which is very little, but I can suggest you go straight to WP:ANI. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rodger Doxsey
Number 637 (493 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for Guy W. Calissi
Number 638 (494 create/expand - 144 nominations)

Thanks
Thank you for fixing my userpage. Grim23 ★ 03:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for M. A. Farber
Number 639 (495 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for Mario Jascalevich
Number 640 (496 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for Morris Pashman
Number 641 (497 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for Valentino Mazzia
Number 642 (498 create/expand - 144 nominations)

SCREW U ASSHOLE
It is all true do u watch sports this is all fucking true don't fuck wwith me u lil bich get a life, and get the jizz outcho eyes so u can read u fucking faggot
 * The Bulls were a great team, but this edit does not meet Wikipedia standards and was reverted. Alansohn (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Alansohn, whatever happened to the dream of self-expression and instant gratification of even the basest of desires? Let the guy be free! Drmies (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the words above stated by an anon editor must be reverted, as it consitutes WP:PA.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You call that edit unconstructive?!
That page was significantly made for vandalizing. Even active Wikipedians like you and me are allowed to do so there. So why do you call my edit on User:December21st2012Freak/Vandalize here unconstructive, as if it was vandalizing a real article?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not, and will never start an edit war, but your WP:HUG revert must be reverted by someone else.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 15:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite my best efforts to read your edit as carefully as possible, I did not realize what the purpose of the page was. The edit has been reverted and I will remove any warning message. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather unnecessarily, perhaps, the matter has been raised at this ANI thread. Regards, BencherliteTalk 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Need ur help.
I tried to prevent vandalism in the article Love Jihad. The bullies are now trying to ban me. Can you help me? Sockpuppet_investigations/Yusuf.Abdullah

Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed compromise aimed at consensus at WP:NJ
Hi, Alansohn. As you may remember, way back in August I started a thread at WikiProject New Jersey to discuss the "Federal, state, and county representation" subsections in New Jersey municipality articles, as User:Nightscream and I had a substantial disagreement on that subject. Approximately two months later, we've hammered out a compromise that we mostly agree upon, and presently I am seeing if there is a consensus for this compromise. I'm leaving this message here not as canvassing, but because you participated in this discussion previously and perhaps would be interested in weighing in on the compromise. The full discussion is here, and the proposed compromise is here. Thanks in advance for participating! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Sybil Moses
Number 643 (499 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for Kelly (musical)
Number 644 (500 create/expand - 144 nominations)

Not sure I understand
you posted what looks to be a automated message on 'mytalk' on my profile about citing. I did not change anything that would or should require citing. Was simply removing a link that is advertising for another website that has little to do with the page I was editing. I had a link removed from there for reason of SOAP, and because after reading the SOAP section I deemed the other 'un-official' site to be out of context as well. Thus removing it. So what does that have to do with citing?

Thanks, Elamentra (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ruth Duckworth
Hello! Your submission of Ruth Duckworth at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! LargoLarry (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks for the random recognition. It's much appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Park Plaza Hotels & Resorts
I've reverted your reversion and put a db-blank on the page. It's a moot point now, since the page is now gone, but it's not really vandalism when the page's creator blanks it, it should be construed as them saying 'Okay, I quit', especially in an obvious copyvio like this. HalfShadow (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Overlook Hospital
Number 645 (501 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK nomination of History of Ku Klux Klan in New Jersey
Hello! Your submission of History of Ku Klux Klan in New Jersey at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding
Hello, I saw you made this revert, which to me, did not seem like "pure vandalism". Could please you clarify your reasoning a bit? The IP has posted on the help desk saying s/he no longer wishes to contribute, if his/her edits will simply be rolled back. If you know something that I don't, my apologies.  Intelligent  sium  02:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit, which removed one of the authors and took away the first letter of a name had all the hallmarks of vandalism. In addition, the editor's previous edits to the article had been reverted. While I stand behind my original call, I am willing to remove the warning based on the totality of the editor's other recent work. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would appreciate it if you did; the other edits seem fine, but it's possible the editor took the first letter off by mistake.  Intelligent  sium  02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The warning had already been removed and an explanation left. I've seen hundreds of vandalistic edits that removed stray characters and this seemed to fit that pattern. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for combating vandalism
thanks for combating the vandalism to Martin Sargent! are you watchinig this article as well or did you stumble on it randomly? andyzweb (talk) 03:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just spending some time monitoring recent edits. Glad I could help. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton
Hello! Your submission of Post-presidency of Bill Clinton at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Calmer  Waters  04:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the matter.
I am the author of the club page. Why are you guys tring to delete it. Ot's my first article please let it stay up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalar (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Status note: Zalar's deprodding of the article is legitimate. The article is currently not tagged for deletion. It's a likely candidate for AfD, but I'm waiting to see if Zalar responds to my offer to userfy the page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Barnett
Number 646 (502 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for Sheldon Segal
Number 647 (503 create/expand - 144 nominations)

Thanks...
for that. --Rrburke(talk) 20:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a trooper. Cheers. --Rrburke(talk) 21:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Kew Gardens Interchange.jpg
File:Kew Gardens Interchange.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Kew Gardens Interchange.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Principal
Apologies: I've accidentally labelled an edit of yours as vandalism. In fact you undid a (repeated) bit of vandalism, but the version you reverted to had already been vandalised back in August, and my attempts to use Twinkle to go back to that one got it wrong. I think I've fixed it now though. --ColinFine (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Duckworth
Number 648 (504 create/expand - 144 nominations)

Regarding Water Intoxifcation
If you read the page, you'd see that what I edited out was previously stated not even two points earlier, and in greater detail. Not to mention, what I edited out was completely wrong (check the dates in the article). Perhaps you should proofread articles before you mark changes as vandalism. 15:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.198.254.243 (talk)

DYK for Paul Bloom (lawyer)
Number 649 (505 create/expand - 144 nominations)

DYK for George P. Jenkins
Number 650 (506 create/expand - 144 nominations)

Excuse Me?
How about before you tell me off for editing in something which I know to have happened, as it was in the New Zealand Press, concerning a criminal investigtion, you get your fact straight?

It's clear you had no knowledge about what I added into te article. Grow Up —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigercobra (talk • contribs) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frank X. Graves, Jr.
Hello! Your submission of Frank X. Graves, Jr. at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! Ucucha 12:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for History of Ku Klux Klan in New Jersey
Number 651 (506 create/expand - 145 nominations)

Just one question:
Why do you use Huggle every day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.13.246 (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I started using Huggle one day after fighting vandalism manually for years and hoping that there was a better way to deal with the problem. I was staggered both by the amount of vandalism and by the amount of malicious vandalism that was slipping through the cracks. While I do devote time to other tasks (I've written or expanded thousands of articles and I'm on pace to write one DYK article per day for this year), I keep on doing my share of vandal fighting until a better way to deal with vandals comes along. Alansohn (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye06
User blanked John whallon and you reverted them and gave a warning. The only edit to that page, besides tagging for speedy was creation by the same author. Reverting and warning when tagging for WP:CSD would have been better. Q T C 04:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A slip of the finger in Huggle caused the revert and the Huggle app crashed when I tried to undo the pointless revert I had triggered. Please accept my apologies. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your quick work is appreciated

 * Thanks for the recognition. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You remind me of someone
Yes, that's right. User:Mikhailov Kusserow. Although you may be friendly to users that vandalize in the sandbox, sometimes, its just a matter of an rollback accident before you warn someone of WP:VANDAL. To differ you from Mikhailov, he considers the postings on his talk page, like the one I posted, are vandalism, and then warning me, with a small box, covering the warning template. BTW, this is my final edit for the month (I hope) and will be active once again on December 15. However, I will still be editing occasionally throughout the period.Boeing7107isdelicious 14:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mary E. Surratt Boarding House
Number 652 (507 create/expand - 145 nominations)

thx
thanks Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Election map
Was there a reason you reverted my edit that included the map of election-related Google Maps data? The map displays relevant data with a discernible pattern related directly to the other interpretive maps it was posted with. Why remove? Thanks --Jtshelton (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring my map!--Jtshelton (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Persia
Hello,

I added link to the Prince of Persia article to the upcoming movie, and it was reverted as "not sourced". I don't understand, frankly. What do you want to source on a LINK? --78.128.178.129 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dietrich von Bothmer
Number 653 (508 create/expand - 145 nominations)

Way to go fighting vandals!
Good grief, you just popped up on my "watched articles" 4 or 5 times in just the last 15 minutes! I see you are phenomenally reverting vandals all over the place! Great job! Sorry to interrupt! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Backpack vandal
I've just realized that the vandal currently hanging around backpack is using a number of similar IP addresses. Perhaps some sort of range block is in order? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/142.35.39.240
 * Special:Contributions/142.35.39.183
 * Special:Contributions/142.35.38.120 (recently blocked)

Vandal on Y-Chromossomal Aaron
Hi Alansohn, I am asking for your urgent help with the user that is vandalizing the article, by deleting information without consensus. Regards - --MCohenNY (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hallucination
Please note your reasons for undoing my revisions in the talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.114 (talk • contribs)
 * It was this edit that removed sourced content that was at issue in the revert. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Dee Anthony
Number 654 (509 create/expand - 145 nominations)

Thanks
Thanks for the revert on my user page. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the least I can do. You're most welcome. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto :D   Badgernet   ₪   15:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Martini
Hi Alansohn –

Re – Martinis - Thanks for your help and advice about editing Wikipedia. I’ve made several small amendments over the last year or so, but never really brushed up on the correct etiquette. You have prompted me to do so, and I’ve learned a lot in the last 48 hours.

As for the derivation of the name of the martini cocktail, I understand your point about the lack of verification for the Martini-Henry theory. But the article has two other theories which aren’t very verified; “Some say” a miner called Martinez; and the cocktail simply being named after a brand of vermouth.

Any Google search comes up with plenty of citations mentioning the Martini-Henry rifle, such as these:

http://www.sourcebooks.com/products/entertainment/cookbooks/9781402206344-ultimate-little-martini-book-2.html

http://www.martinimuse.com/how_the_martini_got_its_name.shtml

http://everything2.com/title/Martini

http://www.martiniart.com/historyofthemartini.aspx

http://www.saveur.com/article/Wine-and-Drink/King-Gin-

http://www.boiseweekly.com/boise/the-classic-martini/Content?oid=931738

To me, and many Brits, the Martini-Henry theory is at least as believable as any other – unless it can be verified that the drink was around pre-1870. Anyone in the British Empire – from Vancouver to Bermuda to Cairo to Singapore knew what a “Martini” was, just as you all know what a Winchester or an M16 is. Gin comes from London and Plymouth. What’s so impossible to believe?

The fact is, no-one knows where the name came from, the best we have are theories of varying plausibility. If cast-iron verification is a must then none of the speculation on the origins deserves to be mentioned. But surely this controversial mystery is one small part of the allure of the lovely martini?

Kind regards,

Paul

(Paul J Williams)86.149.50.199 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This article from The New York Times would seem to address the possible derivations. Alansohn (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Alan -

Yes, that Newv Yorker article sums it up nicely. The '49er called Martinez gets a large paragraph in the article, so why not a couple of the other possibilities?

As for the cocktail being named after Martini & Rossi - surely if that were true this whole controversy would never have arisen? No one argues about why a gin fizz is called a gin fizz or a Campari and soda is called that - they don't tell stories of some old prospector called Mr Gin or a barman called Campari...86.149.50.199 (talk) 11:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John V. Kelly
Number 655 (510 create/expand - 145 nominations)

re 2012 Summer Olympics
Hey Alansohn really, really curious how that was "unconstructive". Let us see we have referencess saying that it looks like a swastika and lisa simpson giving flaccio i think it was, but an intelligent logical explanation is unconstructive? I must say i see your character loud and clear. With views like that I'm surprised you don't edit for a national newspaper or television. 98.249.198.144 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had meant the revert to be based on the lack of a verifiable source, but I inadvertently used the generic warning message. Please provide a reliable and [{WP:V|verifiable]] source from a magazine or newspaper to support your claim when you reinsert the text in question. Alansohn (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I site my source Rik Clay. It is the artical that sites no source for its statments about it looking like a swastika and a cartoon giving head dude wake up. Now I would say those statments could be considered controversal and yet they site no source just something people have said. Are you retarded or just a confusion agent I site my source. Why don't you take a look at his work for yourself before you pawn it off as unreliable. I find your lack editorial skills to be far beyond unreliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.198.144 (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being a jerk. My apologies. Seriously. Let me ask you how reliable is a newspaper, a magazine? I site his work if you read it then it will become painfully obvious why it cannot be found in mainstream media.

Both those comment were mine98.249.198.144 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at Wikipedia policy on reliable and verifiable sources, which will provide guidance on the types of sources that would be acceptable. Any of the blogs that Rik Clay's material would be on would not be acceptable. I have searched in Google news and found nothing in the mainstream media that even mentions this hypothesis, and without appropriate sources material will need to be removed. Alansohn (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Tim1357 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry!
I apologise for the accidental revert and warning. I went to revert it, but had already beaten me a couple seconds earlier, so I accidentally reverted you instead. Very sorry. --Meaghan guess who :) 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting page
I am sitting here next to Loa Stefansdottir, who wants the page about her removed from wikipedia. As she and wikipedia both agree that "Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgenaud (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will research the Loa Stefansdottir article and respond. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Elmer Winter
Number 656 (511 create/expand - 145 nominations)

DYK for Solomon Schechter Day School of Raritan Valley
Number 657 (512 create/expand - 145 nominations)

DYK nomination of Steven P. Perskie
Number 658 (513 create/expand - 145 nominations) Hello! Your submission of Steven P. Perskie at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Explanation
Alansohn, I've deleted Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD, which you created. Now, just so that we can avoid a DRV over this, I want to explain to you that I've done this simply to avoid confusion at the 1 Nov CfD on Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken. The formal nomination proposal in that discussion is to rename the nominated category to Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD. So until that discussion is closed, I think it would be best to keep the proposed target category non-existent. To do otherwise could appear to be a pre-emptive end-run around a formal rename discussion. When the discussion is closed the category will either be renamed to it, or not. If it is not, I personally don't see a problem with you creating the category at that time and I would not delete it (though I can't say how other users would feel about it). The only reason it's been deleted by me now is to maintain some clarity on what's going on for participants at the CfD discussion. I've posted this here rather than at the discussion because I don't see any need to draw attention to this side issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a policy basis to justify deletion of this category, and can point me to it, I will sadly be heading to DRV. Alansohn (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, Alansohn, be flexible. I'm doing this to try to help avoid any confusion in that discussion; I've said really all you need to do is wait until the formal discussion is closed. If you do go to DRV it will kind of disappoint me that you can't be a little more understanding and reasonable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As an administrator, you are entrusted with various powers which may only be used with proper justification. There is no "I've done this simply to avoid confusion" policy justification under WP:CSD and it appears that you have exceeded your authority in deleting this category in this instance. I hope that you would be flexible enough to rectify this situation as soon as possible. It would appear that WP:ANI would be a more appropriate venue to address this issue if we cannot resolve this issue amongst ourselves. Alansohn (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, taking this to DRV would have been unreasonable because by time the DRV has run its course the CfD discussion will likely be closed. Now you're doing some sort of escalation—if you want to take this to ANI, that's ... well—all I can say is that's your decision to make. You have certainly posted things about me there that are of comparable insignificance. I do feel that you are being unreasonably inflexible, however, and I doubt you will get much of a different reaction at ANI. All you need to do is wait a few more days and you'll see if the category is renamed or if you will create it afresh. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Olfactory, your actions in the past in pursuing your personal vendetta do not justify any demands for flexibility in ignoring a blatant abuse of your administrative powers. Other than your begging, there is no eartly reason to ignore your violation of WP:CSD policy. Your ongoing ignorance of incivility by User:Otto4711, your blatantly false charges of sockpuppetry (see here) and your clear conflict of interest violation in imposing blocks to push your agenda justify strong remedial action, not ignorance. You and other admins have created a massive waste of time in pushing for deletion of a category that will exist under the new name Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD, regardless of how the current CfD is closed, as you clearly recognize. I hope that my forbearance here, in the wake of your persistent policy violations in abusing administrative authority, will help deter you from further such abuses in the future. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Give it up, man. The discussion is about to be closed, so you can stop bloviating. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had pulled half the crap you've gotten away with I'dve been banned long ago. It was pathetic to see your grovelling pleases for mercy. Power corrupts, and unfortunately you have absolute power and have no qualms of abusing it. For God's sake, learn your lesson once and for all and stop believing that you're God. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Cut it out. I've no part in this particular drama, but what I clearly see is you engaging in tendentious editing, pre-empting the result of a Cfd which is manifestly only hours away from closure.  If you can't play nicely then don't play at all.  --  X damr  talk 21:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making it personal, Alansohn. Completely unnecessary. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh's closure
was clearly not intended to legitimise the establishment while disenfranchising the opposition, and indeed it specifically allows for the creation of a fresh user category. Nevertheless, that would be bad strategy. Attempts to co-ordinate in category space would be (wrongly) seen as an attempted end-run around Skomorokh's closure. I'm thinking the best option would be to establish a Wikiproject instead, and recommend creating WikiProject CfD reform.—S Marshall <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're dealing with a difficult bunch of editors here, unfortunately most of whom are admins who are rather unafraid to use and abuse their administrative powers. It's clear from the overwhelming discrepancies at DRV, where broad community consensus is often dead set against the pattern of supervote closures, that there is a disconnect between what happens at CfD and what the broader Wikiworld thinks. This cozy reign of error persists because there isn't enough participation to clearly outweigh the abuse. CfD desperately needs reform and sunlight is the best disinfectant. I don't care if it's a category or a WikiProject or a discussion at the Village Pump, but any method that helps bring more editors to CfD will help reform CfD by reaching broader consensus from the community as a whole, not the self-anointed few. Feel free to share any thoughts you have as how to best deal with the quagmire that is CfD. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "abuse" is a bit strong. I think we're dealing with good faith users here.  I agree that they're sometimes a bit fearless with the closures, but that's hardly unique to CfD; DRV is getting busier and busier as time goes on and across the project, we're seeing a general increase in really bad closes, particularly those related to BLPs. Yes, I think CfD can fairly be characterised as "cosy".  There are a small number of participants, and an even smaller number of real decision-makers.  That's partly down to necessity: Wikipedia needs a logical and consistent category system, but the number of people who (a) actually care about what that should be and (b) are prepared to put time and effort into deciding it is minimal.  Therefore those who see CfD as important make the rules. A village pump proposal or RFC at this stage would go nowhere because so few people care about categories.  There's no benefit to a widespread discussion about CfD in general. We need a discussion about a particular problem in which we propose a particular solution.  I should think that Skomorokh's closure takes away any moral authority we might have had to force sweeping changes in a short timescale, so I think what we need first is to regain the credibility and the initiative to make changes. What I suggest is, first, pick one thing that's obviously a problem.  Then generate a clear plan to fix it.  Then ask for consensus supporting that at WT:CFD. Previous experience with these users indicates that the response will be reasoned objections and a question about the need for any change, rather than a flat rejection. I perceive a number of problems with CfD at the moment, and it's tempting to take the fashionable route of challenging over BLPs (i.e. because categories can't be referenced, any category at all at the moment is technically in breach of our BLP policies, and because categories are rarely watchlisted, it's easy to miss someone adding a category like Category:Sex scandal figures to a BLP.)  But I think I'd prefer to begin with something involving a little less drama. It's uncontroversial that unlike any other deletion on Wikipedia, deletion of a category is not easily reversed.  Indeed, with a large category, deleting and depopulating it would involve considerable drama to reverse, and what that means is that deletion procedures designed to deal with reversible decisions are not quite as applicable to ones that are harder to reverse.  In other words, it should take a stronger consensus to delete a category than an article because the category deletion can't as easily be undone. I think we should hash out a practical and uncontroversial solution to that, and propose it.  For example, we might say that where a category deletion takes place, the CfD closer should keep a log on a separate page of all the diffs involved in deleting the category to aid reversing the decision when necessary.—<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">S Marshall  <font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Talk /<font color="Maroon" size="0.5">Cont  13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

barnstar!

 * Thanks for the recognition and thanks for all of your work! Alansohn (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

steven kropper
Look, he wants his personal info off the page and i want to add biased information to an already biased page so leave me alone

genevakrops —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevakrops (talk • contribs) 18:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Troy Smith (businessman)
Number 659 (514 create/expand - 145 nominations)

Many Thanks...
For reverting the vandal on my user page. Good to know someone's got my back! Jusda fax  00:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier vandalism of page 'Golf'
I apologize for the earlier vandalization of the page 'Golf.' The IP address used was that of the school I attend. This school is a special education school, and therefore some of the students there suffer from a... lowered sense of maturity. I apologize for any inconvenience or waste of time caused. Yadaman (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Crunk Rock
THE album will not be released on November 24th. No record store site even has this info about. Needs to be changed to TBA --70.233.102.223 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Crunk Rock
THE album will not be released on November 24th. No record store site even has this info about. Needs to be changed to TBA --70.233.102.223 (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy rename moved to full D/d-iscussion
The speedy rename of has been moved to a full discussion here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WPNJ Education task force opinion
Alansohn, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey regarding the WikiProject to Task Force conversion that would benefit from your opinion. Thanks.  Jim Miller  See me 16:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

...
You reverted a correction. It was apparent that I removed the remains of an already removed template. Sorry, but look at the changes before pushing buttons. --84.153.106.40 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

195.59.101.162
I'm sorry to bother you, but I see that user 195.59.101.162 seems to be doing nothing but vandalism and I see that you and others have warn this user of doing that.

I just thought I should let you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alert01 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Steven P. Perskie
Number 660 (515 create/expand - 145 nominations)

Taiwan and Bangladesh
Why was my insertions undone by you twice? The addition of Taiwan is to help define the Philippines as SE Asia since China is not north of Philippines, and helps clarify that Taiwan is East Asia; Also the little piece of India that surrounds eastern Bangladesh is not commonly known and Bangladesh is the country that stands out on a world or regional map as the first country west of Burma. If the reason for Bangladesh to be left out is due to the dispute of whether to put it in SE Asia, then fine. But Taiwan should rightfully go in. It is distinct from China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistakefinder (talk • contribs) 17:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Taiwan is not the issue. Bangladesh was specifically excluded by consensus as documented in the detailed comment in the articel itself. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Star
<div style="font-family: Optima, Trebuchet MS, sans-serif;font-size:100%;">


 * My deepest appreciation for the recognition and for your efforts to help recognize Wikipedians in organized fashion. Keep up the great work! Alansohn (talk) 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedural confusions
Hi, sorry to bother you. Did I just do something stupid here or was I on the right track? I was thinking (a) I had a feeling anons were not supposed to remove warnings from their talk pages anyway and (b) it would be better to preserve the warnings because it seems to be a sometimes-difficult user. (er, which I guess is really just a rationale for (a) now I think twice!) But was it correct to put that stuff back or should I have just left it to the page history? Advice gratefully accepted. Cheers! DBaK (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing and I would have done the same. Even with an IP, future actions will often be based on the IPs past track record, and this is quite a rap sheet that would be relevant in the process. Alansohn (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, many thanks for the clarification. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ramgarhia Edits
Hi, you keep reverting changes I make to the Ramgarhis page. Is there a reason why? I am only amending items that have not been referenced (which is most of the article). For example, the Sikh Guru's section has no relevence (and reference to Guru Nanak Dev Ji being anything other than being born into a Bedi family is untrue - please see his dedicated article). The information on Satguru Ram Singh is irrelevant (again he already has a dedicated article) and other items in the article are a misnomer. Please help me in getting the article up to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manmeets (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already replied on your talk page. There may well be legitimate reasons to remove content, but you need to provide a clear and concise edit summary that explains why you did so. The warning message has been removed. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)