Jump to content

User talk:Alansohn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 4: Line 4:


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


== Shield images ==
== Shield images ==

Revision as of 20:42, 9 February 2007

Welcome!

Archives: 1; 2; 3; 4;

Verona

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

Shield images

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

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

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

Hunterdon Central notable alumni edit

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

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

You are far more knowledgeable than I am regarding the area's music scene and I will defer to your judgment in this matter. If your understanding is accurate, the Skatallica article should be the subject of a WP:AfD process. Alansohn 19:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i'd forgotten to log in before. Though information in the Skatallica article is technically accurate, the artist most assuredly does not meet the notability requirements as outlined in the "Notability (music)" entry on Wikipedia. I don't use wikipedia often or thoroughly enough, however, to feel comfortable initiating such requests. Thanks for your time!

Re: Year established

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

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

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

Quote box or no quote box

Your input is needed at Robert Clarkson Clothier. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlbioSires.jpg listed for deletion

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

Perth Amboy cats

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

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

Categories

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

Paulins Kill now a Featured Article

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

your information

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

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

Kilmer

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

Thank you. —ExplorerCDT 01:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmer

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

What you describe is most certainly a revert. Please read WP:3RR once again. The solution is to arrive at a consensus on the talk page of the article. If that fails, pursue dispute resolution. Chick Bowen 08:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NPA

Your comment here is unacceptable based on even a cursory review of the user's contributions. You may be unhappy if someone chooses to participate primarily in AfDs, but that does not give you license to make irresponsible accusations like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eusebeus (talkcontribs).

I apologise for not signing my comment above. I have no issue that you take exception to the user's pattern to vote delete, but to make SPA accusations without any substantive basis is inappropriate. My contributions are majority AfD - at at the beginning probably about 90%, and at a 90%+ delete rate. That is what we "deletionists" do - we look for articles that we feel should be eliminated, and usually ignore others. That may strike you as problematic, in which case feel free to express dismay at the opinion expressed, but to go so far as shout SPA is silly. As for your other point, I feel my contribution record stands clearly for itself in terms of my support for the project. Eusebeus 20:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Participation in Deletion Debates

Dear Alan,

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

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

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

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

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

Straw poll

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

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

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

Some Kind of Mistake Going On

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

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

Admin. Antics @ "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople"

Hello -- you may recall that in mid-December 2006 you and many others voted to undeleted "Category:Jewish-American businesspeople" which had been unjustly and swiftly deleted by a rogue administrator in early December 2006; proper debate/voting was not done and huge amounts of data was lost when this category was deleted, many of the people in that category losing their Jewish identity entirely because of this. This particular unjust category deletion happened in early December 2006, see: [1].

This unjust category deletion was later rectified when you along with others overwhelmingly voted to overturn the deletion and relist the category, see: [2]. However, at this time neither admins. nor others bothered to begin re-adding the names that had been lost/merged when the category was originally deleted.

However, the category was not immediately recreated -- it wasn't relisted until many-many days after it had been voted back in to existence, and I had to bug User:RobertG in order to get it relisted, see: [3]. Also, since that category's former data had already been entirely merged in to "Category:American businesspeople" it effectively meant that in order to rebuild the unjustly deleted category the people that had built it up over many months had to start from scratch since a list of the former names in the category were never provided so that users could re-add them. The category nor a list of the names that were formerly in it is no longer available, or this info is only accessible by admins.

Finally, even though the category deletion was properly overturned by you and others, it was renominated for deletion AGAIN on the 10 of January 2007 (only days after it had been recreated) -- it was then deleted 17 January 2007, with NONE of the people that had formerly voted to relist the category voting this time around; see: [4].

I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this? Are you able to obtain a list of the names that were formerly in the category, or are only admins. able to do that? Can you or someone else try to have the category relisted? Is there a way to undelete the category again, given that it was deleted BOTH TIMES under rather dubious circumstances, with those that voted to undelete it the first time not even knowing to vote the second time or even that it had been renominated for deletion?

Thanks for any info/help that you can provide. --172.165.193.62 15:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't own the internet.

I'll edit what I want, go ahead and report me. Is it hard to make a new account? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stumply (talkcontribs) 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shunpiking

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

Inclusion of the route implies that it is a commonly used one, since otherwise it wouldn't be a notable route. Read specifically Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. --NE2 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that these are alternate routes used for shunpiking is original research, since no sources are given that say that. Without the fact that they are used for shunpiking, it's just a list of random parallel routes, and shouldn't be under a section on shunpiking. --NE2 16:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to add a sentence or two about parallel routes, like the fact that the ACE parallels the toll-free surface roads Route 42/US 322 and US 30, feel free. But suggesting that they are used for shunpiking is original research. --NE2 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jun Choi

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

Society Hill

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

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

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

I'm not going to undo it, since I believe the best solution to ambiguous place names is to disambiguate. If you believe otherwise, you can list it on requested moves. --NE2 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • By your persistent refusal to justify your actions in the face of a clear explanation of why it was counterproductive and unnecessary, you are clearly demonstrating that your actions were in breathtakingly bad faith. You have needlessly created a situation in which your arrogant changes -- shoved through without any effort to consider alternatives or reach consensus -- now requires an extensive bureaucratic process to undo your mess. Rather than try to address a solution, you have maliciously reverted changes that would clean up the disaster you have foisted on all other users. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that you have created situations of this type. Alansohn 20:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical Population Source

I hope this is where I should reply to your inquiry. I am somewhat inexperienced at writing for Wikipedia, and I didn't know exactly how to cite a source. The data comes from a website[5], particularly from this link[6]. I am not certain how credible the source is, but it appears to be a New Jersey government-published table. I was starting to add this data into a whole bunch of municipalities, but I began to wonder whether this was useful. I await your input.--KLabe 23:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC) The county-level data comes from this source [7].--KLabe 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Meadowlands District Map.gif)

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

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

WP:NJSCR Newsletter 2

The New Jersey State and County Route Newsletter
Issue 2 – February 2007

Issue #2

The second issue of the WP:NJSCR newsletter celebrates the promotion of Interstate 295 (Delaware-New Jersey) to good article status, as well as changes to the project on the county routes side.

Project News
  • For all non-500-series county routes, the state is NJ County_name, and the type is blank.
  • Infoboxes are set up for the following counties: Sussex, Ocean, Mercer, Cumberland, Bergen, Middlesex, Atlantic, and Monmouth.
  • The following counties have a full set of shield SVGs: Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, and Sussex
  • If you need help -- such as an infobox for another county, or more shield images -- don't hesitate to let Northenglish know. If you create an infobox that doesn't work properly (lots of redlinks), enclose it in an HTML comment (<!-- -->), and we'll get it working ASAP.
Member of the Month
  • The member of the month is EaglesFanInTampa, for his tireless work adding infoboxes to the 500-series county routes.

AfD nomination of 1st Street (Manhattan)

An article that you have been involved in editing, 1st Street (Manhattan), has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Street (Manhattan). Thank you.

2nd, 3rd and 13th Streets are nominated together since the contents are identical/similar. I do think a case can be made to keep 13th, and 1st-14th Streets can be one article in the same style as Manhattan streets, 23-42. talk to Ytny 06:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 13th Street (Manhattan)

An editor has nominated 13th Street (Manhattan), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Street (Manhattan) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 09:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your forthcoming book on Sussex and Warren place names does seem most intriguing, and I would be interested in seeing a copy. But given your status as a stickler for Wikipedia policy, I am sure that you might see why the source would be inappropriate, as indicated in an earlier removal, which cited the restriction on unpublished works. Furthermore, as you are the author of the material in question, published or not, it would be seem to meet the exact definition -- and be a rather flagrant violation -- of WP:No Original Research. If you have access to the specific sources you used, you can certainly reference those independent, reliable sources to support the items in the article. Other than that, there would seem to be no choice but to remove the reference to your own research as a source. Alansohn 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You might want to take another look at that in consideration of WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:RS, regarding the use of "secondary sources" and "citing oneself." When those discussions are taken into account (the use of one policy needs to be considered in how it coincides or contrasts with other relevant)...your concerns are hardly justified under OR guidelines. —ExplorerCDT 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that there's an inherent WP:NOR conflict. "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest." (my emph.) So the question really hinges on the classification of the book under WP:RS. Choess 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advance copies of the book are available before its release. That is added to the <ref> just in case someone like Alansohn would like a copy to review it before passing judgment on whether it complies with WP:RS. Has he asked? No. He just assumes. —ExplorerCDT 06:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infoboxes

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

Manhattan street articles

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

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

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

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

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

Salk School

Dear Alan,

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

Sincerely,

WMMartin 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]