Jump to content

User talk:Alansohn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charliedylan (talk | contribs) at 20:17, 19 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Message for blanking page

Hi I am author of Bhaktaraj Maharaj. I wanted to have speedy deletion of this article. And as I am the substantial contributor of this article I blanked the page to initiate the Speedy deletion. following is the policy that i followed.

"Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the page prior to the move.) If the author blanks the page (outside user space), this can be taken as a deletion request. "

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

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

Message ?

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

Vandalism on QASMT page

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

Hey There

I thought my edit was very relevant and constructive. How did an article about Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 go without mentioning the amount of ass that it kicked relative to all other forms of electronic entertainment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.211.98 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and verifiable sources are needed to support ass-kicking levels. Alansohn (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page corrected

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

Marisella

I added on an article that is pertinent to Pakistani Americans - their identity evolution. How does that constitute vandalism or an unhelpful link? Since when did you become an expert on the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisella (talk • contribs)

See reply on user talk page. Alansohn (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tinyme.cksr

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

tinyme.cksr

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

Jay Cutler

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

Reverting everything i add?

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

Replied elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kondratuk

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

No further action needed. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo's last judgment

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

No further action. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

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

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

No further action. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the profane vandalism made to my userpage!

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

DYK for Joseph Kahn (shipping executive)

Number 298 (185 create/expand - 113 nominations)

Updated DYK query On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Kahn (shipping executive), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the notification. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Howard Pack

Number 299 (186 create/expand - 113 nominations)

Updated DYK query On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Howard Pack, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the notification. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Star

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



Jordan Wu

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

question

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

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Martyn_Godfrey

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

information on admins and edits

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


Bubble tea!

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

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

Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy the bubble tea!

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

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

Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Series Overview

Season Episodes Season Premiere Season Finale
1 8 April 10, 2007 May 14, 2007
2 12 October 15, 2007 December 17, 2007
3 31 January 7, 2008 June 16, 2008
4 June 23, 2008
Unsure of what response is needed. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

???

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

I enjoy the job I have already. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble tea!

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

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

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

Thanks. Alansohn (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For expansion

Thank you

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

Johnny Mercer

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

Brian Jarod Smart

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

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

Yom HaShoah

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

Dan Pagis – Written In Pencil in the Sealed Railway Car

...כאן במשלוח הזה

here in this carload

אני חוה

i am eve

עם הבל בני...

with abel my son

אם תראו את בני קין,

if you see my other son

בן אדם,

cain son of man

תגידו לו שאני...

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

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

Data mining

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

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

why are you reverting changes?

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

Thank you

Thanks a bunch for reverting that vandalism on my userpage!

Oldlaptop321 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

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

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

DYK for Michael Stern (journalist)

Number 447 (320 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On April 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael Stern (journalist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

Why are you breaking what I fix?

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

I had to read this threat several times before coming to the conclusion that you are actually serious about this claim. Can you point to any policy under which notifying the individuals directly affected by a proposed deletion constitutes what you allege to be "canvassing"? How else would they know about it? Alansohn (talk) 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:CANVASS before and I have read it again. While I do understand a desire to exclude individuals affected from participating in a CfD that deletes a category they have chosen to use, the messages were sent to all of the users affected without picking and choosing, was worded in a clearly neutral tone, was not made selectively to one side once in partisan fashion it turns out that there will be another related category under discussion and this was done with complete transparency. I'm not sure why only those individuals who regularly participate at CfD should have been the only individuals to be able to participate here. If you have an explanation, please do so, before pursuing further action to address this blatant harassment. Alansohn (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a note here that explains why we shouldn't notify individual users of a category. Additionally I'll note that even offering to notify the users in the other category of the opposite view, the damage is already done. First of all, this opposite group probably would have addionally had a propensity to support keeping becuase it appeared both categories were going to be under discussion at that time. Secondly, it's no secret the more people you bring in to a discussion, the more likely it will end in no consensus, which we all know defaults to keep. My assumption of good faith makes me hope this wasn't the intent you had when you notified these users, and perhaps actually did believe you were being helpful by notifying them, but I hope my note on your talk page explains why such notification does not result in a community consensus, but rather just a consensus of people who are in the category (plus the few people who happen accross the Cfd normally, which is unlikely to be a factor when so many people in the category are notified). VegaDark (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will tell both of you that I disagree wholeheartedly with the unjustified block threat and with the underlying concern that daring to notify those affected is a negative. CfD is a kangaroo court, where .001% of Wikipedia users, maybe 20 editors in total, cast over 90% of the votes; This is a small fraction of the people who participate at AfD, whose participants are far more representative of the community as a whole, and who are notified on a far more systematic basis about planned deletions. I am reminded of public notices printed in my newspaper, which are printed on endless pages of microscopic print, which I describe as notifying the public about something you never want them to find out about. Where our own fellow Wikipedia users are directly affected, an approach that deliberately tries to hide reality, with a nominator making no apparent effort to contact the affected parties, should offend anyone's sensibilities. What's that saying about mushrooms? Having the CfD regulars pick and choose which categories stay and which are deleted on what amounts to an arbitrary ILIKEIT / IHATEIT basis helps ensure that the output of CfD in no form reflects community consensus. Your approach, and Jc37's block threat made to attempt to enforce it, only perpetuate the problem. Again, I will only refrain from this so-called "canvassing" because there appears to be no effort to support the existence of a level playing field. Alansohn (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you were correct that CFD regulars do not adequately convey community consensus (which is really an issue with the whole CfD process), you can't possibly argue that a CfD of a user category in which every user in the category has been individually notified is a better gauge of community consensus than if only the CfD regulars saw it. The mere fact that the CfD regulars are generally disinterested in a category implies impartiallity in their decision making, unlike when notifying a group of people who common sense dictates have a predisposition to support keeping. VegaDark (talk) 03:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admire your image of a sagacious group of CfD participants dispassionately weighing the pros and cons of each category, fairly and consistently applying a set of rules established by the community at large in impartial fashion so as to reflect the views of all Wikipedians, which is a rosy vision that I once too shared, though it could have been what a purple monkey told me while I was on an acid trip. What actually happens at the CfD kanagaroo court is a tiny group of editors who impose their own preconceived notion of what categories should be, applying rules and ignoring consensus in arbitrary fashion, where incivility roams free, unchecked by uninterested admins. I just took a look at CfD and saw one editor cast 13 votes, consisting of 12 deletes and a rename in the span of several minutes. Basically, the default result of any CfD where deletion is considered as an option is delete. Even multiple reliable and verifiable sources establishing "definingness" are routinely ignored when convenient. I look at a lot of articles using Huggle, and if I see an AfD notice on the top of an article, even one I've never seen before, I will often participate. We have no problem at AfD with editors participating, and quite often nominators will have the decency to notify all individuals who have edited the article up for discussion, without ever seeing an editor providing this notification hit with a threat to be blocked for "canvassing", even though common sense dictates that people who edit an article have a predisposition to support keeping that article. I've added tens of thousands of categories to articles, but I never navigate using them; Folks visiting Wikipedia do, and that's what they're designed for. The problem is that few of the people who might have a legitimate interest in the future of a category ever read them on a regular basis. The solution of putting every category on a watchlist is as impractical as it is unrealistic. If we selected a dozen editors at random to decide on each CfD, we would get community consensus. What we have now, where a deliberate effort is made to ensure that those who best understand a category are purposefully excluded, only perpetuates a conflict of interest from those at CfD who would prefer that all others were treated like mushrooms -- kept in the dark with excrement piled on top for good measure -- allowing categories to be kept at whim. If we can safely notify participants who have edited an article about an AfD and have reasoned community participation, we have a more desperate need to do so at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear about this, I have nothing against Alansohn directing me to the deletion page. I would never have found out about this otherwise. Antivenin 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this constituted inappropriate "canvassing." A page was going to be deleted, and this user contacted those affected by it (and even offered to contact those affected by the deletion of the sister page). The message was neutral in nature. I don't think that this user did anything wrong, and the suggestion that the discussion from certain editors should be ignored because we received a message on our talk pages from him is outrageous. Nutiketaiel (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it wrong to inform people that a category in which their userpage sits is subject to a deletion process, and correct and laudable to delete such a category without any prior warning to its occupants? Goodness. (And there are those who believe there is a deletionist tendency at cfd.) There is not even a notification on the talk pages of the userboxes which populate this category (namely User:Neurolysis/No, User:Promethean/No2, User:Nutiketaiel/NoFlagRev) or on the respective talk-pages of Neurolysis et al (other than Alansohn's note to Nutiketaiel). Even the creator of the category User:Ronhjones has not been notified. Occuli (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a user category would ever get deleted if all the users in it were individually notified? Any category with 5 or more active users would likely at least default to no consensus. This is because someone in a user category is much, much more likely to support keeping said category than the average user. Since XfDs are supposed to have an impartial mix of generally disinterested users to review discussions, this quite obviously not true when everyone in the category is notified. You don't get a community consensus, but rather just a consensus of the people in the category, which can generally be assumed is going to be keep. I don't mind a notice on a Wikiproject talk page or even the userbox template talk page about the deletion, and notification to the creator is always fine (I was still considering notifying all the creators of the 8 cats I nominated by the time this was closed, and still am for the remaining 6 where it appears the creator is still in the dark...generally I like to wait a bit in hopes that it is on their watchlist), but notifying every individual user in the category is like notifying every individual user in category Wikipedians who support xyz being on Wikipedia that article xyz is up for deletion. Even worded neutrally, its obvious such a notification is with the knowledge and intent to get more keep supporters. I don't intend on nominating this again for a long time, so I don't think "discounting the editors that were canvassed" will be needed when/if I do, although I can't guarantee someone else won't nom it before then. VegaDark (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the imperative to keep CfD a closed club, where only those who are in the know have an opportunity to make decisions that affect all of Wikipedia. Were this an article, an AfD notice will be seen by any person who reads the article and anyone who has the article on their watchlist. Few experienced editors read their own categories on a regular basis and even fewer have them on a watchlist, other than perhaps its creator. This leads to the unavoidable systemic bias that leads to categories being deleted, almost by default. Were there a Wikiproject to notify, I would have done so. I saw no effort on your part to notify these individuals. Any deletion process where the affected Wikipedia users can be readily identified, notified and given a meaningful opportunity to participate, and this is not done, is completely and utterly worthless, regardless of the merits of the category. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD do we insist that only people who spend most of their time at CfD and the stray individual who happens to see the CfD be given the opportunity to discuss deletion, while all else are effectively kept in the dark. I have taken no stance for or against flagged revisions, and I'm not even sure I understand the issue, even after reading the proposals. But I do know that a deliberate failure to notify fellow Wikipedians who are directly affected by a decision made exclusively by the CfD regulars is fundamentally unacceptable; there is no such thing as "community consensus" at CfD, when about a dozen editors out of hundreds of thousands cast about 90% of the votes. Despite my plain and simple intentions to notify people affected by the proposed deletion in the absence on your part to do so about a userbox I don't and won't use (I believe I have one userbox on my user page), I won't do any further alleged "canvassing", given what appears to me to be the clear opposition to the existence of a level playing field. Alansohn (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(I've attempted to unify the discussion here (to prevent the need to copy-paste in several locations), except for one editor, who I had already responded to. This is merely a placeholder comment. I'll respond more in a bit.) - jc37 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should note that this post is in the middle of other posts (there are posts prior to this, below this), so this is a reminder for anyone else trying to follow this discussion : Please check timestamps/edit history, if you wish to discern the flow/context of the discussion.
That said, I think I'm going to post my comments under a new header for some sense of clarity. - jc37 02:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • In defense of Alansohn, WP:CANVASS says "To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions." While Alansohn did indeed notify a large number of editors, the message was neutral in its nature. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was very careful not to miss anyone, and have any editor claim that they had been excluded. I had no way to be selective, as there seemed to be no selection criteria. The message was worded as neutrally as possible, simply stating that the matter was under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not commented on any of these CfDs yet despite being aware of them thanks to my watch list (I was not canvassed). Though I suppose I should do given I was the creator of the support category. I did so purely because there was an oppose one, it just seemed fair, and I have not received any direct complaints nor seen any evidence of it causing offence or it being divisive. I can't say I have not being critical of your (Alansohn) actions in the past, but I have to say this issue have been entirely overblown in my opinion and I do not see anything hugely wrong in your actions. I have always been told that debates are decided by the arguments not by the numbers, and I will have many to make if this goes for renomination. I will also be requesting that a completely impartial admin closes the discussion (i.e. one that has not registered a view on the issue, has not had any significant involvement in previous CfDs for that category). Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

To start with, a note (just a note, not a warning) - I debated with myself whether to address Alan's Arbcom prohibition concerning assuming good faith of others, or not. And decided that it's the 800# gorilla in the room, and is therefore "there" whether noted or not.
So for those watching, who may be perhaps surprised at the tone and tenor of Alan's comments: Alan has a history of not presuming good faith of others. It's been discussed and explained elsewhere (by him and others), including arbcom. I note it mainly due to the tone and tenor of Alan's comments here. I'm aware of this, and as such, these days, I tend to try to disregard those comments which I (or others) may find to be polemic or offensive. (That said, I took some time to read through his discussion posts of the last few months, and it's starting to appear that he may be again wearing out the community's patience.) However, that's only tangentally related to this discussion, and I think we can leave that for a discussion for another day. And to re-affirm: noting his prohibition is just that: merely a note, and in no way part of the warning concerning his recent inappropriate canvassing actions.
So anyway, let me clarify:
For those of you who in good faith, may be unaware, or perhaps are not understanding the issue, let me try to clarify:
The over-riding rule for XfD is: If you wish to know that a particular page may be under discussion, keep watch on the page.
To determine how long this rule has been in effect, I went back to WP:SPAM, where WP:CANVASS was eventually split from. (It was decided that the two were different, and so to reduce confusion they should be on separate pages.) A section on "internal spamming" was added to that page in 2004.
Here's a quote from the edit history of WP:SPAM: "Don't attempt to stack votes by encouraging people to come participate in a discussion whom you already know have a certain point of view."
This prohibition is further elaborated on currently at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking.
And there is a long history of immediately blocking editors who use user categories to canvass participants for an XfD discussion (or any other consensual discussion, for that matter), in order to prevent disruption of the consensus process.
And so Alan's action violated both long standing community prohibitions.
(There also appears to be a possibility that he's attempting to game the system, as noted by VegaDark, but I think we should table that for the moment, since the main disruption is more important to deal with right now.)
As an aside, I didn't block immediately, because Alan has shown in the past to be responsive to warnings, in that he tends to stop the directly disruptive action. (How he verbally responds is a whole other thing, but I've already addressed that above.) So I didn't think an immediate block was necessary in this case.
However, if he, especially now having been warned, engages in inappropriate canvassing of any type, including that outlined above, he may be immediately blocked by any admin.
And further, if it's determined that he's attempting to cause disruption through gaming the system, then obviously a warning or a block, at the admin's discretion, would likely be appropriate.
I hope this clarifies.
As an aside, I would like to thank everyone who showed their good faith in their comments here (User:Abd in particular).
That said, I think the best next course of action at this point would be to leave Alan alone about this, and allow him to return to editing. My understanding has been that he does good work in other areas of Wikipedia, and I'd like to WP:AGF, and suggest we try to be supportive of this editor, rather than further any possible drama.
If anyone has further questions concerning the policies/guidelines involved, or whatever, please feel free to ask.
And, as I noted above, I welcome comment on this warning by any other admin, and of course, WP:DR is still an option if that is wished. - jc37 02:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the village pump might be a better and faster way to get a sense of consensus. I personally don't see how notifying all users/contributors of something in a neutral way is a problem. So while not an admin, I just don't see a violation of WP:CANVAS. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that in most cases, dropping a neutral note to the Village Pump, would likely have been fine.
    For your other comments, please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking (as I noted above). It clearly shows that this was inappropriate. - jc37 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Holst

Hi Alansohn

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

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

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

Request

I'm hoping you will see this, and I'm anticipating that you will—but just in case you don't for some reason, I want to make sure that this request has been brought to your attention again: [1]. Thanks. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie

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

being accused of vanalism is a serious charge especially when my statements are true

i may be unfamiliar with your exact process of posting as i stated but vandal i am not. the things i spoke about couldn't be denied under oath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sing51074 (talk • contribs)

two articles on si.com derek jeter interviewed

he denied knowing minka. and had to do a second interview in which he stated ther interviewer had to listen to what he said. the interviewer accused him of lying about even knowing minka. he still never acknowledge her as his girlfriend the second time around.si.com 2008,2009:o) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sing51074 (talk • contribs)

Editing Barnstar

100,000 Edits
I, Bugboy52.4, award you for reaching 100,000 edits according to the List of Wikipedians by number of edits generated 11:45 pm, 24 February 2009. Keep up the good work!________________________________________________________________


Music of Zimbabwe

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

[edit] December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Music of Zimbabwe has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea how you thought I edited page on music of Zimbabwe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.53.159 (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have only been two edits from this IP: the vandalism and this message. There is the possibility that someone else uses this same IP address, other than you, who vandalized the article in question. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Armenia spam

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

Haven't I seen you before?

We must stop meeting like this[2] ;-) Yintaɳ  20:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Whitelaw Reid (journalist)

Number 448 (321 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On April 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Whitelaw Reid (journalist), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Punjab (India)

Hi Alansohn,
Earlier today you warned a IP, 222.152.26.235 (talk · contribs), about vandalism on Punjab_(India)#Demographics. For some reason the IP went to my talk page (no clue why). Anyways, the numbers had been vandalized before and the IP was actually trying to correct them. The first sentence of the Demographics section says Sikhism is the most practiced faith in Punjab, and roughly 60% of the population belongs to the Sikh faith. Before, the article said 10.90%, because it had been vandalized earlier. I've fixed the numbers now, but in the future, do a quick check in the article, or its history, to see if an IP is catching on to previous vandalism. Shubinator (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had misread the sources and history, and I agree that the edit was valid. I will reflect your correction. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckleball pitcher DrV

Hello Alansohn, I understand your frustration, but I suggest you refactor your comments to be a bit less accusatory. I'm not a CfD person, but I too have found that CfD (and IfD) tend to be a bit out-of-sink with the rest of XfD. That said, there are certainly less "ranty" ways to make the same arguments and anything perceived as ranting often results in people !voting the other way just to counter the rants (so people don't get rewarded for it I've assumed). Just friendly advice, take it or ignore it as you wish. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feelings are strong on all sides, and the task of trying to get CfD back in some semblance of synch with the rest of Wikipedia has left me quite frustrated. While I am quite gratified that all of the DRV participants from outside CfD have recognized that the close was out-of-process, I do agree that the rants and counter-rants may only discourage further participation from those who could help put an end to the CfD problem. Thanks for your comments, I will do my best to reflect them in future responses. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

for the welcome

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

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

April 2009 block #2

Alansohn, I've blocked you for 55 hours for your continued violation of your arbitration-imposed editing restrictions. Continued incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and personal attacks will not be tolerated during your time under this restriction. In particular, this comment has more of the above violations than I really care to enumerate. But to summarise somewhat, you (1) stated that an editor willingly "spit in the face" of consensus, which constitutes an ad hominem attack and an assumption of bad faith; (2) made a generalisation that certain editors "come" from the "backwater of CfD" and are therefore somehow unfamiliar with or antagonistic to the "rest" of WP, which constitutes an ad hominem attack; (3) suggested that some administrators who work at closing CfD discussions are being "disruptive", thus constituting an ad hominem attack and/or assuming bad faith; (4) suggested that others have used personal attacks against you, thus constituting an ad hominem attack; (5) suggested that administrators have made "knowingly false misrepresentations of policy to abuse process", thus constituting an ad hominem attack and an assumption of bad faith. I also note that this comment was made after a relatively pointed warning from User:Jc37. I'm not sure if your comments were an attempt to "test" his warning or what, but it does make your violation all the more unacceptable. There are other problematic comments, both within the comment linked to and within other comments. I encourage you to use the time away from WP to consider how to avoid violating your editing restrictions in the future. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Funny, I didn't even know about the first block. It was only after seeing your heading that I scrolled through and found it. Sorry, I missed it. That an admin who persistently ignores the grossest incivility from his buddy User:Otto4711 while using repeated blocks for imagined thought crimes, only provides further evidence that the process is fundamentally failing, and that the problem of admins applying Wikipedia policy arbitrarily in inconsistent fashion, the same problem we chronically see at CfD, is very much alive and well. Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users", yet this appears solely intended to be as punitive as possible. I will have ample time to work on preparing to pursue administrative measures to address the clearest possible misconduct on your part in applying a block on multiple occasions, despite rather clear violations of conflict of interest with the apparent WP:POINT-violating intention of disrupting Wikipedia by attempting to silencing an opponent who has successfully exposed the deep-seated problems at CfD. There have been a few dozen articles I hadn't gotten around to creating, and I'll use the time to write those articles; Meanwhile, I will sit back and enjoy, watching how Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 28#Category:Knuckleball pitchers -- in which consensus is clear that the close was in clear violation of Wikipedia policy -- will be a first step towards ending the reign of error at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that important to me what happens in an isolated discussion. I can understand that you are upset, but this is not done to be purely punitive or to silence your opinion or to punish "thought crimes": it was done to silence your personal attacks and blatant assumptions of bad faith, for which you've received multiple warnings (and a block) in recent days. Acting that way in a discussion is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia. What I am ultimately interested in here is getting you to abide by your arbcom-editing restrictions, which state in part: "Should [Alansohn] make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month." This looks like your 5th block overall (6 really, but the one was overturned), so I do wish you'd learn to fly straight. You sound like you are still comparing yourself to how other editors are treated by me. Remember, you are on an editing restriction. Most others are not. I won't respond to any more inflammatory comments you make here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm an an admin, and outsider to this discussion, and Good Olfactory has asked me to take a look at these blocks, and I just wanted to document that I don't see any conflict of interest, and I believe the block was justified. It's probably a good idea, Alansohn, to do as you say, just work on the articles until after this short block and then proceed from there. Your 1-year "sentence" (I guess you could call it) is almost over, and then you will be judged according to the same standards as everyone else. Until then, I'd be very careful, because admins have a lot of discretion under this arbcom remedy, and now have authority to block for up to a month. COGDEN 19:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had suggested to Good Olfactory that he ask another admin, because it was my opinion (and remains my opinion) that the degree of interaction between the two at CfD related items was such that--if it had been me--I would not have blocked, but asked someone else. Whether the block was unjustified is another matter; justified or not, I would not have made it in his shoes. DGG (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I agree fully with DGG that Good Olfactory should not under any circumstances be blocking Alansohn (see eg User_talk:Alansohn/Archive_18#Blocked_for_24_hours and linked cfd discussions, where Alansohn has a point). I say again that Alansohn's remarks are trenchant but so are the remarks of others at cfd. It is frustrating when categories are deleted by editors and closers who seem pre-disposed towards OCAT:SomeUnrelatedNonsense and unable to perceive a defining characteristic unless they possess it themselves. (A category that is kept by some perverse misruling in cfd can be renominated a few months later. A DRV in contrast is a real pain and is the only option for restoring a perversely deleted category.) I would ask Alansohn to count perhaps to 1000 or so before pressing 'Save page' in some circumstances, however provocative, as his absence from cfds plays into the hands of the usual suspects. (Am I alone in finding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes rather bizarre? The subject of the arbcom is R A Norton and yet it is Alansohn who is given the restrictions and Norton is not mentioned in arbcom's conclusions.) Occuli (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for dealing with my troll...

and the cleanup StarM 00:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victims of political repression

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

DYK for Charles Peebler

Number 449 (322 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Peebler, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 11:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pork. The Other White Meat

Number 450 (323 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pork. The Other White Meat, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for writing the article for this notable advertising champaign, and for being willing to work on articles of all types! Your DYK are all over the board. Royalbroil 11:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

DYK for National Pork Board

Number 451 (324 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On April 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article National Pork Board, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 11:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism

Heya, just a quick thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user talk page, much appreciated, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 18:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's a small part of the vandalism I've had to revert. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Benjamin Edwards (stockbroker)

Number 452 (325 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On May 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Edwards (stockbroker), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Hanover

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

DYK for Perry Lafferty

Number 453 (326 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Perry Lafferty, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for David Shaw (writer)

Number 454 (327 create/expand - 127 nominations)

Updated DYK query On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Shaw (writer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

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

You're invited...

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday May 17th, Columbia University area
Last: 03/29/2009
This box: view • talk • edit

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

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

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

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

May 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You undid a guy who was undoing vandalisim. Abce2|Howdy! 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

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

Knukleball pitchers

I restored the category. I don't know what used to be in it or enough about pitchers to repopulate it, but I figure you do. Hopefully most of the edits removing the category link were recent or able to be un-done. Protonk (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Recovery
Only a tenacious knucklehead like you can revive the dead. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been prouder to be called a knucklehead. I have an article that lists the entries that were in the category and will do my best to repopulate it. Thanks all for your efforts. Alansohn (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One question. Would the parent category more accurately be Category:Major League Baseball pitchers? Protonk (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these pitchers are from the Japanese league, so an MLB parent may not be accurate. Alansohn (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Knew there would be a reason. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting vandalism in my userspace a few days back :) Nja247 18:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like helping?

Here are a couple of good ones from the past couple of days:

Bongomatic 07:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poop

Poop!

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

Do you think we should ask an admin about User:165.139.124.133? He has a definite history of vandalism, but I understand WP is wary of blocking IP addresses like this. — NRen2k5(TALK), 20:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All one has to do is look at the IP's talk page to see it littered with warnings, but very few blocks. This IP could be a poster child for eliminating anonymous editing. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. Alansohn (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thx

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

AVI

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

Edit warring on List of British Mark 8 Landing Craft Tank

I have undone this version of the article, because the additions were unsourced (which violates Wikipedia:Verifiability), and were written in the first person (which is discoraged per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#First-person pronouns).

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

I'm a bit unhappy about this

[3] Philip Trueman (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vandalism

I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment of my large edits in Aldo Moro as vandalism. 1. I stated my reason for the deletion on the talk page. The sections I deleted clearly represent a "fringe theory". To summarize, it appears the information alleging that Moro was killed indirectly by the CIA was added by a conspiracy theorist who claims, quote:

At this point, which is well after the terrorism of Gladio has been public acknowledged, the only thing "ludicrous" is the blind acceptance of explanation by government officials who time and time are busted in lies. Frankly, the story about "Red Brigades" is absurd, Aldo Moro was obviously assassinated by the US/UK/NATO. Furthermore, it seems that a reference to Webster Tarpley, who was commission by the Italian government to investigate Aldo Moro's assassination and who determined it be US/UK/NATO, is missing here. This yet another blatant case of Wikipedia disregarding its own NPOV standard for political reasons, covering up acts of treason not only against Italy but also the USA and the UK in the 9/11 and 7/7 articles and many others.

Among its sources are an anti-CIA newsletter, Carlos the Jackal, the world's notorious assassin, and a member of the Red Brigades. The rest of article states in great detail the overwhelming evidence that the Red Brigades killed Moro. Frankly, it was a disgrace. 2. I had already reported the Cluebot's false positive when I reverted its edit. Joker1189 (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for reverting the edit. I know you were only trying to do the right thing, and I probably would have done the same. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Joker1189 (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing the vandalism from my page

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

Revert of a Creators Blank

Hello Alansohn, just a quick message to say that when a page is blanked, please always check the page history to ensure that it is not the creator blanking the page, if it is then the page can simply have {{db-blanked}} placed on it. A edit you made to Greenish Blue reverted a blanking of a page by the page creator, thus please remove your {{uw-blanking#}} warning from User talk:Dger. Also I know this is difficult when using huggle or twinkle, as I use huggle myself, but this is, in my opinion, a serious issue, as it means users are left with warnings they don't deserve, anyway, good work in the recent changes and thanks! SpitfireTally-ho! 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Oreas Comma, thanks SpitfireTally-ho! 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually check previous edits before reverting, but page blanks without any explanation will often appear to be vandalism. Once I saw the first blank, the second one seemed even more certain. Thanks for the catch and for bringing my clear error to my attention. Alansohn (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its no problem, I make little mistakes like this all the time, thank you for taking a postive stance to this. I know you've reverted vandalism on my user page in the past so I am indebted to you, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

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

FYI

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

Censorship of facts

A comment on your censoring my additions to the article "Hungarian discrimination against Roma people": I am representing and writing from a neutral point of view, check some official statistics if you don't believe me. There are several programs aiming at helping find gysies jobs, most of them still refuse to work. Same goes for education. There are UNFULFILLED scholarships reserved for them, they just simply don't want to apply, they don't wish to study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.250.158 (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statements are written as your opinion. If you want to reinsert this information, it must be accompanied by reliable and verifiable sources from books, magazines or newspapers. Without the required sources, it will be removed again. Alansohn (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me?

you have got to be kidding, Drake Bell Dodson? where did Dodson come from? how could you threaten to block me when someone added that nonsense to the page? i'm really confused...this site bothers me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.9.26 (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources show that as his full name. Do you have any sources to the contrary? Alansohn (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:emerecy

hi,i just wanna show my teacher what that do and testing it like i am patroling it sorry for the mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berendale1 (talk • contribs)

Anthony Cappalluci article

I dont understand why you would delete Anthony Cappallucci from the Little Falls page. Do you live there and know he isn't a professional Tanner and won the Competition in Sicily last year? If you deleted my comment thinking my facts were wrong Anthony Capallucci certainly considers himself an italian national, though his homeland is little falls NJ. This competition was recorded by the Gudio-National Directory and can be found online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.65.122 (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on you to provide reliable and verifiable sources to support the claims, from magazines or newspapers. I'd love to see the article that supports the claims made in this edit. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photo

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

Thankyou

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


___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PIZZA MAN PETER,

I was just warning people.

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

DYK Problem

Hello! Your submission 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! s) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eunice Taylor

Updated DYK query On May 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eunice Taylor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please control yourself

please refrain from letting users add unverified information to the mowbray college wiki page

-CakeMace —Preceding unsigned comment added by CakeMace (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

um, help with AFD tag removal?

Can you take a look at this? If you look at the history, it's been reverted several times. Argh. tedder (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

hi i think you helped clean my page Mark Howard (producer). you added italics to "acadie" and "Wrecking ball". ive tried to continue in this fashion exactly with the codes you seem to use but have had no luck. do you think you could tell me how you did this??? thanks alot--Charliedylan (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alansohn&oldid=291017660"