User talk:Alansohn/Archive 5

thanks
Hey thanks for the advice. Check out what the page looks like now...I found a perfect picture to make up for that blank space to the right. I also noticed you fixed all the high schools' pages. I was going to do that but you apparently beat me to it!

Colonial Conference
Hey Alansohn I'm not all that great with Wikipedia yet and was wondering (since youre so proficient) if you could go to the new page I made (Colonial Conference) and clean up the chart of the schools so that it looks more evenly spread out across the page instead of so bunched together. I couldn't figure out how to space everything.

Bosco SAT Scores
I go to DBP and am an ambassador(conduct open houses etc). Durign theses they give us a school fact sheet with the scores on it to hand out to prospective students. You can find it on the Don Bosco Prep HS website under Guidance Center it is the School Profile sheet (its a file download). (Site http://www.donboscoprep.com/group_profile_view.aspx?id=fc8982d7-7465-4321-b8c4-888c8960447a)

Verona
see me in Verona Talk page. I have a question for you regarding New York Radio.

Shield images
They're not identical. The "New Jersey" SVGs use a narrower font, and the wider shield is an elongated circle rather than an ellipse. The "New Jersey" SVGs match most newer signage.

This in addition to the fact that the edits were done by the same IP as Nextbarker, the user behind adding minor junctions to the infobox. -- NORTH talk 07:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Newark
I have proposed moving Newark to Newark (disambiguation). Would appreciate your input on the talkpage - crz crztalk 14:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hunterdon Central notable alumni edit
just to give some reasoning for my removal of 'skatallica' on the notable alumni page (which you had reverted, citing the existence of a wiki page for them as reason for notability)

Their wikipage was created by a band member and a friend of theirs. They self released a CD and probably played live less than five times. As someone who is very familiar with the musical culture in and around Hunterdon County, I wouldn't put them in the 50 most notable musical acts to have members that attended HCRHS in the 1990s.


 * You are far more knowledgeable than I am regarding the area's music scene and I will defer to your judgment in this matter. If your understanding is accurate, the Skatallica article should be the subject of a WP:AfD process. Alansohn 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, i'd forgotten to log in before. Though information in the Skatallica article is technically accurate, the artist most assuredly does not meet the notability requirements as outlined in the "Notability (music)" entry on Wikipedia.  I don't use wikipedia often or thoroughly enough, however, to feel comfortable initiating such requests.  Thanks for your time!


 * Their cover of Brown Eyed Girl has become quite popular on p2p although attributed to Reel Big Fish. I've been digging around the internet and although I can't find any mention from official sources, quite a few people seem to know about them. The song is still being widelely shared on p2p attributed to Reel Big Fish. Soccrmastr (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Year established
The articles on the 1927 renumbering and 1953 renumbering, and the unofficial route logs. -- NORTH talk 08:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The year established is for the year a number was applied to a given route. Thus for the vast majority of routes, it will be either 1927 or 1953. -- NORTH talk 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To answer the other part of your question (official source), in this case, the "unofficial route log" is indirectly an official source, you can take the year from the state law it cites. -- NORTH talk 08:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote box or no quote box
Your input is needed at Robert Clarkson Clothier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:AlbioSires.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:AlbioSires.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — Nv8200p talk 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perth Amboy cats
I agree with the basis for your decision; a cat should describe all members of subcats. There should, however, be some flexibility; was in the cats describing him as a writer before  and  were split off; but  contained the article. The writer cats would stretch to include Valinor in a subcat; the Army wouldn't.

The same thing here, in my view. But I'm not going to do anything about it; just do consider it again yourself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories
You're right, and good that you caught that. My creating those categories was fairly rapid-fire, so I didn't adhere exactly to guidelines, although I will in the future. Thanks again. Paul 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Paulins Kill now a Featured Article
As of a few moments ago, Paulins Kill was promoted to Featured Article status. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to and suggestions for improving the article over these past few months and that I appreciate your help in bringing this article to notice as a Featured Article. Once again, thank you, and keep up the good work. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

your information
Hello, I am wanted to know is why are you contributing to Bordentown Regional School Distret? You are not a citizen of Bordetown City, Bordentown Township, nor Fieldsboro, New Jesery! So why are you butting in it?LindsieandLance 22:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

by the way, the board of Education is on the website! and I know it too!

Kilmer

 * 1) Stop adding things that are currently being debated on the talk page until a consensus is achieved.
 * 2) Stop adding things that aren't supposed to be in an article (genealogical and irrelevant) per WP:NOT, WP:WINAD, and the edicts of WikiProject Biography on the subject.
 * 3) find-a-grave.com biographical sketches do not meet WP:RS.

Thank you. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kilmer
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. I am leaving this identical message at ExplorerCDT's page as well. Chick Bowen 07:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What you describe is most certainly a revert. Please read WP:3RR once again.  The solution is to arrive at a consensus on the talk page of the article.  If that fails, pursue dispute resolution.  Chick Bowen 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed resolution on talk page. You chime in your two cents and we'll negotiate. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 09:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The todo list is an additional tool to help bring the GA page under control. Now, changes to the article also need to be supported by the todo list in addition to meeting Wikipedia policy etc. A change not supported by the todo list would be justification for reverting it.  This should help keep some control over the minor changes to the article.  Also, I rearranged the Kilmer talk page to help bring the discussion towards improving the article to FA status. I am leaving this identical message at ExplorerCDT's page as well. -- Jreferee 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Your comment here is unacceptable based on even a cursory review of the user's contributions. You may be unhappy if someone chooses to participate primarily in AfDs, but that does not give you license to make irresponsible accusations like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs).
 * I apologise for not signing my comment above. I have no issue that you take exception to the user's pattern to vote delete, but to make SPA accusations without any substantive basis is inappropriate. My contributions are majority AfD - at at the beginning probably about 90%, and at a 90%+ delete rate. That is what we "deletionists" do - we look for articles that we feel should be eliminated, and usually ignore others. That may strike you as problematic, in which case feel free to express dismay at the opinion expressed, but to go so far as shout SPA is silly. As for your other point, I feel my contribution record stands clearly for itself in terms of my support for the project. Eusebeus 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

My Participation in Deletion Debates
Dear Alan,

I didn't care for your comments about me in the deletion debates on Ridgewood High School and Kennesaw Mountain High School. I'd like to assure you that I am not a sock-puppet, I'm simply a person who is currently choosing to make my principal contributions to Wikipedia in the AfD area. I've added a note about this on my user-page, which I hope makes things clearer for you. I'm particularly perturbed that you didn't feel any need to contact me before making these accusations: given that you've not spoken to me about this, I'm surprised that you were not able to "assume good faith". It would be very easy for an independent observer to suspect that your comments were made in a spirit of seeking to intimidate me because I have expressed the opposite opinions to you in some AfD debates: it might be useful for you to explicitly dissociate yourself from such sentiments, to avoid misunderstanding.

I suspect that one of the reasons you're annoyed with me is because I tend to feel that most articles on schools should be deleted. We're very often on opposite sides of this debate, but I don't see an easy solution to this. Part of the problem is, I think, that there are some people ( in which group I suspect you feel most comfortable ) who feel that schools ( or, certainly, secondary schools ) are automatically notable. I tend not to agree. It's going to be difficult for us to reach concord on this one, because we start from very different places, but if you'd like to discuss this privately I'm very happy to do so. I've deliberately refrained from participating in the "schools" debate so far, because it seems to me that positions are so entrenched that adding yet one more partisan to the hubbub is unlikely to have a positive effect. I'm pretty sure that we both want to make Wikipedia the best it possibly can be, so if you want to see if two people from opposite sides of the debate can reach some sort of agreement, I'd certainly be keen to try.

Now, as for the particular debates where you cast aspersions about my motives, let me say this: (1) The article on Ridgewood High School (Florida) does not appear to say clearly enough why the school is notable. What would make a school notable, it seems to me, is if it does something more than simply exist and teach students. Is there anything unique about it ? Sadly, I can't see anything, which is why I felt the article should have been deleted. (2) The article on Kennesaw Mountain High School is, I think, a bit stronger, but similarly does not make an adequate assertion of notability. I have explained why on the main AfD page, but here's what I said: "The problem for me is that I feel that for a school to be notable it has to do something more than just exist and teach students. The two places where notability might most plausibly be asserted for this school are: (a) the fact that it's a magnet school, and (b) the supposedly unusual steelwork in the architecture. On (a) I feel that although the policy of magnet schools is notable, the individual schools so designated are not per se notable unless their teaching styles develop unique characteristics that are not general to all magnet schools. On (b) I feel that the reference from the "Steel Joist Institute" simply uses the school as an example of an architectural and construction technique, and does not assert any particular notability for the school building per se. On balance, therefore, I do not feel that notability is sufficiently clearly established."

I hope this helps to clear things up. To repeat explicitly, though: I'm not a sock-puppet, I'm simply someone who is doing his best for Wikipedia as a whole. We may not always agree on individual matters, but I hope we can agree that we are both doing the best we can. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time. WMMartin 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing: in your comments on Eusebeus' talk page you say "As WMMartin has shown no concern about the characterization, and doesn't seem to bother communicating with any other Wikipedian,..." Please note that until today I was unaware that you were characterizing me in this way - indeed, so far as I can tell you only started saying this in the last couple of days. Further, to note that I have not communicated with you is disingenuous: at no time have you initiated communication with me, so there was no way for me to respond to your accusation that I was acting inappropriately. I certainly communicate with other Wikipedians from time to time, though not at great length or in great number, but if you'd wanted to talk to me it would have been easy for you to do this before casting baseless assertions about. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time. WMMartin 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of mayors of Atlantic City, New Jersey
Hi Alansohn. I've created this list, using the New Brunswick list as a sample. If you have access to any information that could help fill in the blanks, your help would be welcomed. Regards, Accurizer 22:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, no need for you to bother with this. I found a new source and was able to fill in the blanks. Many details could be added but I don't think they will be easy to find. Hope you had a nice Wikibreak! Regards, Accurizer 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Kind of Mistake Going On
Hi-- I came on Wikipedia and neglected to log on right away (I log on as DAC1956 but did not do so and went to an article "The House on Lily Street" and had a message from you for an IP address (is it mine, I don't know?) admonishing me to stop adding nonsense and something about a New Jersey congressional district. I don't know what you're talking about. I've contributed to articles on H.P. Lovecraft, Jack Vance, A. E. Van Vogt, the Vietnam War all as DAC1956. I haven't comitted any vandalism. I'm signing this message with the IP address you flagged but if you want to contact me message DAC1956. Thanks. 71.245.115.220 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Harmon Meadow Plaza
Hi, Alan. Do you know how to make the two pics in the Harmon Meadow Plaza article bigger, and without removing their captions? Every time I try to make them bigger, the captions disappear. Thanks. Nightscream 19:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin. Antics @ "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople"
Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see:. This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: . However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted. However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see:. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins. Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: . I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion? Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. --172.165.193.62 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't own the internet.
I'll edit what I want, go ahead and report me. Is it hard to make a new account? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stumply (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Shunpiking
Please read No original research. Without a reliable published source stating that these "shunpiking" routes are commonly used, describing them is original research. Thank you. --NE2 15:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of the route implies that it is a commonly used one, since otherwise it wouldn't be a notable route. Read specifically No original research. --NE2 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement that these are alternate routes used for shunpiking is original research, since no sources are given that say that. Without the fact that they are used for shunpiking, it's just a list of random parallel routes, and shouldn't be under a section on shunpiking. --NE2 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to add a sentence or two about parallel routes, like the fact that the ACE parallels the toll-free surface roads Route 42/US 322 and US 30, feel free. But suggesting that they are used for shunpiking is original research. --NE2 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As the guy that originally trimmed the Shunpiking sections, I'll add that it was at least notable that NJ state police officially promoted I-295 as an alternate route to the NJ Turnpike one time, which is why I kept that intact. However, suggesting toll-free routes to bypass the Turnpike that aren't officially sanctioned or verified by a suitable outside source is original research. Krimpet 21:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Jun Choi
I'd like you to take a look at Jun Choi and the discussion page. I think that the section I noted is POV and should be rewritten/removed. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Society Hill
I did all the "unnecessary work" - changing about 4 links. No consensus is required to be bold and make matters easier for an editor who is linking to Society Hill, New Jersey and meaning the Jersey City one. --NE2 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many people would actually type in Society Hill, New Jersey rather than Society Hill. On the other hand, if I had not been so careful, Journal Square Transportation Center would link to the Middlesex County place, and it probably would not have been fixed. --NE2 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello,. It appears that you copied and pasted Society Hill, Middlesex County, New Jersey to Society Hill, New Jersey. Please do not move articles by copying and pasting them because it splits the article's history, which is needed for attribution and is helpful in many other ways. If there is an article that you cannot move yourself using the move link at the top of the page, follow the instructions at Requested moves. Also, if there are any other articles that you copied and pasted, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you, NE2 18:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to undo it, since I believe the best solution to ambiguous place names is to disambiguate. If you believe otherwise, you can list it on requested moves. --NE2 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By your persistent refusal to justify your actions in the face of a clear explanation of why it was counterproductive and unnecessary, you are clearly demonstrating that your actions were in breathtakingly bad faith. You have needlessly created a situation in which your arrogant changes -- shoved through without any effort to consider alternatives or reach consensus -- now requires an extensive bureaucratic process to undo your mess. Rather than try to address a solution, you have maliciously reverted changes that would clean up the disaster you have foisted on all other users. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that you have created situations of this type. Alansohn 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down and remain civil. My actions are justified by the simple fact that there are two placed named "Society Hill, New Jersey". This type of disambiguation is very common. --NE2 20:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical Population Source
I hope this is where I should reply to your inquiry. I am somewhat inexperienced at writing for Wikipedia, and I didn't know exactly how to cite a source. The data comes from a website, particularly from this link. I am not certain how credible the source is, but it appears to be a New Jersey government-published table. I was starting to add this data into a whole bunch of municipalities, but I began to wonder whether this was useful. I await your input.--KLabe 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) The county-level data comes from this source .--KLabe 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meadowlands District Map.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Meadowlands District Map.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 20:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 1st Street (Manhattan)
An article that you have been involved in editing, 1st Street (Manhattan), has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/1st Street (Manhattan). Thank you.
 * 2nd, 3rd and 13th Streets are nominated together since the contents are identical/similar. I do think a case can be made to keep 13th, and 1st-14th Streets can be one article in the same style as Manhattan streets, 23-42. talk to Ytny 06:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 13th Street (Manhattan)
An editor has nominated 13th Street (Manhattan), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sussex County, New Jersey source
Your forthcoming book on Sussex and Warren place names does seem most intriguing, and I would be interested in seeing a copy. But given your status as a stickler for Wikipedia policy, I am sure that you might see why the source would be inappropriate, as indicated in an earlier removal, which cited the restriction on unpublished works. Furthermore, as you are the author of the material in question, published or not, it would be seem to meet the exact definition -- and be a rather flagrant violation -- of WP:No Original Research. If you have access to the specific sources you used, you can certainly reference those independent, reliable sources to support the items in the article. Other than that, there would seem to be no choice but to remove the reference to your own research as a source. Alansohn 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to take another look at that in consideration of WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, regarding the use of "secondary sources" and "citing oneself." When those discussions are taken into account (the use of one policy needs to be considered in how it coincides or contrasts with other relevant)...your concerns are hardly justified under OR guidelines. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that there's an inherent WP:NOR conflict. "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." (my emph.) So the question really hinges on the classification of the book under WP:RS. Choess 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Advance copies of the book are available before its release. That is added to the just in case someone like Alansohn would like a copy to review it before passing judgment on whether it complies with WP:RS. Has he asked? No. He just assumes. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop removing the reference until you get a third opinion. Your bias against me (best seen in Joyce Kilmer) raises considerable suspicion. If you want a copy, you'll have to pay for it. I'll gladly provide one free to Choess and Ruhrfisch and other qualified requesters, but you're not getting one free. Full retail, plus shipping. Why? Because I don't like you. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 10:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Please note that county route shields should be 20px, not 25px. -- NORTH talk 23:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Manhattan street articles
Hi, I wanted to get your opinion, since I see that you've worked on many of the Manhattan street articles. I think you saw my preference, to combine numbered street articles into sort of list/article hybrids like Manhattan streets, 1-14 and Manhattan streets, 23-42.

We disagree on notability of each article; I think, with very few exceptions, one-way streets aren't notable, and notability of institutions don't necessarily transfer to the streets they're on), and you seem to prefer individual articles.

But I think with the combined articles, you can have all of the information for individual streets, while consolidating the redundant information. You can still link street names to sections within articles, and once there's too much information to fit in a section, you can expand them out like West 4th St. Streets by themselves may not be notable, but together, they're part of the grid and more article-worthy. I think this would be the best of both worlds.

And thanks for fixing the typos in the 1-14 article - I don't know how I didn't catch them. talk to Ytny 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually you should link to the street name, which will redirect to the combined article, so if a street is split the links can remain. --NE2 06:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Salk School
Dear Alan,

Nice to see us both on the same side in an AfD debate for once !

Sincerely,

WMMartin 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Albus Cavus
Nice work on improving the Albus Cavus article, I guess you deserve this, even if it wasn't technically up for deletion at the time. J Milburn 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Teaneck, NJ
Thanks for helping to police that page. I mean, seriously -- a law student being a noteworthy resident? Wow. Josephgrossberg 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Teaneck%2C_New_Jersey&diff=108622746&oldid=108612664 -- I have NPOV concerns with the text you added back. Josephgrossberg 16:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:USRD Newsletter Issue 1

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you familar with this article Pemberton Township High School
Hello, I saw your edit on Pemberton Township High School. Another user, who blanked his talkpage, did some unsourced edits to that article. User:Christian15's edits look like vandalism to me. Would you please look at the article and edit it? Thanks, Ronbo76 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoops, good catch. Thanks for the backup! Ronbo76 07:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Syringe Tide
I am actually doing this for a school project and have yet to figure out the way this whole thing works. I have all of the documentation and my sources of information. I'm not quite sure about this formating thing...It makes no sense

AfD
Thank you. I have participated in but a few of these. Jd2718 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

County Route 549 Spur (New Jersey)
I don't have a preference for whether the images go in a gallery or along the side, although I think it looks slightly odd to have them extending down the side past the article text. Your current version is fine.

I don't really think having the gallery where it was interrupts the flow of the article, though. That's the reason the link sections go at the end, they're not really part of the article, certainly not part of the main article text. It would be a problem if we were to put it between (for a weird example) the Route description and History sections, though. I think that's the main reason there was recently a discussion to move the exit list below the text sections on WT:IH.

That's the logic behind the current layout. There are three "supersections": text, tables and galleries, and links. -- NORTH talk 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You make some good points, and some that I don't agree with. As I said before, I don't see the gallery's original placement as cutting off the flow.  The order on WP:NJSCR puts it right before the "links". By the time you get there, the flow of the article is over, a series of bulleted lists with links don't add to the "flow".  Also, the exceptions you list like succession boxes and navboxes -- while it's a stretch, I don't really think they are exceptions, they're part of the "links" section to aid in navigation.


 * That being said, you did allude to something important. Do the galleries really add to the content of the article?  IMHO, no.  So why include them at all?  To some extent, it probably violates WP:NOT... -- NORTH talk 23:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You could upload the images to Commons and create a gallery there, and link to it from the article using template:commons. --NE2 04:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * See WT:USRD -- NORTH talk 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia talk:Schools and in edit summaries
For the following edits:

This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Chris cheese whine 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalising my talk page
This is the only warning you will receive. If you vandalize Wikipedia once again, you will be blocked. Chris cheese whine 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Springfield Park Elementary School, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Alansohn 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on February 22 2007 to Springfield Park Elementary School
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 22:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block - Alansohn
Re: your mail. You feel unjustly treated; perhaps fairly enough. The short answer is: don't break 3RR if you don't want to be blocked. A longer answer is: admins don't have time to wade through all the details of particular cases. Who is "vandalising" or not is often unclear. In any event, simply reverting your changes back in because you are right is just a recipe for endless edit war. You need to go into WP:DR in cases like this William M. Connolley 09:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would have taken about 30 seconds to look at the initial edits to see what the situation was and to make an informed judgment. The case was laid out for you and described in detail as to where the issues were. I stepped backed, stopped editing, followed every element of the WP:DR process you advocate as the solution, asking for information regarding the user's issues, inviting the individual to accept a WP:Third opinion and WP:RfM, to have him refuse every time. I encourage you to read the email and review the article history to justify that stopping editing and following the WP:DR process to the letter gets the same arbitrary punishment as doing nothing. Alansohn 12:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No: you didn't step back and stop editing and follow DR, because you broke 3RR William M. Connolley 12:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Level-headedness
A little cookie for this act of level-headedness and civil advice. ConDem Talk 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, i noticed you didn't seem to be having such a good time recently. Don't let it get you down, it'll all blow over soon. Anyway, you're welcome! ConDem Talk 17:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I Just wanted to agree with Condem here. You have made numerous and valuable contributions, don't let the recent block drive you away, and don't let the deletionists get you down.  I heartily agree that any school in the real world is more notable than anything from those fictional universes. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for pointing that one out, it's been removed as well. I'm getting god-damnably sick of it from all sides, if we can't have a civil discussion here we'll never get anywhere but to the ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 2

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem user
I have to stop editing for the evening - would you take care of User:Asthenization-Creator for me? Check his edits at Yeshivah of Flatbush and at Derech HaTorah. Thanks, DLand TALK 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Also check DLand's failure to use true objectivity by only deleting my posts yet not fixing the articles of all the similar problems he claims are wrong with mine. It's not like those articles are so long that'd it take more then a few minutes. Asthenization-Creator 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreement in degrees
Alan,

I think that we agree on the larger issues of inclusion of more school information. I'm sorry that we have crossed swords at notability. I'd like to explain myself a bit, aside from being overly blunt.

I have become involved with the permutations of notability because I have seen them used to often to defeat good articles at AfD. When we develop an overly complex infrastructure, we run the risk of misinterpretations and conflicts among the various branches. Sometimes it is just as simple as people not reading long blocks of text.

Do you participate at AfD? It amazes me how many people come there to "vote" based on their unsupportable interpretations of guidelines.

I look forward to healing this rift between us.

Cheers!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 21:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerritsen Beach, Brooklyn
Alansohn, I noticed you going back and forth on the Gerritsen Beach article with user user:24.185.52.98. That IP has been removing sourced material for awhile on this article. Is there anything that can be done?

Re:Articles for deletion/James Curcio
Restored and moved to User:Alansohn/James Curcio. Hopefully I've done it ok, but I'm a bit out of practice ;) Petros471 13:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Newark Airport Interchange
I'm fully willing to accept whatever the closing admin at the AfD decides. If it's deleted, great (IMHO). If not, I'll move it to something like Interchange at Newark Airport (since if NAI is a proper noun, it's not clear whether it's Turnpike Exit 14 or I-78 Exit 57-58), and gladly help in the cleanup.

Regarding your recent edit to the page, good idea to provide a secondary source given the most recent delete vote on the AFD. The problem with that is the sentence immediately after it, which I've now tagged as OR. If the interchange opened in 1952, then I-78 can't be the main route through it, since it didn't open through the area until the 70s. -- NORTH talk 00:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you that there are more important things to worry about. That's why I stopped the same time you did.  I get that you don't understand my vehemence; for whatever reason, we often disagree, but still manage to work well together most of the time.
 * Like I said, I'm not going to bother putting too much work on the article until after the AfD closes. If it's kept, I'll gladly help in the rewrite, which must clarify that the interchange (as we're referring to it) includes both the interchange it was originally referring to and NJTP Exit 14.
 * While I couldn't say for sure without looking at a historical map or the like, I know that US 1/9 was on its current alignment near the airport in 1952, so that portion of Exit 14 was probably what opened on that date. -- NORTH talk 06:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can see on (1967) what existed before I-78 was built. Since the Turnpike, including this interchange, opened in 1951, and the Newark Bay Extension opened in 1956, for five years it was a short connecting road between US 1/9 and the Turnpike, apparently including access to the airport's main entrance at the time. --NE2 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with my edits. I was hoping I wasn't doing anything too controversial by removing that section.

But do you see now (not agree with, but understand) what I was saying when I said that the material can be adequately covered on the individual route articles? All that's left is some measley sentences that I could count on my fingers. The paragraph that you've added in about the opening date and such can go in the history section of New Jersey Turnpike. The first few sentences of the second paragraph can go on Interstate 78 in New Jersey. The other articles just need a sentence stating that there's a complex interchange by the airport that intersects these other routes.

What is there in this article worth keeping that isn't better put somewhere else? -- NORTH talk 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But not all the information needs to be in each of the articles. In the NJTP article, there's no need to mention that US 22 and NJ 21 end two miles away.  The opening of NJTP Exit 14 in 1952 isn't important to any of the articles except the Turnpike, and maybe US 1/9.  Nothing would need to be "synchronized".  Like I said, I don't expect you to agree with me, I'm just thinking that maybe now it's a little easier to understand where I'm coming from.  -- NORTH talk 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wyckoff, New Jersey and USCensusPop
I don't know if "unsourced" is accurate, but the question is legitimate. Is Wyckoff a separate municipality from Franklin Township, or is it a new name for a township that has existed previously. The source I have uses "replaced" to describe Wyckoff succeeding Franklin Township, but on the same page states that Woodcliff Lake "replaced" Woodcliff in 1910. Any thoughts. At a minimum, I would say retain the 1920 data for Wyckoff and note that it was as Franklin Township. I've made it through all of Atlantic and Bergen counties so far with USCensuspop. Alansohn 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Part of the problem is that in 1920, Franklin Township also included the current territory of Franklin Lakes, which is not small. If there was no territory change, I would say keep it.  Since there was a territory change, and there is no specification as to how the number was reached, I say it should not be listed.  Also, unless I am mistaken, the source that is being used lists 1930-1990 population levels.  I'm not sure where this 1920 number comes from, and it conflicts with the data from here  (article showed 1071, chart shows 1288).  Note that I don't fully trust this PDF for older data.  It shows records for years that municipalities did not exist yet.  It is not clear how this is tabulated.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are issues with a number of municipalities that came into existence in the 20th century, especially Paramus, New Jersey (from Midland Township, now Rochelle Park, New Jersey) and Mahwah, New Jersey) where these quirks exist. The USCensuspop has a footnote function which has already been used in county data, when chunks were broken off to new counties. The underlying question is where did both sources get their data from at the Census Bureau? I've never been able to find that or see if they explain municipality changes in any meaningful way. Alansohn 20:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the county data, it was clear that it was based upon the county borders at the time of the census. Likewise for the 1930-1990 municipal data.  We should use the footnote feature in those cases.  For the Bergen County 1900-1920 data, that is not clear.  IMO that data should only be included if there was no significant teritory change between that census year and 1930.  Agreed, it would be good to go back to the Census bureau as the primary source, but I don't know where to get that historical data.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you wrote a comprehensive article at Kirkbie Kendal School... that obsoletes the AFD. That's the best thing you could have done if you were keen on keeping without merge, so good job. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 16:39Z 

New Jersey Route 82
Thanks for following up on me and fixing things like disambiguation and the like. I always think I know which place names need to be disambiguated, and I'm always wrong. -- NORTH talk 08:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then. The AfD finally closed.  Now what? -- NORTH talk 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you object to a move to interchange at Newark Airport now that the AfD is closed? -- NORTH talk 02:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've explained before, I don't see what those sources show. I think the term "Newark Airport Interchange" came from the antequated system (still prevalent in Pennsylvania, and to a lesser extent on the New York Thruway) of naming turnpike interchanges in the northeast.  That's among the reasons I think they're talking about solely Exit 14.
 * If we turn it into a common noun rather than a proper noun, it magically loses its neologisminess. Only I could create a neologism when talking about neologisms. It shouldn't make a difference whether we call it Newark Airport interchange, interchange at Newark Airport, confluence near Newark Airport, place where a whole bunch of roads come together that's reasonably close to Newark Airport, etc.  IMHO, "interchange at Newark Airport" is grammatically cleanest. -- NORTH talk 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Better yet would be something that distinguishes it from...
 * Where the airport entrance ramps junction with US 1/9
 * The junction between US 1/9 and NJ 81
 * New Jersey Turnpike Exit 13A
 * to a lesser extent, Exit 142 on the Parkway
 * all of which are either (a) also interchanges near Newark Airport, or (b) in the case of the last one, could also conceivably be called "Newark Airport Interchange". -- NORTH talk 03:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thinking as I go, hence the three separate posts.
 * Perhaps an option we haven't thought of is I-78/US 1/9 confluence – although we obviously need to tweak the punctuation. Reason being, (1) it distinguishes it from those other interchanges I mentioned, (2) more accurately describes it as a complex of several interchanges, and (3) despite the name, it does include NJTP Exit 14, since traffic coming from I-78 on the Newark Bay Extension exits at Exit 14 to get onto US 1/9... -- NORTH talk 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Marlboro Township School District
I'm not sure why you moved it, but the article located at Marlboro Public Schools should definitely be located at Marlboro Township School District. -aido2002 01:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can assure you, as a student in the district, it is 99.9% of the time called Marlboro Township School District. aido2002 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want a consensus, then we must discuss. I moved the page because you did not reply to me. aido2002 16:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

USCensusPop in New Jersey
I had started going through by county and adding details, I will finish Camden County in the next few minutes. I see you're going through Passaic. Do you want to divvy up the rest? Alansohn 22:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Lets work from opposite ends and meet in the middle.  I think you are going down the counties alphabetically.  I'll go up from Warren.  BTW, already got Hudson and the top 31 municipalities at List of municipalities in New Jersey (by population).  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have we officially met in the middle yet? Alansohn 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think so. Only thing left is the CDPs that are not on that list.  For those, I only have 1990 and 2000 data from the Census Bureau FactFinder.  --ChrisRuvolo (t) 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 20:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey! I just wanted to say thanks for all your work on Atlantic City High School. I really appreciate it! Amphytrite 01:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Anomebot2 data sources
Following your suggestion, I have now started source-coding the User:The Anomebot2 auto-generated geodata tags, and documented the format on the WikiProject Geographical coordinates page. -- The Anome 11:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Harsh warning
This seems a little harsh for a first, minor offense, don't you think? 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

1850-1920 US Census Stats
Right here. I'm also able to get 1790's and 1820's, but I can't set up the table to put in "N/A"'s or something similar in the missing ones. Basically, you click on the year you want, and click the top PDF/ZIP file. Then, just find the correct sheet, be it NJ only or a group of states' stats that contains NJ. They list all the counties and municipalities, but I've just printed out the Salem section right now until I get more time. Lemme know if you need more help finding them. EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it looks like year-to-year, and it's pretty much eyeballing where it's at; since these were (obviously) before the age of computers, they were never typed into Acrobat format and they're just read by Reader as pics, so the Find tool doesn't work. If you need the pages I printed out for Salem Co, lemme know and I can fax them to you.  Otherwise, good luck finding what you're looking for.  It's time-consuming, I know, but at least it's for the good of the project....  (Just keep telling yourself that, Jimbo; eventually, you'll believe it...)  EaglesFanInTampa (formerly Jimbo) 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

747 Gambit
Hi Alansohn. Thank you for your support on the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Unfortunately the 2 editors who want it deleted are continuing to edit it to make it worse. I'd revert them but they are threatening me with a 3RR block. I have also suggested an addition to the etiqutte part of WP:AFD on the talk page on which you might want to comment. NBeale 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alansohn. Thanks for the question about my "sudden interest" in the 747. It is not in fact sudden at all, as I have taken the same position consistently since the first AfD debate last November. My position is stated clearly on the article's talk page. In a rather scattered manner, perhaps, so I will try and summarise here: That's all! No hidden agenda, no vendetta. In contrast to another editor, who is refusing to engage in meaningful debate, trying to bully/bulldoze his way through the opinions of others, and scattering personal attacks about his fellow-editors, based on unwarranted assumptions about their motives, in numerous inappropriate plaeces (the AfD debate, others people's talk pages, etc). Snalwibma 08:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The article is named for the "ultimate 747 gambit", and that is therefore the topic of the article. As such, there are a few brief mentions in Dawkins' book The God Delusion, plus a handful of comments from others in reviews etc.
 * 2) I believe that the phrase/metaphor/analogy/whatever-it-is has not yet achieved sufficient notability or life of its own (like, e.g. "survival of the fittest" or "the selfish gene"), and is best handled in passing in the article on the book. I am quite open to be proved wrong on this, and if the phrase itself (or the specific notion of the 747) is in fact notable enough, fine, let's have an article about it.
 * 3) But it is not acceptable, within this article, to use Dawkins' phrase as a jumping-off point for a lot of philosophising on the wider topic (improbability of god, or however it is best expressed) that the phrase leads people to think about. To do this is to move so far from the actual topic that the article is no longer about what it claims to be about.
 * 4) Furthermore, it is unacceptable to use the words of critics who seem to despise Dawkins' idea as a means of presenting what purports to be a summary of Dawkins' argument. That argument (such as it is, and it is indeed fairly meagre in philosophical terms) must be presented in Dawkins' own words. Then the article can move on to the responses of critics and others.
 * 5) One editor seems determined to push his own view, and not to engage in discussion on what is best for wikipedia in handling the 747 concept. As he is developing the article, it is moving further and further from (a) the actual 747 idea and (b) a fair and unbiased discussion of Dawkins' proposition. In fact (OK, this is my opinion, but it seems inescapable) the phrase is being used as a hook (a straw man?) on which to hang a lot of one-sided philosophy.
 * 6) The addition of all this material is being used as a means of dressing up the article amd padding it out to the point where that editor can say "Look at all this material - there is far too much here to delete". In doing this he is glossing over the fact that most of the material used to justify keeping the article is not relevant.
 * 7) In summary, either there is enough notability and material to justify a standalone article or there isn't. If there is, then let the article stand but confine it to the actual topic in question. If there isn't, then it is better (for the moment) as a redirect.

Re;White Horse Pike
To be honest, no, I can't find anything. The closest I've come thus far is a book available on amazon.com from the Images of America series. They probably are deserving of articles, and there must be some information somewhere on where these names came from; I just cant find it yet. You may want to try phillyroads.com, but I doubt it. -- NORTH talk 01:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * A search for White Horse Turnpike gives some results: Nothing for the Black Horse though. The earliest New York Times result for that one is from 1924; maybe it was named because it paralleled the older route. --NE2 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gambit
I appreciate your good faith and am honestly not trying to protect my "guru" as NBeale puts it. The problem I have with the article is that under its current title it can only discuss the phrase that Dawkins used. To avoid misrepresenting Dawkins we must present the argument in his own words. We can then ONLY use sources that discuss the phrase directly, ie an analysis of that phrase by particular philosopher. In doing this we must not string together lots of bits of arguments as this becomes WP:OR. We also have to be careful to balance criticism from various sources and views. Currently the vast majority of reviews are either from highly critical writers or mention the phrase only obliquely and belong in The God Delusion article. Because of the restrictive nature of the title balance is very difficult.

It is clear from the sources that NBeale uses that he would like to see an article that describes and discusses the general philosophy of the idea of which the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is one example. For this a new article title would be needed (or maybe inclusion in one of the Existence of God type articles that already exist). He could then use the examples of the debate phrased by particular philosophers (although it is still OR to string together bits of arguments) and use the "gambit" as an example of how it has been applied.

Truth be told, the article as it now stand looks like a classic hatchet job. It's a phrase (a minor part of the book) that has been highlighted out of context as something that apologists find easy to argue against. It's not even presented in Dawkins own words and NBeale is using all the negative reviews he can find (at great length) that because of undue weight concerns he is not allowed to place in The God Delusion article. That is the classic definition of a POV fork - an article created purely to allow critical material to be hung off it.

I have no problem with expanding this strand of philiosphical debate but what matters is how and where it is done. I found this article by accident, didn't like what I saw and said why on the talk page. Discussions would have stayed there if it had not been for the bullying and character asasination I have been subjected to by NBeale. No doubt he's used this technique on others and found that it is effective in scaring them off but unfortunately I now cannot trust him to do a balanced and reasonable job so will hang around and call in outside help where necessary (and by that I mean an article RfC) to ensure that we don't hit WP:BLP problems by attributing to Dawkins things that he didn't actually say. Sophia 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Christian
Hey, the fact is. The article was not of much value in its prior form, I was not trying to do anything sneaky. (I really wasn't. Even if it seems that I was.) I am sorry for any annoyance I have casued you. As I pointed out before and AFD can be a great way to jump-start an article. I have nothing against that school as a whole. I am not from Lubbock and I am a Christian. Anyway, I am sorry again and I hope that I have not left you with a bad taste in your mouth.



has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--MJHankel 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:NJSCR
Oh, I know, my edit summary was worded poorly. It's just that someone made a comment (not directed towards NJ specifically), and even before then I'd thought it was high time to get rid of them.

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the project status. We're so close. Once I finish some other tasks (God knows when that will be), I'll put up a to-do/checklist for a final runthrough to see what tweaks still need to be done. -- NORTH talk 17:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean in person? Not a bad idea, save for the fact that I live in Bellingham, Washington.  (Raised in Marlboro Township, lived on County Route 3, hence my interest.)
 * Speaking of that article, you never responded to any of my ideas for alternate names. Here's another one.  What if we expanded its scope and called it simply Roads at Newark Airport or Road transportation to Newark Airport? -- NORTH talk 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Alan, sorry for giving you extra things to clean up. I was unaware of the whole fair use issue regarding using the GSP/ACE/NJTP icons in my infoboxes (I figured it would be more eye-catching with the icons on there). Ah well. --Dbm11085 02:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Sartorial Choices
I'm confused about the policy are implementing here. Is the principle's pink suit non-notable? A pink-suited award-winning principle is pretty unusual (and hence notable?). The statement seems to be well supported. Further, his choice of tie here Dr. Barry Purvis of CASHS named state High School Principal of the Year, seems to indicate a certain pattern of behavior. Tbjablin 14:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

List of historical Camden County, New Jersey municipalities
I'd work on cleaning up List of historical Camden County, New Jersey municipalities but I don't understand what it's trying to say. If it's a tree then what does it mean if an entry is a child of another entry? (Also, what is the source for the data?) RJFJR 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source of data on this? If so we can replace the incomprehensible current article with one we can under stand.  I'll do the rewrite if you can tell me where to get the data. (By the way, it suvived AFD). RJFJR 13:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Reconsider vote for Dr.S. Hussain Zaheer Memorial High School
Sorry not to reply before now - I've been moving house and only just now got back online. Anyway, I imagine it's all sorted now. BTLizard 17:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment

 * Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
 * Articles_for_deletion
 * Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot
 * No_personal_attacks

Decisions can change and opinions can differ, sometimes you must accept that other editors will not agree on your definition of notability. Looks like it will get through now. Xarr 08:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A request for opinion
Alansohn, I've also queried User:Noroton on this: I've put in a query for discussion at the talk page for WP:N in regards to the notability of schools. Given circumstances, perhaps you, too, would like to weigh in on this? --Dennisthe2 19:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NJSCR Newsletter #3
-- NORTH talk 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but there seems to be this odd need in newsletters (that I'm guilty of mimicking) to name a member of the month. And you were probably the most deserving out of anyone, if only by a bit. -- NORTH talk 03:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

MfD pending
Hello. I saw this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alansohn/B. H. Carroll Theological Institute listed and am assuming that you meant to do something with the article, but just forgot about it. I've nowiki'ed it per WP:POVFORK, but you may wish to either take some further action or comment at the MfD. Regards. --After Midnight 0001 18:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)