• User talk:Djflem/archive1
• User:Djflem/Archive 2011/2012
• User:Djflem/Archive 2013 /2014 DJ Flem can you please help me, this is Doriden writing to you from someone else's device, it says my account is blocked since May 21, but it is not on the Auto block list. I didn't do anything wrong, can you please help me, this is obviously a mistake.

, I can follow this as a professional internet user and political observer. I know that “woke mind virus” is a term of art for the (condescending and misguided) idea that progressive views on race and gender are an outside contagion threatening the minds of young people who might otherwise reject structural explanations of racial inequality and embrace a traditional vision of the gender binary. I know that “cultural Marxism” is a right-wing buzzword meant to sound scary and imposing.

To a normal person, on the other hand, this language is borderline unintelligible. It doesn’t tell you anything; it doesn’t obviously mean anything; and it’s quite likely to be far afield of your interests and concerns.

DeSantis is a regular offender when it comes to speaking in the jargon of culture war-obsessed conservatives, but he’s not the only one. And it’s not just a problem of jargon.

Hi. I've reverted your undiscussed move of this article to "St. John's Rotary". Please discuss on the talk page and get a consensus for the move. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Please note that creating duplicate articles is not allowed, per WP:FORK. For this reason I have sent your Holland Tunnel Rotary, which substantial duplicates -- without proper accreditation -- the current article St. John's Park, back to your user space. If you move it again, I will bring this matter to the attention of admins. Please note that per WP:OWN you cannot own or control St. John's Park, and when you moved it without discussion, and I moved it back asking for a discussion and consensus, you cannot behave as if it belongs to you, or that you can unilaterally decide which is the proper title and focus for the article. That discussion is ongoing, and you move of the article from your user space is an attempt to override the consensus forming there that "St. John's Park" is the proper title for the article. Please stop screwing around, and follow the consensus on the talk page. BMK (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not revert the article without a consensus to do so, per WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop just making stuff up. Duplicate articles aren't allowed, yours was a deliberate duplicate, a "fork", so I moved it back to your userspace from whence it came. I don't need a "consensus" to do that. I'm just following policy, but if I did need a consensus, the one at St. John's Park which says that the focus of an article should be the history of the land and not the existence of a circular cluster of 5 highway esits, and that the proper title of that article is "St. John's Park" and not "St. John's Rotary" or "Holland Tunnel Rotary" -- that real consensus would do just fine.

In the meantime take a look at this pages:

• WP:Disruption
• WP:Tendentious editing
• WP:Ownership
• WP:Consensus
• WP:IDHT (for "I didn't hear that")

Maybe they'll give you a clearer idea of how things work on Wikipedia. BMK (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem. You recently moved Michele Brown to Michele Brown (athlete) but you haven't fixed the incoming links to the page. As a result, no article now point to the athlete article! When making disambiguation pages, it is a requirement to fix the incoming links, otherwise the article move offers no disambiguation improvement for the encyclopedia. Can you fix these links to the new target? Thanks. SFB 15:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Hi again! I took out the easy ones that linked through templates. The remaining links to fix are visible on the "incoming links" I linked to above. Thanks. SFB 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Finished the last couple. All done now - Thanks! SFB 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had an edit conflict on Template:NJ Hudson County Freeholders and it appears that in trying to get the changes in I undid a change you had made. Because some of the districts cross multiple municipalities and others don't, I'm not sure that it's evident what the place name is at the end of the parentheses. If you still feel it's obvious, feel free to remove away. Again, my apologies for stepping on your edit. Alansohn (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...don't post on my talk page again. Thanks. BMK (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed you repeatedly inserting a comment on another users talk page. Stop it. If a user removes your comment from their talk page, it is a statement they read it, and that they don't want to respond to it. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Funny how you're post, Hipocrte, comes just so quickly after BMK'sDjflem (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus of the commenters on Talk:St. John's Park is that the focus of that article should be on the history of the square and park which was turned into a railroad terminal, and not on the 5 exits from the Holland Tunnel that are there now. The consensus also is that the article should be named "St. John' Park" and not "Holland Tunnel Rotary". The consensus is that the "rotary" is not notable, and the history of the land is. Almost all of your recent edits on St. John's Park have been in complete contradiction to this consensus, in fact, you deny there is any consensus at all, when it is clear and unambiguous. Continued editing against a talk page consensus is disruptive and can be considered to be tendentious, and could lead to your being blocked from editing. Please stop. I see from your talk page that you've done good work elsewhere, so please find something else to do and give up this campaign of non-consensual editing. BMK (talk) 02:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know I do good work, that's why the botch job promoting a non-neutral POV on St.John's Park is offensive.Djflem (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will admit that the current article does a poor job of focusing on a bunch of non-notable highway exits, as you would like it to (talk about a POV!!), and I'll take full credit for that, since the consensus on the talk page firmly rejected your desire to move the article in that direction. You keep trying to skew it that way, but as long as the talk page consensus is clear, you're not going to be able to, thankfully. BMK (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTW, your understanding of WP:WEIGHT is wrong, your understanding of WP:LEAD is wrong, your understanding of WP:N is wrong, your understanding of WP:V is wrong, your understanding of WP:OR is wrong, your understanding of pretty much every policy you've thrown at me in this dispute has been faulty. You would probably benefit from taking a bit of a break and re-reading some policy pages to refresh your understanding of them. BMK (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now we can add WP:Vandalism to the policies you don't understand. BMK (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decency of reciprocity and writing on my talk page

IMO it would be decent of someone who asks me not to write on their talk page, to have some (self) respect and courtesy and not write on mine but that would be too much to expect from you, I suppose. So don't.

Stop vandalizing St. John's Park talk page

This is a warning to stop Wikipedia:Vandalize#Talk page vandalism on Talk:St. John's Park You do not have permission to edit my comments on Talk:St. John's Park.

Hipocrite (talk)

...that you are not allowed to post on my talk page unless you are required to by Wikipedia policy. There was no requirement that you slap a (bogus) edit warring tag on my page, any other editor could have done that, had they seen fit to do so, so that was not one of the exceptions to the rule.

Once again, no posting on my talk page, please. BMK (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem. BMK asked me to take a look at the recent discussion on the talk page of St. John's Park[1]. I did and I'm afraid I have to agree with BMK that your approach is quite a bit less than desirable. For example, you accuse BMK of avoiding substantive discussion and of stonewalling[2] when, by all appearances, he not only initiated the discussion itself but also seems to be going out of his way to accommodate at least some of your preferred text. Your acceptance of his offer (offer and acceptance) was astoundingly grudging. The use of boldface at the bottom (Are you going to ...) of this page is also unnecessarily peremptory. I note also that he has the support of Epicgenius who, and I know this from experience, doesn't always agree with BMK. I don't know who is in the right or wrong here but - looking solely at the talk page comments - it doesn't look like you're going to get consensus for your views on that page. You might want to think about moving up the WP:DR chain and seeking other opinions, for example for whether the lead is contradictory or contains OR. Otherwise you're going to find yourself on the wikipedia path of trouble. --regentspark (comment) 02:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Djflem, may I suggest that you focus on something else for a bit (a couple of months would be good). Reading your last post (this one), I think you're getting caught in the quintessential Wikipedia trap where you're losing the big picture (large massive encyclopedia) and getting stuck in the trees ('my' view on St. John's Park is the only correct one). The best way to deal with this is to back off and go elsewhere. The article isn't going anywhere and will still be there a few months from now at which point you'll be able to approach the article with a fresh mind. Like I say above, you're entering a tunnel that experience tells me has only one exit - a block - but you still have time to back out of it. --regentspark (comment) 14:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have responded on your talk page, but am posting this here: At issue is matter of original research that is seen in a glaring contradiction in the piece for which I have asked for clarification [3]. As is normal Wikipeida verification procedure, when a claim is made the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. BMK has been asked provide a citation. The response to date has been (to use your word) "grudging"; somewhere between obfuscation and complete refusal. I have taken your suggestion and sought input in another forum, namely Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#St. John's Park. Hopefully a response there will lend some guidance as to how to proceed beyond the current reticence.Djflem (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this is a good step so thank you for that. Looking at the talk page dispassionately, it doesn't look like you're going to get support for your changes on the article itself so looking for venues outside the article talk page is the best way of avoiding the appearance of tendentiousness. You probably need to be more focused in your questions - I find your talk page posts unclear and puzzling, which, I think, may be a part of the problem - but perhaps that's just me so let's see what comes out of all this. Moving one step at a time is probably the way to go since you're not getting traction at the article talk page itself. --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you have been removing the parent category "unincorporated communities in New Jersey" from several articles. This is a very useful category. I'm not sure whey you'd want to remove them? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm SD0001. Djflem, thanks for creating Essex Generating Station!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The only reference given doesn't seem to verify the contents of the article. Please provide additional references. References should meet WP:RS

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. SD0001 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Newark Energy Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hess. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear User:Djflem. Sorry about the rodeo over the image caption at the Tappan tribe page. The fact that the original map is oriented a perfect 90-degrees clockwise (of the normal N-S orientation of modern maps), and the excerpt was so small, threw me off utterly – and I know that area, its waters, and communities well. I had to open the full sized version of [[File:Blaeu - Nova Belgica et Anglia Nova.png]] to get properly oriented (which erased all confusion, once the seeming E-W rivulet that's actually the Hudson River can be correctly identified.

Is there a way that the unusual orientation of the map can be very briefly worked into the Tappan page image's caption? It would really help. I'm used to seeing the Hudson N-S, arrayed with bands of Manhattoes, Wecquaesgeek, Siwanoy, Kitchawank, and Nochpeem up the east bank to Wappinger proper country well into Dutchess County. Even so, I found the map orientation so dumbfounding I resolutely misread it.

Do you have a suggestion? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

E.K. Lincoln

added a link pointing to Reginald Denny

Grantwood, New Jersey

added a link pointing to Reginald Denny

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have insisted on linking Port of New York and New Jersey, an article on a modern concept and Port Authority, for an area with similar coverage, but very different concept in World Wars I and II. First thing to grasp is that an Army Port of Embarkation is a command and jurisdiction going far beyond port facilities of piers and wharves. What is included in my text: "The command had facilities in New York City and surrounding areas and in New Jersey as well as ports in other cities as sub-ports under its direct command." includes things far beyond today's "Port of New York and New Jersey" as well as that modern "port" including things not at all part of the Army command that was the NYPOE. Therefore I will continue to object to just a straight link to something that is not the equivalent at all. You might be interested in FM 55-105 Water Transportation: Oceangoing Vessels (September 25, 1944) pages 14 and 15 for some of the similarities. The differences in those "command had facilities" lies in the Army embarkation camps and Army hospitals as well as staging areas as far afield as Pennsylvania. I've given explanation why I object and don't want to get into an edit war, but will insist on some sort of compromise. Palmeira (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never been sure, honestly, but that's the way it is for us fellas. Category:American male novelists, Category:American male poets, Category:American male writers, etc. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your recent edit removed the parent Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey. A discussion about the issue is taking place at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Alansohn (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could I ask a favor? Could you please add Wortendyke, New Jersey back to Template:Bergen County, New Jersey. I currently have an interaction ban which prevents me. Thanks so much. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Block Island Wind Farm at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! 001Jrm (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 28 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Block Island Wind Farm, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Block Island Wind Farm is the first offshore wind farm to be built in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Block Island Wind Farm. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for your help with this great project Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating Wind power in Wisconsin, Djflem!

Wikipedia editor Denver20 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks for your Time and Contributions in Making this Helpful Page.. Wikipedia thanks you..Denver C. (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Denver20's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

You are invited to comment on what maps should or shouldn't be included in city infoboxes, see project talk here. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a formal notification that I have started the above review to make sure the article is up to the latest standards. --Rschen7754 18:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! I opened a discussion here to try to get an NPOV resolution. So add your arguments --Cs california (talk) 06:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Djflem. I think "compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia" is overstating things. The guideline states that we do not have vagueness or instantly dated text, which if anything is what would actually compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Different editors handle that violation in different ways. It would be equally valid to have added the ^[when?] template. I think the larger point being missed here, and one which a subsequent editor rightly addressed, is that the WP:DATED vio needed fixing. If my boldly pointing this out helped spur an editor to research the date and add it, then my edit did exactly what was intended. Rather than compromise Wikipedia, it in fact enhanced it.

In any case, that other editor discovered that the information was nearly a decade old, and he or she added a year with a citation. All's well that ends well. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pelham Bay Bridge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MTA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate the many links you add, but they arent proper and stable references. Please do not add raw links without properly, complet irrelevant.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)ely citing them. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add complete references to the article. Thank you.Wuerzele (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for adding more parameters. teh one thing it doesnt add is date of publication , only access date which is rather irrelevant.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Court Street Bridge (Hackensack River).

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 13:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add ((bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer)) to your talk page.Reply[reply]

I've seen your edits and renames of articles for neighborhoods in New Brunswick. I've updated Template:New Brunswick, New Jersey to add links to these neighborhoods. Thanks for your edits and let me know if you have any questions or issues with the change. Thanks again. Alansohn (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Sadads (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankly, I don't recall giving you any advice about coordinates lately. Perhaps I've done so in the past, but I'm old enough that my memory is starting to get rather sievelike. As I recall, most of your problems involve coordinates that are only slighly off—a few city blocks and so forth (less than a mile, anyway)—and places that you actually know the locations of. In such cases the easiest thing to do is to go to the GeoLocator tool, enter the coordinates from the article in the dialogue box at top left, and zoom in on the area. You can then drag the marker on the map to the correct location (or double-click on the correct location) and paste the correct coordinates (which will appear after "Location:" to the left of the map) into the article's ((coord)) template. Et voila! Deor (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your requested move at Newark Liberty International Airport Station is to an implausible redirect which I recently deleted. Did you mean something else? Are you trying to change the capitalization of "station"--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Djflem Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year! BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if you used those Newark pictures in any way that you want. I was last there in 1995 and the other pictures that I took then of new housing in Newark are no longer in my possession. But I had visited the town before, mostly looking at sculpture, architectural sculpture and otherwise. And there is a lot there. In '95 there was a lot of renewal going on, the place needed a lot of help and I'm glad if it is getting it. Happy New Year, Carptrash (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 8 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operating Passenger Railroad Stations Thematic Resource (New Jersey), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Operating Passenger Railroad Stations Thematic Resource originally included over 50 stations deemed significant for their architectural and cultural merit? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operating Passenger Railroad Stations Thematic Resource (New Jersey). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lehigh Line Connection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyover. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, why did you revert my edit? The numbers you reverted to are not correct according to the cited sources. Toohool (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Djflem/1902 Paterson fire requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.patersonhistory.com/events/fire1902.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 17 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Phillipsburg Union Station, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Phillipsburg Union Station was served by the DL&W and CNJ where their lines merged before crossing the Delaware River? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Phillipsburg Union Station. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, please do not make article-space copies of materials originating in draft space. This causes the edit history to be incomplete, which is forbidden. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from John L. Leal into William J. Magie. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your addition to Mercer Beasley has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Chris Christie appointees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for all your hard working efforts. Tinton5 (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am guessing you are having the somewhat usual knee-jerk reaction that judges are not politicians, especially when not elected. The problem is, judges meet the definition of politician. More importantly, as to your reversions from several judges in NJ from politician/city categories, these judges are already in politician categories. See Category:American state court judges where all state court judges are in politician cats.

Basically, every office holder is a politician. Now, not all politicians are office holders, sort of like not all doctors are physicians, but all physicians are doctors. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There appears to be no mention of Category:Politcians State Judges Category:Federal political office-holders in the United States Category:Office-holders of the United States http://www.thefreedictionary.com/politician

I think I've finished off the coordinates in the article. A few points:

1. I'm not sure that I have the correct coordinates of the Patriot's Path footbridge. I put them where Google Maps shows the bridge, but the Open Street Map shows it about 250 yards upstream, at 40°45′10″N 74°33′07″W / 40.75286°N 74.55195°W / 40.75286; -74.55195. There are just too many trees to see the bridge in aerial views; you may want to see if you can find out exactly where the thing is.
2. Passaic River says that the source of the river is the unnamed pond at roughly 40°45′44″N 74°34′40″W / 40.76222°N 74.57778°W / 40.76222; -74.57778. If that is taken as the source, there are technically two crossings upstream of the last entry currently in the table. The nascent river passes through a culvert under Hardscrabble Road at 40°45′46″N 74°34′37″W / 40.76276°N 74.57696°W / 40.76276; -74.57696 and (apparently in a culvert) under Corey Lane at 40°45′51″N 74°34′32″W / 40.76427°N 74.57551°W / 40.76427; -74.57551. I don't know whether you do or do not want to include these.
3. There seem to be some dams or spillways in the upper reaches of the river other than the ones you have listed. One is at the outlet of Osborn Pond, at 40°43′16″N 74°31′55″W / 40.72110°N 74.53208°W / 40.72110; -74.53208, just under/downstream of the Lee's Hill Road bridge. Another is at the outlet of another pond, at 40°46′17″N 74°34′17″W / 40.77142°N 74.57152°W / 40.77142; -74.57152, and there may be several others along the course of the river. (I wasn't looking in too much detail as I followed the river upstream.)

If I've made any mistakes, just drop me a message if you're unable to fix them yourself, and I'll try to correct them. Deor (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been suggested that the hook for your DNK nom be revised from 100 to 90 crossings. If you make that revision I can give it a nod. I regret the length of time it has taken to get thru this. Verne Equinox (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering why you changed "Moffit Bridge" (which you had originally typed) to "Moffat Bridge". The source you supplied for that entry uses the spelling "Moffit" in three places: (1) the municipal listing for Hawthorne, (2) the Lincoln Avenue entry in the alphabetical listing, and (3) entry 653 in the numerical listing. Deor (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 13 2016 your put Fairview back into text for wiki/Hudson_Waterfront without noting the addition. It was removed in February and documented.

My comments in the talk page therein, although unkind but true about Fairview, are reason enough to exclude Fairview from the def.

Although Cliffside Park also does not border the Hudson, its size and local and high rise buildings giving good views of NYC and make it a desired location for NYC escapees. I left it in the text.

Fairview's demographics were left in because they caused no harm. Fairview has no right to be considered a member of the Gold Coast any more than Ridgefield.

I shall remove it once again but I do not want to get into an argument via editing. I've become aware of "editing wars" and the warnings from Widipedia about such (different articles completely which I became are of via seeing a contributor was banned or temporarily suspended but was not involved in.) As a source of knowledge, it is wrong for others to cite (cit?) Fairview as Gold Coast because of Widipedia, although I can see the borough wanting to be a "us too" town. Are far back as I can remember, Fairview wasn't a GC town in the press because it did not border on the Hudson River. Edgewater on the other hand was prime GC and as a sleepy little town, people made a lot of money. Perhaps here is where I should throw in your talk page about politicians, judges and politically connected people.

The things I've seen but have no documented proof could land me in court. (politically connected judges? U bet cha.) More known about Fairview, but some of Edgewater too first hand.

Tangent; 5 firemen from CSPK ransacked the house of a dead man then torched it. Each agreed to testify against the other 4. End result was NO ONE ever went to court. That was in the Bergen Record. Blame the prosecutor (sp?) on that one.

1. 2 Mafia man caught with a 22 cal gun with an illegal silencer. No one ever followed up on where he got the silencer. I say Mafia but I just made up the label although I've been lead to believe that the small caliber weapon is one of choice at times.

The more one sees, the more one dig, the worse the situations are. In Fairview they say a prayer before each council meeting. IMO they could shorten it to "Don't let us get caught." Indeed, too small with only 12/14 million budget (excluding School which is another ball of wax) is too small for Trenton or the Feds to care.)

The "control" that a certain person of North Bergen in Hudson County, abutting Fairview, exorcising control over Fairview is only 2nd hand info from people who know more than me. None of which is current and perhaps should be stated in past tense as is the next.

I'll leave you with one more tidbit because its cute. My barber asked the Cliffside Park major (names omitted here for legal reasons) why the town approved a certain construction project. His response, according to my barber was "You can't steal if you don't build." Cliffontheroad (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I left three entries lacking coordinates, as follows:

• Portway Bridge (proposed): I see that such a bridge is being discussed: but as far as I can tell it's only in the feasibility-study stage, and I've been unable to determine exactly where the thing would stand if it's ever built. (I'm not even sure that an exact position has yet been decided on.)
• Newark Plank Road (removed): Was this at the site of the present-day Lincoln Highway Bridge, or was it at a slightly different location?
• Pedestrian bridge (proposed): I've looked at a number of online documents about proposed improvements along the river in the Ironbound neighborhood, but I haven't seen anything about a footbridge across the river between the Dock Bridge and the Jackson Street Bridge. Where did you see such a proposal?

If I can be of any further help, let me know. Deor (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you sure bridges are supposed to be disambiguated by river name, and not city name? I was surprised by your move of Monroe Street Bridge (Chicago). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have seen it for bridges over rivers.Djflem (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed that you sometimes use ((geodata-check)) to ask for coordinate corrections in articles, as you did at Talk:Brielle Draw. It's pretty easy to do this sort of correction yourself if you know where the thing needing corrected coordinates is. You can use this tool: Just keep double-clicking on the map (with the cursor on the area you want to zoom in on), or enter the incorrect coordinates in the dialog box at top left and move the map around, until you see the thing of interest,then put the cursor on it and Ctrl-click to place the marker; adjust the position of the marker, if necessary, by dragging it, and then you can read and copy the coordinates, in d/m/s and decimal form, at left. Deor (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]

I just reverted this edit... Samsara 13:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please explain your rationale for this revert? It added a station layout to the article, which is available on nearly all railroad station articles, so I'll be restoring my changes for the time being. Regards — c16sh (speak up) 01:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're thinking about going up the Hackensack this summer, so I've just finished plotting a course up the river on a good chart plotter. I can easily fill in the mileage to all of the bridges if it is all right with you. I'm asking here rather than the article's talk page simply because you seem to be most involved with the article. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jameslwoodward: That would be great! Thanks! Djflem (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Philadelphia 76ers.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of crossings of the Upper Passaic River page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to move a conversation from another user's talk page to an article talk page without all participants' permission. Although I agree with you about the moves, it serves no purpose to bring extra perhaps unwanted attention to this minor event, especially since the well-respected user who originally made the bold move has now apparently dropped the issue after being reverted. Station1 (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem. Hope you're having a good day. We're on the brink of beginning to talk past each other at the talk page of that article, so I'm going to back off for a bit to allow more space for any others who may wish to join the conversation. As I mentioned there, I'm baffled at the nonstandard formatting you're using for the discussion—specifically your indentation, which seems more or less random. You've had an account about as long as I have, and in that time you've made three times as many edits, so I hesitate to point you to a help page...but WP:THREAD. Sometimes there is good reason to use nonstandard indentation, but in most cases it just makes discussions harder to follow. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you have a source to establish the connection between the church and high school described in this edit. I'm probably just being dense, but I couldn't spot anything to support the relationship. This source describes some of the timing of the history, but doesn't provide an explicit connection. Same with this source, which might help as well. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the added edits. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sea Bright-Monmouth Beach Seawall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkheads. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Sea Bright-Monmouth Beach Seawall at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yunshui ^雲_水 10:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Bergen BRT has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) Use ((re|Jc86035))
to reply to me 16:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ed Forchion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ray Coles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray Coles until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 7 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ed Forchion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that activist Ed Forchion tried to legally change his name to NJWeedman.com, but was denied by courts in New Jersey and California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ed Forchion. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my discussion here. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again please see my discussion about the "Writ..." section of the article, and address the issue of jargon. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 10 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sea Bright-Monmouth Beach Seawall, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Sea Bright-Monmouth Beach Seawall runs along a stretch of Atlantic Coast that is one of the most heavily engineered sections of ocean shorefront in the world? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sea Bright-Monmouth Beach Seawall. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for nominating Gay concentration camps in Chechnya for "in the news". It means a lot to me, the creator of the article, to get such a great response <3 Rævhuld (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that, to maker the list more understandable, I have moved your oppoostions out of the primary lists into separate parts of the CFDS listing, along with your oppostion statements. Please look over what I did, and fix anything I missed; while you're doing this, feel free to respond to any of my replies to you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When some one lists a big list at WP:CFDS as a single group, and you oppose a small number of them, please move the entry/entries you oppose to below the main list, separated by a blank line. This will make it easier to see what you are opposed to. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heads up, I have moved the opposed New York discussions to full CfD discussions here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 27. The previous opinions have been summarized (hopefully accurately, please let me know if you think I have misrepresented your thoughts), and the actual discussion has been moved over and hatted so people can see our exact words from previously. I did ping you there but I wanted to explain myself fully here as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still unclear what you're trying to do in this edit to the article for Penns Neck, New Jersey. The link to Locality Search, a file created by the State of New Jersey, is rather clear in stating that Penns Neck is a community in West Windsor. The link you added here is a useful document that could be helpful to this and other articles, but there is no indication of what part of this more than 350-page document you're referencing. Why eliminate a source that clearly supports the claim made and substitute it with a document that points to no specific statement that supports the fact? Alansohn (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this edit. The EIS document could be a useful source to mine for more details about the community. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've finished messing about with the tables. Let me know if there are any problems. Deor (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Lankey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Lankey until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 15 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article County courthouses in New Jersey, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the county courthouses in New Jersey serve 21 counties in 15 vicinages? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/County courthouses in New Jersey. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howdy. Just curious, why do you keep putting the departure date into the intro at Chris Christie? This isn't the practice of these articles. Notice that the departure date isn't shown at Terry McAuliffe. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As in this edit, may I suggest using the county-specific link to the list of places on the National Register of Historic Places, rather than the master page? Thanks for all of the additions. Alansohn (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• County specific links die after a couple of months.Djflem (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've never seen any of these county-specific links "die". Can you give an example of a link that meets the description? Did the link change? Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Van Vorst Park=dead Barrow Mansion/Hamilton Park, Jersey City= archived from original. Appears the link is updated every 6 months or so.Djflem (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 6 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bergen Tunnels, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad built the Bergen Tunnels due to congestion in the competing Erie Railroad's tunnels? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bergen Tunnels. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New Jersey railroad junctions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lehigh Line (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for creating County courthouses in New Jersey, Djflem!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

A useful addition to Wikipedia. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Bill Brennan (activist) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:POLITICIAN as unsuccessful candidate and otherwise not notable as WP:NOTNEWS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. AfC submissions Random submission ~7 weeks 1,807 pending submissions Purge to update v t e I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Geography Barnstar
		Good work on List of crossings of the Rahway River--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

==A thanks Thanks for the solid tips! -Lebanonman19 (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Reformed Church of Highland Park is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reformed Church of Highland Park until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like your court house list. have you worked on the mayors? Category:Lists_of_mayors_of_places_in_New_Jersey. I have been contacting the research librarian in the major cities to compile lists. I have also been clustering New Jersey categories in Wikidata to make them easier to find. Mayor of a place in New Jersey (Q42688505) Wikidata has a field called "position held" that can be Mayor of X, with one click, you can see the names of the mayors, even if they do not have a Wikipedia entry. Mayors of Jersey City. See if you can fill in missing at Mayor of Long Branch, New Jersey. --RAN (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article for Kevin S. Corbett puts him in the Mendham Township category, but lists him as living in Mendham, New Jersey (a redirect to the page for the borough). A public records search puts him in Mendham Township, which I can't use, and all of the sources place him in generic "Mendham, NJ" with no distinction between the borough and the township. Have you found anything reliable and verifiable to place him on Mendham Township (vs. Mendham Borough)? Was there anything that led you to choose the Mendham Township category? Alansohn (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Public records/address searches. such as https://njparcels.com/property/1419/142/73.Djflem (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found the same data, but it violates WP:PRIMARY. In this case we can make a good bet that it's the same person, but it isn't always possible to match a property to specific person solely based on matching a name. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 5 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rahway River Parkway, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Rahway River Parkway, designed by Olmsted Brothers in the 1920s, was a project of the newly-formed Union County parks commission? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rahway River Parkway. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kudos on the article and the DYK.

This edit says that the Rahway River Parkway runs through the borough, but doesn't provide a source. This source from the county lists the Parkway as being in Clark, Linden, Cranford and Rahway. This Greenway Plan, used as a source in the Rahway River Parkway, mentions Kenilworth and Westfield, but I don't see where it says that the two places include parts of the Parkway.

Do you have a source that puts the Parkway in Kenilworth, Westfield and other municipalities? Is there an overall map, because I couldn't fine it on the county website or at the Friends of Rahway River Parkway?

Your help here would be most beneficial. Alansohn (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Elizabeth, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article River Dorms (Rutgers) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Dorms (Rutgers) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't add Wikipedia mirrors (i.e. webpages or books which take their information and text from Wikipedia) as sources to Wikipedia articles. This is circular sourcing, you are adding a source which is a copy of the original text, not an independent authority who confirms our text. Fram (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I'm about done with the coordinates and related changes on this. In the table for the main stream, I added two footbridges (between the Lehigh Line and High Street bridges and between the Springfield Ave. and Boulevard bridges) and the dam at Droeschen Mill. I also added a number of footbridges and dams to the West Branch table, but it's still misssing a bunch of crossings in the upper reaches of the stream. I think that all of the road crossings north of Northfield Avenue are culverts rather than bridges; there are also some footbridges in the Essex County Country Club golf course. Deor (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done with Rahway River Parkway. too. Deor (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Much appreciated.Djflem (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Hackensack Cemetery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Civil War

Simon Douglas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Civil War

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Clinton Cemetery has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Cemetery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Cemetery is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on List of sheriffs of Monmouth County, New Jersey requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

this falls under A7 as unremarkable, but also there was no consensus to create this article as a spinout. It was proposed only 10 days ago and the discussion only had three participants see Talk:Monmouth County, New Jersey#Sheriff of Monmouth County, New Jersey

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Rusf10 (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I recognize you as a tireless contributor, who has faced the forces of deletionism by adding the reliable and verifiable sources needed to build this encyclopedia. Remember that it a significant amount of work to create an article of even minor significance, all of which can be destroyed by a few seconds of typing by an editor who just doesn't like the article. Please don't be frustrated by the recent flurry of negativity; look at each Prod tag and each AfD listed on your talk page as a battle scar in the fight to create a better Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• One doesn't have to look further than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinton Cemetery (2nd nomination) for an example of an article that you created, was AfD'ed and then was expanded by you (and others) to meet the notability standard and broad community consensus for retention. Another victory for Wikipedia, but there's more work to be done.... Alansohn (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saw your draft on Alansohn's talk page, I don't know if it's open to comments, but I was wondering why you chose the order of dates as newest up top and oldest a the bottom of the section. Usually I see it done the other way. Just wondering! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Semmendinger: Saw your comments on Alansohn's talk page and appreciate your imput there and here. It's an idea to do reverse chrono, with most recent/current on top, but not sure about it. I plan to continue to work on article as I, like you, believe this an area/cat that can and should be expanded. As seen here maybe not everyone agrees, but I do believe pages in the cat should be consistent. Feel free to leave any tips, or better (still) references. Thanks.Djflem (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Governorship of Phil Murphy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Governorship of Phil Murphy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  01:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know if a New Jersey article needs more research that I can help with, I am working on a non wiki DNA project now that requires my full attention. Just leave a message on my talk page. --RAN (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bergen County Executive is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bergen County Executive until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, kudos on creating the BCE article, building on the successful work with Atlantic County Executive. As consensus seems clear supporting these articles, do you have any thoughts on working on other county executive articles and would you want to coordinate future work on the topic? Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure where your next steps are, but I'm poking around Essex. Let me know what articles you're thinking of and I'd be happy yo share the sourcing duties. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks like the same folks behind the deletion of this article now are taking the WP:BATTLEGROUND from the AfD to the articles themselves. Do you see any consensus about what to do with the article or is that entirely imagined by the edit warriors? Alansohn (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When a biography is threatened with deletion, do not forget to migrate it to Familypedia in one cut and paste and then add the link to Wikidata. See: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18808343 It is Wikia, the for-profit wiki, by the same people as Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 05:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my edit to the article for Elizabeth Maher Muoio, where I clarified that she passed through committee and awaits confirmation by the full senate. My appreciation for your yeoman's work on editing articles and for standing up for what's right. Alansohn (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anibal Ramos Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibal Ramos Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Newark Municipal council members is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newark Municipal council members until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eddie Osborne is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eddie Osborne until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mangoe (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carlos M. Gonzalez is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos M. Gonzalez (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You moved this back to capped Executive with comment "proper title". I'm not sure what you're saying or thinking. The sources, including the most official ones, don't cap the job title "county executive"; and see MOS:JOBTITLE. Taking the first few Google hits: the official county page on it says "the county executive handles the day-to-day operations...". This article is titled "Jim Tedesco to seek reelection as Bergen County executive". This one has "running for re-election as executive of Bergen County". This one shows the correct place to use caps, in "County Executive James Tedesco III", and also not, in "to win the executive post in 2014". This one has "to run for county executive". Nobody uses this as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.co.bergen.nj.us/27/County-Officials https://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/27/nyregion/bergen-to-vote-on-executive.html

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darrin Sharif is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darrin Sharif until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem. I was pinged on Talk:Bergen County Executive around your edit warring on this article. In particular, the following two edits: [4] and [5]. In your edit summaries, you labelled the first as vandalism and to take it to the talk page, and the second as there being no consensus to remove the level of detail. Personally I do not have any stake in the content of the article either way; I am, though, concerned that you are not adhering to the RFC, which had quite wide participation gauging the views of interested parties, which was closed just yesterday. Two points:

1. Labeling edits which are patently not vandalism as vandalism to justify using rollback is not acceptable.
2. Doing so while saying "take to talk" is extremely disingenuous, when there was a lengthy RFC on the talk page, initiated by the person you reverted, and closed by myself as an uninvolved party, with a clear closing summary that said the consensus was that removing these details was appropriate.

As you appear unable to use rollback appropriately, I have temporarily removed your access to the rollback tool. If you wish it to be returned, please ping me or another administrator in a month or so and we can discuss this. You will need to demonstrate you have learned how to edit in line with consensus. Further tendentious editing against consensus may regrettably result in a temporary block, restricting your account from editing Wikipedia. Please consider this your only warning. Should you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Regards, Fish+Karate 08:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_ea0wwJeb5i2cf8V&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I "thanked" you twice a few minutes ago, an error - I was looking at the wrong page history. I do thank you for many things you do, you are an editor I admire. But you don't need to puzzle out what I was thinking when I sent you those two "thank you" pings. I wasn't (thinking). Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Necker–Sharpe Funeral Home has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A Google failed to yield sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to ring the WP:N bell. If you remove this tag w/o remedying the deficiencies outlined above please ping me with an explanation. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Teachers Village, Newark is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teachers Village, Newark until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article One Theater Square is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Theater Square until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I notice that you are linking to templates in the See also section of some articles, which isn't particularly helpful to readers and is just on the verge of not conforming with MOS:SEEALSO. Please take care to curate proper links from the perspective of an interested reader. SounderBruce 05:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had it up to here with this. The NYS&W was an Erie subsidiary, so it used Erie signage all the way to the end. I don't know what kind of research you're doing, but clearly it's resulting in a falsehood. There won't be an NYSW style as it and the Erie were the same. I have photographic proof if you would like me to provide it.

That said, as someone who has spent the last 10 years doing hard Erie work, I would like to suggest that you let me know you make a new article. I don't want to clean up what you left me. I can help you, if you'd let me. The new Bogota and Hackensack articles are a mess.Mitch32^{(My ambition is to hit .400 and talk 1.000.)} 05:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Maria Barnaby Greenwald is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Barnaby Greenwald until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of First Landing Party of the Founders of Newark at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Newark Riverfront Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulkhead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Riverbank Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bridge Street Bridge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 24 May 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article First Landing Party of the Founders of Newark, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the First Landing Party of the Founders of Newark went missing for more than a decade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Landing Party of the Founders of Newark. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Because I running into your contributions, improving old pages, creating useful new ones. Nice work. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 440 Elizabeth Avenue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/440 Elizabeth Avenue until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with 440 Elizabeth Avenue. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Rusf10 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Modern (building) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Modern (building) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article North Hudson, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Hudson, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article West Hudson, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Hudson, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in New Brunswick, New Jersey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downtown Columbia Historic District (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for all the effort you've put in to improving List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri. It's not easy to find sources for such a small place and you excelled. That particular article will live to a ripe old age. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Grey Wanderer:.Thanks. As mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri, Unfortunately the rampage on some valuable tallest buildings articles did hit some that could have just as easily been worked on and are worth keeping. See: Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary. And that making a false claim about Emporis as as RS:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 269. It does take work, but sources are there.Djflem (talk) 10:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Newark Mayor and Council has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ミラP 22:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howcome you are currently working on my Our Lady of Mount Carmel (Bayonne,NJ) article? If you are editing please contact me my discord is benthekul#4972 Benthekul (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benthekul (talk • contribs) 22:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw Draft:Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (Bayonne, NJ) & needs work.Djflem (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you at least get in contact with me? Cause I have some sources. And other stuff. Benthekul (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in contact with you. Here and your talk page. But please just add them to article.Djflem (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Nice work on Our Lady of Mt. Carmel (Bayonne, New Jersey). :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have greatly diminished the readability and you have removed significant improvements to the article Marina Quays. Please discuss either on the talk page or the AfD. Otherwise erasing content is disruptive. Lightburst (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok thanks Doriden (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you possibly help me by putting it ack with a source, I appreciate your cooperation and support and patience with me. Doriden (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please check it out and let me know if it's satisfactory.

 I appreciate your patience and understanding in this matter.  Thanks Doriden (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before I finished someone took it off and said it was battlefield vandalism. I don't want to get in trouble with Wikipedia. So fast this guy did it, you can see the time, logged out for a minute and then I went there and found this nonsense. Doriden (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Sir, I don't know where this guy came from but literally one minute and I went back to finish and found battlefield vandalism bullshit. Will I get into trouble with Wikipedia because of this? Thank you Doriden (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was actually called University of Newark, not Newark College. It can be found in the same reference 8. Thanks Doriden (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I've just fixed six redirects that were pointing to 91st Street station, a disambiguation page you created after moving the article 91st Street station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line).

In the future, when moving an article from A to B and then creating a disambiguation page at the old title, please also fix all the redirects that were also pointing to A. This way, they won't be pointing to the disambiguation page. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Equinor operations by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jones Beach (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We had a merge discussion going-why did you remove the merge header from the article? Lightburst (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops- i see it - my mistake. Lightburst (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ocean Wind at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! Yoninah (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This ping to Jerodlycett didn’t work. For future reference, you have to put it on a new line with a new signature at the end in order for the recipient to get the ping. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your comment on Sandstein's page. I suggest you submit the AfD to a deletion review. I agree that more time is required, particularly where 2 other debates are going on at the same time. Bookscale (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookscale:. I have decided to do so, but have difficulty with formattng it properly on the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 22 page. Doesn't seem to add links and not sure. The page was moved from Methodist "C"hurches in Leicester to Methodist "c"hurches in Leicester, but that osn;t seem to be the problem. Maybe someone more familiar will correct it; Would you have a look? Thanks.Djflem (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem, you seem to have entered the template correctly. Not sure why the template links to a deleted page all the time. Bookscale (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The AfD discussion is frustrating - I can now see your concerns with the process. The fact that scholarly articles are discounted as "the local historical society" (which is patent nonsense) is disappointing. Bookscale (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want to add further comments to the latest AfD? There have been quite a few comments since you last participated, including accusations about you (which are unfair). Bookscale (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Djflem: - any response to this? Bookscale (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bookscale: - Sorry, haven't had time, but will get to it soon.Djflem (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You need to follow the DRV instructions and place notifications (steps 3 & 5) on the closer's talk and the AfD page (as later corrected here). — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Ocean Wind at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please reply to my comments about the Methodism article? Bookscale (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you've been organizing Category:Neighborhoods in Ewing Township, New Jersey. Do you think that there's an opportunity to salvage these articles and add sources to merit standalone status, or do you think that most of these should end up as redirects? Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: I think that the category should exist, but am fine that some of those in category be re-directed to the geography section of Ewing, which includes a map of the neighborhoods. Just going thru go see those that may be historical settlements (as seen in Gannett, Henry (January 28, 1895). "A Geographic Dictionary of New Jersey". U.S. Government Printing Office – via Google Books.), which IMO should have stand-alones, but come across none targeted as AfDs. Djflem (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm sure that some -- but not all -- of these articles could merit standalone articles. I think that we're better off with a smaller number of more substantial articles than a laundry list of articles for neighborhoods and developments that are have little more than a statement that they exist. Thanks for your efforts on the cleanup. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: To futher the discussion, and moving on to Edison, for which 3 articles are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Jersey. I have added some references to some and to most: "NJDOT Graphic Information System Maps Middlesex" (PDF). New Jersey Department of Transportation. ((cite web)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). I have also created Category:Neighborhoods in Edison, New Jersey, and agree with you that some (particularly 117th & 18th century settlements that have been absorbed) but most do not merit stand-alones. Unlike Ewing, however, where there is quite a good map in the Geography section, none exists at Edison article. Given the nature of suburban sprawl it's tough call: community, district, neighborhood, but opt for the most common Wiki term with this Draft:List of neighborhoods in Edison, New Jersey, which I think is a good place to start together potential info/sources for expansion. Any feedback or help would be greatly appreciated.Djflem (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I will go through the articles and the AfDs. I'm not sure what the best term is for these places, but I am confident that we are better off with a smaller number of more substantial articles that have some meat on their bones beyond the fact that they are within some township or other. I have no objection to turning many of these content-less articles into redirects, knowing full well that some of these might merit standalone articles in the future as material becomes available to be added. Thanks for all of your time and patience in organizing and expanding these articles. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with Alan here.. A separate page for a list of neighborhoods for a municipality and redirecting the AfD’s to the corresponding article is definitely something useful, especially as an alternative to having individual stub articles on unincorporated communities. There are some, however that could have room for expansion if the proper sources are presented. The ones you have shared can definitely be useful to already existing articles. Keep up the great work to you both. Tinton5 (talk) 01:16, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tinton5:@Alansohn: List of neighborhoods in Edison, New Jersey now exists. Have directed subs w/o content to it, but not those currently under AfD, so it would be great if you would respond to them there sense of completion. Others that may have potential I've left, but not sure there's enough for each for stand-alone (and could/should be re-directed?)Djflem (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Baptist churches in Leicester. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This is your third warning. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I consider this and this a personal attack and suggest you follow your own advice and stop making false accusations immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs)

My demonstration that your accusation is false through behavior guideline quotes and diffs is a personal attack? What a joke. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've demonstrated nothing.Djflem (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 3 March 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ocean Wind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ocean Wind, a planned offshore wind farm in the U.S., may use infrastructure at a closed nuclear power plant to access the electrical grid? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ocean Wind. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your position is extraordinarily clear. My position is clear. Doncram's position is clear. The position of everyone who has participated so far is clear. Before you say that Dmehus should not incessantly repeat (diff), please look at yourself. You've made 28 comments (even excluding "notes") on the AfD, which is at least 10 more than the editor with the next most. Others have already told you to stop badgering again and again. This degree of badgering is disruptive editing per WP:REHASH. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MarkH21: Mind your own business. Do not write on my talk page again. Djflem (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​ When you disrupt public discussions in which I am involved, it’s all of our business. Sure, I’ll stay off this talk page from now on and report directly to AN/ANI. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Djflem, I see you created the Johnson & Johnson Plaza Wikipedia article. Would you be interested to collaborate on the Johnson & Johnson Wikipedia article to correct some errors and inaccuracies? Since I am familiar with the subject and I have COI, I can supply verifiable secondary sources. What are your thoughts?--Chefmikesf (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Chefmikesf: Am disinclined, but leave a sample of what you're thinking here.Djflem (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright Doriden (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor had removed a huge chunk of content from the article for Edison, New Jersey at this edit. I tried to reinsert the least controversial chunks of this material, but the editor has called details about libraries (which you just trimmed) a "travel guide". The material was just removed again. I think that you, I and most local editors have a different perspective from this person. Can you monitor the article and look at Talk:Edison, New Jersey to see the standpoints of this editor. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought that they were both market rate. Why isn't 50 Rector have inclusion for affordable housing units? They were both built in the same time period. Doriden (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about first luxury high rise in fifty years? Doriden (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doriden: Not needed in lead. And it doesn't jib with 50 Rector Park, does it? Cant have two with same claim.Djflem (talk)

I saw your discussion note and your recent edits. There is a huge percentage of articles for unincorporated communities of all kinds (neighborhoods, housing developments, named intersections, etc.) that have never evolved beyond a single sentence or two, such as Maxim, New Jersey. Sources have been added to some of these articles, but often they add little more than confirming that the place exists. I don't see why we shouldn't be turning these kinds of superstubs directly into redirects to the parent municipality, rather than extending the agony by starting a merge discussion. I think that we're better off with a much smaller number of meatier articles for unincorporated places, with no prejudice to turning the redirects back into standalones as new sourcing becomes available. I just wanted to see your thoughts on the issue, before jumping into debates on the topic. Alansohn (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in agreement with you. Actually, perhaps the merger tag should have been a redirect tag, if one exists. I do believe they should be screened for tradiional/historical/noteworthy communities. I've done Edison, as you may have noted. I've continued with Howell, where there was a large amount. If you'd respond there with the same/similiar message as above, then at least those 15 or so can be redirected immediately.Djflem (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll chime in and start making the redirects. Thanks for the feedback; I had assumed that this was your position based on your edits, but I wanted to put the question to you directly. Thanks for all of your work! Alansohn (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alansohn: I believe that the categories should be kept for navigation purposes so that an reader/editor (should they so choose) can find the stub & its history. (Then there's the question about county templates, but that's another discussion).Djflem (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed about the categories; I always keep the categories when I change an article to a redirect. The county templates will need to be cleaned up and so will the articles for the parent municipalities. I think we're in synch here. I will start as soon as I can and ramp up the process. I'll keep an eye out for your edits. Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you've started with microstubs in Woodbridge Township. There are about 900 entries in Category:Unincorporated communities in New Jersey and I have a sneaking suspicion that a few hundred of these should be redirects. Thanks for starting on this much-needed task. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((ping|Alansohn)) I find there's no rush to do it, just focusing on the townships with large populations (such as Edison/Woodbridge) or Cherry Hill, Ewing that are more urbanized/developed (and where a list might be appropriate) is a good place to start. Other more rural areas may need a better BEFORE.Djflem (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're probably right. Some of these apparent microstubs in rural areas were thriving settlements that had shrunk into irrelevance. Some of the historical books will help there. We have the beginnings of a strategy. Alansohn (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Hospitals in Hudson County, New Jersey, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 02:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dunno if this can work, but I will try. Djflem, you and i have gotten onto opposite sides about the five articles and corresponding AFDs about "List of DENOMINATION churches in Leicester". Actually I started on the side of "keep the material, obviously, though merge to higher level list", and later turned to calling for outright deletion. The outcomes don't really matter, I think now, because the result is the same whether one of the lists is "Kept" but then stripped down and selective items get merged, or whether it is "Deleted" or "Draftified" and then reviewed and selective items get merged.

Where I come from, mainly, in what I do, is usually to take a big source, or system of sources, and work from it to develop coverage in Wikipedia. Documents about National Historic Landmarks in the U.S. --> articles about 2,000 such places, done by me and others. Documents about National Register of Historic Places places in the U.S. ---> articles about 90,000 such places, in progress by me and others, about 75 percent done by one measure at tracking page wp:NRHPPROGRESS. Because i like, or at least used to like, helping Americans know more about their local historic places, and it is/was allowed in Wikipedia. Though I have run into contention which detracts from the experience.

I also can be motivated sometimes in a contrarian way. I sorta enjoy fighting for "Keep" in an AFD, where I see/think it is possible. E.g. I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Naniloa Hotel recently, said "this is not right, it is surely notable", and then "fought" the deletion by scrounging for sources, with marginal success. It will be closed Keep soon I think, because others showed up and found better sources. But in the process, I learned a little about Historic Hotels of America program, which this hotel belonged to, and I looked into it more, and eventually I am concluding that membership there is a substantial thing, and further that any member should probably be Wikipedia-notable. Because there's some legitimacy of its sponsor, and because there is at least some info about all of them, in the webpages of HHA, and because usually I can find other independent sources about these (so it suggests their selection by HHA was discriminating, they only select substantially historic places, I think). I wonder if your recent participation is like my oppositional/contrarian effort starting here.

Anyhow, that brings me back to my first strategy: then I am back to developing from a big source, the HHA webpages. And I have been developing a big list article National Registry of the Historic Hotels of America, and starting lots of individual hotel articles, and finding it works: I am usually finding multiple sources, no has really been challenging this effort yet, and I think myself it is legit. Basically I am exploiting a resource, a source, to do a lot in one area of Wikipedia.

I honestly don't know where you come from on any of this, and I am curious, would like to know. Can you share, what is your interest here? Do you know about or like Leicester, say, and want to see more coverage about it? Are there one or two or three sources that were mentioned in any of this, which you like and which you want to use to introduce more substantial more coverage about any churches (if so, I don't think anything should block you)? Are you interested more in the Baptist stuff than other denominations (i am not)? I recommend the strategy of taking a source or type of sources and then exploiting them. You are not blocked from doing so. Can I even help in doing that?

I also feel sort of bad for you, being beleagured (is that a word?) involved in multiple confrontations, and taking on the new deletion review, and all of this is hard, I suspect. I sorta hope that talking about your big strategy might be helpful. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies - the "PediaPress" link was the one I was targeting as a junk publisher. I apparently removed another by accident. Kuru (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I noticed you undid my revision to John Frarmer Jr because you say "cannot 'quotes' from newspapers in references". However first, Wikipedia states what information to include when citing a newspaper on the page Wikipedia:Citing sources. Second, the edit from me you undid doesn't even include the newspaper reference. Please explain. Etineskid(talk) 01:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Etineskid:

Staff. "N.J.'S LINE OF SUCCESSION / A SIMPLE FIX", The Press of Atlantic City, November 11, 2002. accessed June 22, 2012. "Thanks to an unusual set of circumstances and a flaw in the state constitution, New Jersey had four different governors over eight days at the beginning of the year. Even for New Jersey, this was pretty bizarre."

Sorry, meant to say, "cannot change 'quotes' from newspapers in references". Appears that you changed the above quote from the Press of Atlantic City, which says four, to to say "five".Djflem (talk) 09:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The newspaper originally said "five" I changed it to "four" then realized I had changed the article title so I changed it back to "five" with another clarifying change which is what you reverted. So, the correct title of the article is "five" I am going to change the article back to reflect the correct name of the article. Etineskid(talk) 21:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marquita Bradshaw is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquita Bradshaw until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historic candidacy, taking away her page would have been tragic. You are good at wikipedia. need to learn from you.Joco179 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You recently expressed an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marquita_Bradshaw. (That AfD closed Sept 4 with consensus expressed as "The result was keep. A discussion on whether or not to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD.") A new proposal, to redirect searches for "Marquita Bradshaw" to 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee is being discussed at Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee#Proposed merge of Marquita Bradshaw into 2020 United States Senate election in Tennessee. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Wind power Wyoming has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DB1729 (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I butchered that nomination for renaming, I started all over and here is the new speedy request at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Thank you. --DB1729 (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Djflem. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Boraie".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the ((db-afc)), ((db-draft)), or ((db-g13)) code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 08:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help with Christopher O. Ward. Your page is quite impressive. The port authority is so fascinating. Jameson Doig book's is not good enough. I am a city college student, and hope to write another one the port, tolls, and machine politics. Can you possibly offer guidance, as a new wiki user, who wants to expand Wiki pages into this area, how to correct Christopher Wards page (says I was sensational adding earlier port info). Then after that, I started Howard S. Cullman's page. I am going to be much more certain about entries after this recent questioning. Thanks again. Love your page and info provided. very useful for my research. If not, and you are just passing thru, thanks, it is appreciated. Joco179 (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Al Ameer (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 11 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind is the first wind farm to be built in U.S. federal waters? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 69th Street station (NJ Transit), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flyover.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Passaic–Bergen–Hudson Transit Project, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transit.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,do you can to finish my work on the Draft: List of CSX Train Symbols;--General electric p30ch (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@General electric p30ch:. Sorry, very specilized. Don't know much about it.Djflem (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll send you instructions--General electric p30ch (talk) 11:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The instructions are:

• a: you must go here
• b: you will copy-paste the following:D, E, F, J, K, N, O, Q00, Q100, Q300, Q400, Q500, Q600, T, U, V, W, Z, Significant Yard Jobs and Transfers.