Misplaced Pages

Jeff Behar

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

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

also see:

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

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

He graduated from hillsboro, 1983.

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

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

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

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

DYK for John Montague (baseball)

Number 158

DYK for Richard Kessel

Number 159

New York State Consumer Protection Board

Number 160

DYK for Tim Harkness

Number 161

PROD templates

Thanks for getting those PRODs removed; I cut the third one, from Salt Flat, Texas. I've never met this editor before; do you have any idea why he believes that these places aren't notable? Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I may find out. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Inherent Notability" ??

You seem to be supporting inclusion of articles that lack any notability and, in fact make no claim of notability, much less provide references to support such claims. As defense, you claim "inherent notability." Can you help me understand what "inherent notability" means and how it meets notability requirements? Are there accepted guidelines and policies that support this concept? Is there an objective measure? Is there any form of valuation at all? I'm not interested in personal opinions or essays not accepted by consensus. The guidelines and policies I'm aware of seem to contradict your claim, and I'm hoping you can point me to guidelines and policies I might have overlooked. Thank you. —Danorton (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places, which describes the precedent in substantial numbers of previous AfDs that such places are notable. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Geological Museum

Thank you for rescuing the Egyptian Geological Museum article. Matthew Glennon —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC).

DYK for DuMont Building

Number 162

DYK for Don Ultang

Number 163

DYK for Irvin J. Borowsky

Number 164

DYK for Bob Miller (1957-1974 pitcher)

Number 165

Smile

NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for Bruce Conforth

Number 166

Notice

Miller

Just working through it now. :-) Peanut4 (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Just to let you know I've left some more comments for the GA nomination. Peanut4 (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

NetSupport Manager

I wish I'd been paying more attention to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/NetSupport Manager (2nd nomination) now. The reason I stated advertising as a reason, and I realise now I wasn't clear, is that the guy who wrote the article is the guy who wrote NetSupport Manager. Just curious whether this would have affected your "Keep"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. I've seen articles that did start out as an advertisement, but had the offending text removed, But this one didn't even reach that level. The text is a rather bland description of the product. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Milt Davis

Number 167

DYK for Bob Miller (1953-1962 pitcher)

Number 168

DYK for Egyptian Geological Museum

Number 169

Hi. Thanks for saving that one. I sub stubbed a bunch of Cairo museums a few months back when I was going through an extensive missing list of museums and hadn't got around to expanding them. Any help you can give filling out the others would be much appreciated! Cheers The Bald One 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Hello, Alansohn. Per your conduct here, I have blocked you for 31 hours, pursuant to your editing restrictions. You are, of course, free to dispute this block below using {{unblock|your reason here}}.

Yours, —Animum (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel that is a bad block. I've read through that discussion and the restriction in the arbcom case, and Alasohn has not been uncivil, assumed bad faith, or made personal attacks. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I think you both perhaps should read over the whole talk page and its archives. This is not new, there have indeed been personal attacks, quite a bit of bad faith (to the point of even calling for Kbdank71's desysopping), and to consider his comments "civil" is, at the least, stretching it a bit. - jc37 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Without having read it, the simple act of questioning whether someone should be an admin hardly sounds like a personal attack. 199.125.109.75 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If only I had asked User:Kbdank71 directly about his justifications only for the contested and sourced CfDs that he provided no details for. Perhaps, this all could have been avoided if only Kdbank71 might have realized that providing any explanation for a contested CfD close could avoid problems down the road. If only I had not come to the unfortunate bafflement of seeing seven CfDs all closed by Kbdank71 within a span of a few minutes and seeing all of them, contested or not, being closed with the rubber stamp of "The result of the discussion was: delete". Perhaps the result would have been different if I had not listed all seven CfDs when trying to get additional details from Kbdank71, instead of assuming that he would realize that some of these CfDs (the contested ones, and especially where sources were provided in the CfD) were different from the others. If only I had offered the same documentation showing why I had a good faith issue with the close of Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives instead of hoping that Kdbank71 would provide context on his own and allow him the opportunity to respond to my reasons for questioning the close rather than hope he would reply and explain his actions. If only this had been an AfD, where providing reliable and verifiable sources trumps a claim of WP:OR without question, and not the topsy-turvy CfD world, where providing multiple reliable sources to rebut WP:OR carries no apparent weight and is not worthy of even consideration as an argument to keep a category, this might have ended differently. It's clear that things could have gone differently, and I have learned a valuable lesson from this about how the CfD process operates. I do understand why User:Postdlf prefered to pursue pushing for a block rather than addressing the underlying problems, and User:Jc37, who has been the initiator of a laundry list of CfDs and has been similarly unable to accept reliable sources as a solution to claims of WP:OR, has had to resort to maliciously false personal attacks, most notably a claim that I have been "calling for Kbdank71's desysopping" in complete violation of assuming good faith to rationalize this punitive block. In contrast, I am not the only editor who finds this particular block unjustified. Between this take page and WP:ANI, four editors with whom I have had no prior contact to the best of my knowledge -- User:Erik the Red 2, User:Pete.Hurd, User:Casliber, User:Ned Scott -- have independently agreed that the circumstances in question do not justify a block. If consensus should have any meaning anywhere in Misplaced Pages, it ought to be here. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This request is too long; see WP:GAB. However, I do not need to read it to decline it. First, your restriction reads as follows: "Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked" (emphasis mine). Note that the restriction does not require that your edits "are" indeed uncivil, etc., it is sufficient that one administrator judges them to be so. That condition being met, your block is in accordance with the restriction and is endorsed accordingly. If you find the restriction to be too restrictive, you need to petition the Committee to alter it. Second, I, as an administrator, determine that your subsequent edits (, ) also violate said restriction because they, at least, assume bad faith with respect to User:Jc37. The block is therefore also endorsed for these subsequent edits. —  Sandstein  07:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll search out diffs, to corroborate my comments (and if requested, also in relation the user's comments above), if it's found to be necessary by the reviewing admin. (Though a read over User talk:Kbdank71 should probably deal with a fair amount.) - jc37 00:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

That the claim was made without a diff -- and none exists -- should raise further issues regarding the legitimacy of the block. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely disturbing that User:Jc37, an admin who should be more than familiar with WP:AGF, would make a maliciously false claim to justify a block and then refuse to provide any support for his allegation while the block was still open. Again, providing sources to support statements carries absolutely no weight. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is quite reasonable to expect either a strong source to back up the alleged desysopping demand or an apology. Using a false claim such as this as justification for supporting a block in which you have a clear bias, is conduct unbecoming of any editor, let alone an administrator. That after some 24 hours User:Jc37 has still failed to provide the supposed diff he was searching for or to issue an appropriate retraction is unacceptable. I still await a response. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Despite a clear consensus that this block was improper and unjustified, and despite a request to reconsider the block, no action whatsoever has been taken. User:Jc37 stopped by to insist that his baseless personal attack was justified and seems to have had little luck searching for the maliciously and knowingly false claim that I have been "calling for Kbdank71's desysopping". Any good faith response to clearing this block will be appreciated.

Decline reason:

I could be wrong, but I think your block has already expired. If you're still blocked, is it an autoblock or IP block? — Golbez (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This makes for fascinating reading. High drama indeed. I hope you end the reign of terror against you soon. You're obviously a good guy! :) (Wallamoose (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

You want fascinating, you should have seen the email I just got from Alansohn.

Anyway, in response to him: Sure, since it seems your block shgould have expired by now, I'll see if we can figure out the problem. - jc37 08:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The message I get is that you should be unblocked.

But since you say you can't edit, I'm going to try to reblock, and unblock, and see if it works (I'll note what I'm doing in the block summary.) - jc37 09:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you're still online, try to edit. (Hopefully that cleared everything.) - jc37 09:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Words of Turkish origin

Hi, Alansohn. I was generally concerned with the category Words of Turkish origin, and saw that there was a discussion for renaming the category to Category:Turkish loanwords, but unfortunately it was too late when I noticed that. For me too it was necessary to rename the category to Turkish loanwords for consistency. Therefore I formed a new category named Turkish words and phrases and made some cleanup on the other category, namely I transferred some of the words from Category:Words of Turkish origin to Category:Turkish words and phrases. So, if we can re-open the related discussion, I will be pleased to support the renaming. Happy edit. --Chapultepec (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

James Bond actors

Per longstanding and widespread precedent, we do not categorize actors on the basis of the roles they play. Please read Misplaced Pages:OC#Performers_by_role_or_composition and please do not attempt to single-handedly undermine consensus by adding the articles back. Thank you. Otto4711 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of James Bond actors. Tsk. Will have to turn that into a redirect to something like James Bond#Actors. Pah. None of the James Bond articles have a simple list of the actors. Even given widespread precedent, I wouldn't find it surprising to see a "James Bond actors" category tag at the bottom of those actor's pages. At the least, though, I would expect to see a link from each actor to a list of James Bond actors. Or maybe a template? Carcharoth (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The precedent might perhaps cover a Category:Actors who have appeared in James Bond films or even Category:Actors who have played James Bond. Even then, I'd think you'd find broad consensus that the WP:OCAT doesn't fly from editors who are using that thing called "common sense". As the category in question is called Category:James Bond, we are making this encyclopedia worse for any reader by depriving them of any access via a category to articles about actors for whom playing James Bond is a strong defining characteristic of their careers as actors. I'd love to see your arguments at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock

If you are still autoblocked, please follow the instructions given when you try to edit; it's difficult to undo an autoblock unless we know which one is in play. --Golbez (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I found it. You should be unblocked now. --Golbez (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what the problem was, but this autoblock added about 15 hours to a block that consensus shows was unjustified. Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Might want to raise that at some technical venue. Depends whether it was a technical thing, or people not being able to find the autoblock. Either way, it is a bit worrying. Sorry I wasn't around earlier, but I wouldn't have been much help (I shudder at the thought of trying to work out what an autoblock is, let alone lifting one). Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories like American Jews etc.

You might like this conversation: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hubschrauber729 -NYC2TLV (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alexandra Powers

Hi Alansohn! I need your help in writing a article about a not very well-known actress nameed Alexandra Powers. What I do know about her is that she was born on 9 September 1967 in New York City and her birth name is Alexandra Kristin Powers. Her first role came in the TV film The Day After. She also had a small role in Mask (with Eric Stoltz, not Jim Carrey) and the TV series L.A. Law and 21 Jump Street. After DPS she starred in The Seventh Coin opposite Peter O'Toole and had small roles in The Player and Rising Sun. In 1994 she played Tonya Harding in the TV movie Tonya & Nancy: The Inside Story. Other roles have been in Bruce Willis' Last Man Standing, the Walter Matthau / Jack Lemmon comedy Out to Sea, and the tv movie Storm. But since 2001, she has devoted her life to Scientology. Here are refrence links to what I know about her: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0694490/ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0694490/bio http://www.filmreference.com/film/56/Alexandra-Powers.html http://www10.pair.com/crazydv/weir/dps/cast.html http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=24302. Please help me write a bio about this actress because I haven't written one yet! Thanks!Neptunekh (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion

Would you be interested in this discussion? Carcharoth (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Drat!

I wanted to write 195 Broadway for a DYK! Can I at least infobox it? MBisanz 20:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Georg J. Lober

Number 170

DYK for List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers

Number 171

Where do you want to go today? afd

Hi, I notice you put a lot of work into the article on Where do you want to go today? but I'm not sure why a forgettable ad campaign from 13 or 14 years ago merits a wikipedia article, reference cites notwithstanding... discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Where do you want to go today? regards, __Just plain Bill (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replied at AfD. Thanks for the notification. Alansohn (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antiheroes

Why are you adding characters to this? The category was deleted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to put it up at DRV, go ahead, but can you remove the categories until the new consensus is reached?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Notable section in a school article

I've been monitoring the Haddonfield Memorial High School battle that has been occurring recently where the entire (long) section about the marching band is taken out by IP addresses, and the user MarchingColonials keeps reverting it. I didn't want to step into an area that I'm unfamiliar with, but quite frankly I kind of agree with the anonymous IP addresses who say it's not really noteworthy and that nobody really cares. Marching band is not like sports at all on the importance scale, and I do think that maybe the whole marching band section should be taken out. Because honestly, "who cares" is right. And the fact that there's only one supporter of it and it was the creator of the section in the first place shows obvious bias as to why they keep re-including it. What do you think (does it qualify as "notable") and would taking it out really be that big of a deal? -Jrcla2 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't taken a look at the conflict in detail, but there were sources for some of the material. There's probably a middle ground here. Alansohn (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for 41 Park Row

Number 172

Incivility

I'm sending this message to both of you. I'm not very familiar with what's going on, but I'm somewhat unimpressed by it.

Alansohn: when I wrote this in the talk page, I had you in mind, but you include "seem to utterly fail in the topsy turvy CfD world, in which every effort at recreation is met with knee-jerk delete votes" (emphasis added by me) in this comment.

Kbdank71: are you serious when you say this? Insane individuals taking great pleasure in roasting you alive? My guess would be that they're not really that interested in rotisseries, they're just unhappy (rightly or wrongly) with what you're doing in CfD.

I don't have all the answers, whether it be inviting more admins to close CfD debates, engaging in centralized discussions, mediation or user conduct RfCs. But even if we disagree in our visions of Misplaced Pages, that's no excuse for incivility. Andjam (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Kbdank71, please address the issue directly with him. No need to let me know that you do. If you are going to call me incivil, please note that I used the word "seem", emphasizing that this is how it appears to me, While I have no doubt that the individuals involved actually believe that they are acting in the bests interests of Misplaced Pages, regardless of my disagreement. Alansohn (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you borrow "If you are going to call me incivil, please ..." from Kbdank's reply? And is prefacing an accusation with "seem" an acceptable excuse? Andjam (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and recognize that I, and all of Misplaced Pages, can always benefit from a greater dose of civility. Your efforts are appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy and reliable sources on works of fiction

As I said, you can beat your dead horse anywhere you want, but not my talk page. And if you want help doing it, you'll have to ask someone else. --Kbdank71 03:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your good faith efforts to ensure that Misplaced Pages policy is enforced appropriately are always appreciated. Your commitment to refrain from using your clearly problematic misinterpretation of Misplaced Pages policy is the first step in rectifying the issue. Alansohn (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe the plumber

Misplaced Pages guidelines are notorius for being contradictory and ambiguos. Docku:“what up?” 06:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Sailor Beware

Number 173

DYK for Sony Building (New York)

Number 174

DYK for Spirit of Communication

Number 175

DYK for Siruv

Number 176

Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/List of Milwaukee Brewers Opening Day starting pitchers

Hi, I have left comments on this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm catching up after two days off the computer and I'll respond to your changes some time today or tomorrow. Thanks again for the time and effort in going through the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You responded at the FLC, but I think you forgot to hit the save button. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for John R. Reilly

Number 177

DYK for George M. Keller

Number 178

Teaneck and demographics

Did you write "With almost no land left to develop for housing, Teaneck's population is likely to remain stable for the foreseeable future. A reluctance to permit high-rise development as a means to increase population density also places a limit on growth. Changes in family size are one of the few influences that may affect population over time?" This holds true for Teaneck, but it also holds true for Hackensack, which has an even slower population growth (0.9% since 2000). Also, it is a little misleading because it makes Teaneck sound like a 200,000 people city, not a 50,000 people suburb. Both Teaneck and Hackensack are quite built up, but the dominant cover in both Hackensack and Teaneck is vegetation (look at Google Earth, Wiki Mapia etc.). Here's a possible definition of small city: A city with vegetation, not buildings, being its dominant cover." Both Hackensack and Teaneck are correctly described like that and will probably both fit that rule forever. They both have under 50,000 people, which is another definition of small city. Hackensack and Teaneck will probably fit that definition forever. For a small city such as Teaneck or Hackensack that will probably have a <50,000 population and be dominately covered by vegetation forever, it is misleading to say "Almost no land left to develop for housing," as it potrays an image of a place like New York City. Press olive, win oil (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for List of Milwaukee Brewers Opening Day starting pitchers

Number 179

DYK for Stephen Samuel Wise

Number 180

Opening Day Starting Pitcher Lists

I've been trying to add final scores to the Opening Day Starting Pitcher lists I have been working on, most recently List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, following your lead from List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers. But I am running into a sorting problem. Scores that start with a 10 or above are coming out between 1 and 2 when I sort. I think I used the same syntax as you did for List of Washington Nationals Opening Day starting pitchers, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Do you know what I could be doing wrong? Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Biblioburro

Number 181

DYK for Paul L. Montgomery

Number 182

DYK for Mickey (TV series)

Number 183

DYK for List of Texas Rangers Opening Day starting pitchers

Number 184

Hal Kant

Just a quick thank you for writing the article on him-(I didn't think I'd find anything.) Good work Sincerely, Marcia Marcia Wright (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Congrats!

Thanks Alansohn :) I'm glad the RfA passed (it was more stressing than the last, way back), and appreciate the warm comments from you and others. Cheers, Ynhockey 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Fairmont prep academy

My goal is to add clarification to the "awards and recognition" part of the article. the article is written as if a school can only win the award once because there is a large gap of time between when it was won (about 17yrs ago) and today. My addition is not a criticism of the school, it is just a simple clarification on the award due to the fact that the award was won many years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballah4life (talk • contribs) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

I'm troubled by your continued incivility at CFD. It is not uncommon for you to have difficulty remaining civil and assuming good faith with those who disagree with you in that forum, particularly with User:Kbdank71. I'd appreciate your thoughts on why those comments do not merit a block per your editing restrictions. Postdlf (talk) 05:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

After Kbdank71 advocated a point of view that reliable sources can be ignored as "opinion pieces" and using this as justification at both CfD and DRV, I investigated policy and received four separate opinions from four separate editors at WT:RS and WP:RSN that indicated that this interpretation is false. I attempted to share this information with Kbdank71 and had him blow off any further discussion in insulting fashion. Now Kbdank71 has resorted to mimicry to make his misinterpretation of policy into a joke. I'm sure that you recognize that admins have a responsibility for enforcing policy AND for demonstrating appropriate behavior. Ihave already attempted to address these issues using Misplaced Pages's conflict resolution procesures and my offers to resolve this issue with Kbdank71 have been rebuffed. I appreciate your concerns and will make a greater effort to respond to Kbdank71 with the same level of civility that I hope for. I look forward to your assistance in ensuring that all individuals involved are observing all aspects of Misplaced Pages policy. Alansohn (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of strong personalities on Misplaced Pages, and we all have the potential to goad one another, and we all could do a better job of helping others understand our positions by explaining them rather than just asserting them. But ultimately we can only be responsible for ourselves, what we choose to say, and how we choose to say it. The key point for you to remember is that when you are in a disagreement, the other party believes you are the one misinterpreting policy or facts, and we all have to accept that at the end of the day, we may not persuade anyone else that our view is correct. Assuming good faith means that we should do just that—assume that what you believe to be an incorrect interpretation is nevertheless an interpretation held in good faith. I believe your comments crossed the line into outright hostility, and the next time I observe this from you I will block you in accordance with your editing restrictions. But I appreciate your response here and willingness to discuss these concerns with me, which gives me some hope going forward that the acrimony can be reduced. Postdlf (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While any attorney will insist that the other side is misinterpreting policy or facts, I solicited independent opinions on the issue and received four separate opinions at WT:RS and WP:RSN all of which clearly contradict Kbdank71's interpretation of policy. Kbdank71 has refused to pursue a definitive resolution on this matter, and your assistance in seeing that this matter is addressed in appropriate fashion would only help clarify this issue. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you've confused this CFD discussion with Kbdank71 with other discussions you've had with Jc37, on the issue of whether the reliable sources you cited refuted his arguments that certain fictional character categories depended upon OR; here your response seems like a complete nonsequitor. I've noticed you in heated arguments at CFD with no fewer than three contributors recently, and these arguments all seem to get personal. Perhaps it's best to take a break for awhile from CFD? Concentrate on your prolific article-writing and let tempers cool for awhile. Postdlf (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your participation at CfD, and while I have both agreed and disagreed with your positions, your analysis and insight is orders of magnitude above the doctrinaire approach of other editors at CfD. I understand that the objective of many editors is to push me out of CfD. No one owns CfD. I certainly don't. I will continue to temper my words and focus on logic and Misplaced Pages policy issues, not personalities, as I have already done. However, my determination to be heard on these issues is not going away. I will be happy to leave CfD and work full time on all of the other things I already do when CfD is working properly. No one can ever accuse me of having too much of a focus on CfD, unlike other editors there who live exclusively in a rather blinkered category world. You ought to have a gander at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_29#People_buried_in_Abney_Park_Cemetery and explain who is the person here who has civility issues, and who is someone who might benefit far more from a conversation about behavior. I already have his talk page on my watchlist. If you can point to what aspects of my comments justify statements that I involve myself in "bullshit ephemera", that I engage in my "typical distortions", and that "I can feel free to continue coming off like an ass", I will try even harder to understand why I am wrong here. Other than that, it appears that rather shameless personal attacks are being ignored, in direct violation of WP:NPA. If you want to act as an honest broker, and it appears that you are trying to do so in good faith, there are other parties that you have failed to reach out to. Any constructive input will be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn has been performing yeoman's work almost single-handedly pushing back against a group of admins who have been deleting every cat in sight without adequate consensus and against policy. (I'm just an IP without an editor account and even *I've* noticed this.) His push back has been met with virulent resistance and harassment, and that he is occasionally baited into incivility, while certainly not laudable, is nevertheless understandable. IMO, the whole CFD process needs to be restructured. 68.73.114.58 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Dorothy Miner

Number 185

DYK for Vince Naimoli

Number 186

DYK for Glynis

Number 187

WikiProject New Jersey Newsletter (October 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gastrotypographicalassemblage

You're right, it does, and you're welcome! I found both the art work and the name to be interesting. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)