User talk:Alansohn

Welcome!

How do I respond??? My comments about Desmopressin were removed and have now been blocked, they are entirely true, my son did nearly die purely because of these tablets - it said so on his A&E admission. Parents have the right to know the true and possible effect of bedwetting tablets. Risk in know what equates benefit if even fitting is a possibe outcome, scientific words such as hyponatremia mean nothing to normal parents - death does!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.40.252 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was constructive, I'm putting it back. thanks (in refernece to cowplain school) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.148.195 (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Mehmed V

Prince Mehmed Necmeddin had no children, there are no descendants. Once I had written this Articels, but it is wrong.Please read the Turkish information on this subject .......

For expansion

• Harry Harris (director)

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!________________________________________________________________

the truth is the truth

Everything i said about brett delaney was true! i work at rebel sport, you dont, therefore i think i would have more accurate information than you, wouldnt you agree?

why did you deleted my last edit? that one was a true one.. becouse i am a real harajuku subculturic guy. for the toher things before that i am sorry. but for now i want to edit somethings that are waayy to old and waayay out of time for that page.

FYI: ANI case User:96.32.188.25

WP:ANI#96.32.188.25 WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Edit warring, Personal attacks may be of interest to you, based on 96.32.188.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s edit of your talk page. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Re:

Hello, Alansohn. You have new messages at Tide rolls's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Charles Kleibacker

On January 20, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Charles Kleibacker, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alansohn, I was wondering if you plan to claim the points for the three DYKs in the Wikicup? --Stone (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV comment

I don't think this comment about the intent of other users was appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I don't think this comment, suggesting other users are "obstinate", was appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree, but the evidence points to the contrary. Where is our definition of "defining", a concept so fundamental that CfD should not exist without it? Alansohn (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If that is your concern, you should explicitly criticise the process when you comment. A process can't really portray "obstinacy", but it's easy for use of that word to be interpreted as applying to individual users. That may be what you meant but it's important to be careful when expressing criticism about a process so it isn't interpreted as a personal attack. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Island

I have recetly done a major re-write on Liberty Island. There is some question as to wording and inclusion in certain categories. There is a request for comment on the talk page. If you are interested your input would be of value since there have been conflicts bordering on edit war. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 07:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DRV comment

I was not making a "threat", as you suggested. I would appreciate you withdrawing that part of your comment now that I've clarified [1] the confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• You make rather explicit threats to delete the category in question if community consensus goes against you at DRV. What's the issue here? Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Predictions are not threats. Saying that a CFD would likely result in deletion is a prediction. An explicit threat to delete the category would be him saying "no matter what happens, I will delete this category." postdlf (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was a prediction; nothing more, as I indicated in my clarifying statement. I would appreciate it if you would withdraw that part of your comment now that I clarified the confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
      • There is nothing to remove and nothing will be removed. You've already been warned regarding harassment here and any further trolling will be removed. Alansohn (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WQA regarding the above

Hello, Alansohn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's good to see that manufactured "incidents" are what our admins deal with on Wikipedia. I have replied already regarding your continued trolling and harassment. Alansohn (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing the WQA, I came to the following conclusions:
  • Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat. However, you are not required to change your reading of it as such. Ideally though, you should've specifically clarified that that was how you interpreted it, or better yet, apologised for the overreaction and refactored it.
  • You are permitted to give notice and warn users that particular commentary will be deleted (other than block/ban notices) if it continues to appear on your talk page, and you've done so. However, you accompanied your notice with an accusation of harassment. Serious accusations require serious evidence; there was a failure to explain the (or provide evidence of) harassment by either Good Olfactory or Postdif - I would urge you to submit the evidence at the WQA if you have any serious evidence.
  • You've continued to engage in uncivil and unseemly conduct, including personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith or other gross inflammatory commentary: [2] [3] [4] [5]. Of all the other diffs that were brought up so far, these were the ones that I considered relevant.
  • You were previously under a civility restriction as a result of an arbitration case, and you are expected to avoid repeating the improper conduct for which you were previously sanctioned, if you wish to continue participating at Wikipedia.
  • I note that there has been a significant improvement in your behavior since that case. but, there is still further room for improvement. Should you not make greater attempts to improve your commentary in the future, then as is standard practice, I'd urge that a sanction is (re)imposed on you. WQA cannot impose binding remedies, but a sanction proposal would be discussed either at an administrators noticeboard, or at an arbitration page. It is hoped, however, that you will make assurances to avoid repeating such conduct, and make those assurances mean something (by attempting to improve), so that the WQA may be marked resolved.
  • I sincerely hope further sanction proposals do not become necessary, and wish you all the best in (what would hopefully be) your attempts to further improve at least some of your commentary. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Good Olfactory and Postdlf, who have been directly involved in this conflict, have imposed blocks and threatened to impose blocks for various manufactured incidents, despite their rather clear and continuing conflict of interest. This pattern of harassment has continued despite rather clear changes in the tone that they have requested. Good Olfactory, in particular, has made an effort to actively misinterpret any form of communication, whether he was involved or not, and no matter how trivial, as some sort of personal affront. Just as you make the far clearer and ominous threat of some oogie-boogie "further sanction proposals", the word "threat" that has become the cause celebre here was rather clear as well; If the category in question was approved at DRV it would be deleted via CfD. This is a rather clear definition of the word "threat" as "an indication of something impending" straight out of Merriam-Webster. As such, your bad faith insistence that "Good Olfactory's comment could not reasonably be construed as a threat" is uncivil and unacceptable; I will not apologize or make changes for what you describe as Good Olfactory's "overreaction". Despite Good Olfactory's persistent and abusive efforts to shut me up, I will not be silenced. As has already been done, I will make further efforts to tone down my remarks so that even the most sensitive among us can not be rationally offended. Best regards, Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

That would've been a good assurance, had you not continued to engage in the same conduct that was found to be problematic. The problem is that when you make serious accusations as you've done, you don't provide serious evidence. This makes me wonder whether you do understand what one of the main issues is. You need to provide diffs of where they have imposed blocks and threatened to impose blocks for incidents where they have the conflict of interest you speak of. If you don't, then it constitutes a personal attack; that's why I highlighted the serious accusations require serious evidence part. Again, if you wish to maintain a claim of harassment, you need to provide diffs of that. I will more explicitly ask Good Olfactory to take care in his interpretations of what you say, though that should've been clear from the number of diffs I used in my conclusions. You are entitled to your opinion about my conclusions, but I have nothing to gain or lose by warning you (or in your individual interpretation, threatening you) - it's the standard way dispute resolution works (or even a consequence for) where an user fails to satisfactorily adjust his conduct voluntarily, and the standard way uninvolved users are likely to act. If you don't wish to heed the warning, that is your choice entirely of course. At this point, you've also accused me of being uncivil and I'm persuaded to suggest that the filers open the RfC/U so that the community can give it's view to you on what has been civil and uncivil. Unless you are ready to let your accusations drop until there is evidence (or further evidence) to substantiate your claims in the appropriate venue (RfC/U), I cannot in good conscience pretend that this is resolved based on an assurance that doesn't currently mean anything. Your response to this (if any) is likely to decide what happens next. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am baffled by the lengths that are being taken over what you yourself call an "overreaction" on Good Olfactory's part and I have no interest in playing the Wikipedia justice game, a process even more dysfunctional than any other in Wikipedia. As I have no desire to play this game, I haven't sat around collecting diffs to prove what no one is denying regarding blocks made under a clear conflict of interest by Good Olfactory, though you can check my block log for details thereof. I am severely disappointed with your insistence that the word "threat" cannot possibly mean what it says in the dictionary, "an indication of something impending" plain and simple, and I personally find that insistence to be in bad faith. I hope you will be refactoring your remarks to indicate that this interpretation as something evil is a simple overreaction on Good Olfactory's part. As I have repeatedly stated I will tone down my remarks to avoid further misinterpretations and I am sick and tired of the continued efforts to manufacture a controversy where none exists. Alansohn (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been extremely patient with you. Please stop confusing comments about you with those about Good Olfactory - I haven't said Good Olfactory overreacted; again, that describes your view, and yours alone, and I've only noted that was how you described it. Also, a conflict of interest only exists if Good Olfactory was not a neutral party at the time of using tools (emphasis added); your block log has provided insufficient evidence of that - it only shows that Good Olfactory cannot personally block you at this time. So, either you don't understand Wikipedia policy on the matter or are deliberately continuing to make serious accusations without serious evidence. It'd be unsatisfactory if you mere toned down some of your remarks, yet repeatedly continue to make the same kinds of accusations without the required type of evidence, Alansohn. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "I haven't sat around collecting diffs to prove what no one is denying regarding blocks made under a clear conflict of interest by Good Olfactory". For the record, I deny it. I had assumed such a denial would be implied by not responding to the original accusation. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: your denial. Are you claiming that these blocks don't exist or are you claiming that you were not an active party to a conflict at that point in time? Alansohn (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Request for amendment regarding an arbitration case that involves you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Amendment request naming you as a party

Hey there - just a friendly note that the Arbitration Committee would value your input if you took a moment to comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Footnoted quotes. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I think your view would be appreciated for reasons of perspective. I'm not sure which of us would find it more amusing that I find myself supporting you on this occasion. Orderinchaos 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Songs without the lyrics in the title

Hello, I was wondering, if you think this is a good category, can you please speak up about it? It's been nominated for deletion. Please add a constructive comment at [[6]] as I do not want it deleted. Thanks. --Cexycy (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

hi

Hello Alansohn, 68.191.178.216 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.

vandalism edits by 98.101.104.146

Hi, I was going to suggest that one of us add a final warning to 98.101.104.146's talk page, but I saw that you already did. I have already reported the IP address on the vandal report page. gaidheal1 ^{(talk♫contribs)} 14:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another rather determined vandal, despite all of our warnings. Alansohn (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting a further three counts of vandalism to my userpage. I previously gave you a cheeseburger, but you removed it. I therefore assume you dont like cheeseburgers, so have a lollipop instead!:

Acather96 has given you a LOLipop! This horrible pun and delicious candy promotes WikiLove and tells the world how low you will stoop for the sake of humor. Spread WikiLove by giving someone else a lollipop, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the unrelenting joy of lollipops by adding {{subst:Lollipop}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Acather96 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lollipop! It probably has fewer calories than the cheeseburger, though it will rot my teeth. The message was removed in some overzealous antivandalism on this page on my part, so thanks for both messages. Alansohn (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Woodbury Public Schools

Hi Alan. Just letting you know that I've tagged Woodbury Public Schools as a copyvio. Regards, Theleftorium 21:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed. Thanks for the heads up. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15#Category:Wikipedians who are recipients of the Commendation Medal

As I noted in the closing comment, "at this time the category is empty." So it was to delete an empty category. If someone wants to recreate it, they are free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Message

Hello, I am known here as User:Reenem, and I have seen your recent warning to the IP address of my school. This is the IP address of Torrey Pines High School. It just returned from a long block after a lot of guys here though vandalism was funny, and apparently, they don't get the message. I just wanted to let you know that you are dealing with something far bigger than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.66.200.45 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Brass

Hi Alansohn, I'm unsure why you have reverted the brass page back to before my edits. As far as I can see the material I added was constructive and correct. The small amount of material I removed, dealing with the history of brass near the head of the page, was unreferenced and misleading and I replaced it with text which I believe to be much clearer and more useful.I think I'm going to revert to page back to include my edits but if you want to get in contact and explain the problem and any way I can resolve it that would be great (Michael D L Marshall (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC))

Thank You

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user pages MaenK.A.Talk

MaenK.A._Talk 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Huggle error

I see you placed a vandalism warning on User talk:68.189.43.141, using Huggle. Unfortunately the link to the relevant edit was wrong, and led only to a "404 error: File not found" page. I have replaced the link with what I have no doubt was the correct one. I guess that the error was due to a bug in Huggle, but I thought I would let you know just in case you had made some mistake, and also because it seems that courtesy requires an explanation when changing someone else's edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up regarding alternate renaming proposal for category

I proposed an alternate to your renaming proposal at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15#Category:Parsons the New School of Design alumni. Your thoughts would be helpful. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger

Hi, Alansohn. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 28#Simple Instant Messenger. Cunard (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

English Neighborhood

As this overlaps your "territory" and I have used some of your material thought I'd point out this new article. I have added :Cat:Historic townships of BC, NJ, for lack of a better one. Any feedback, improvements, addtions, changes are welcome.Djflem (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again

You've helped tidy up my user talk. I appreciate the effort. See ya 'round Tiderolls 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

STFU

SHUT THE NIGG AH UP