Jump to content

User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

List of compositions by Josef Tal

Dear Alan Liefting, what were the reasons for your recent deletions? - no explanation was given in summary. thanks - Etan J. Tal 23:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is deleted. I was using AWB to recategorise the article and it automatically consolidated the references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Understood. Thanks! Etan J. Tal 06:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans

Hello Alain Liefting, Maybe you are willing to give advice on the article. i know personally Paldopaldino, who edited this article. He does not master english very well. He wrote first in french, that is the language spoken where we live. But it was taken off the fr.wikipedia. Now i already tried to shorten the article, i want it to be much shorter, without irrelevant things. And i also prefer other more suitable and recent images, that only Paldopaldino can send and include. The problem is that I have no experience and included a few remarks in wikipedia starting this year. Hope you read this, and thanks for advice or help to make the article acceptable.Analdo--Analdo (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I am only interested in the categorisation of the article. There are sufficient tags on the article to alert other editors of the work required. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hubertine Heijermans

Yes. I understand, thank you. i asked because since 21 of april by SmackBot there was no réaction to tags. And categories are hard to find. Greetings, Analdo--Analdo (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Individual income tax in Singapore

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Individual income tax in Singapore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. Courcelles 10:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Brett Bailey Speedy Deletion

Dear Alan Thank you for warning me of the Speedy Deletion. I cannot find out where I should place my statement that pleads against deletion - and so I am going to make my case here. Please let me know where else to argue against speedy deletion if this is not a suitable place. I have made multiple changes to the Brett Bailey article and have expanded the information, including adding 25 references to verify the statements I have made in the text. You might not have heard of Brett Bailey in New Zealand, but in South Africa, and increasingly in African and Europe, he is one of the most awarded, and most interesting, contemporary playwright and director. His work has shaken up the theatre establishment in South Africa, and has revolutionized how Africans and other people see Africa. He definitely is a notable person. I look forward to your response. Islahaddow (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I notice that another editor has since removed the speedy deletion tag and the you have removed the PROD tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning

I strongly urge you to read WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Your speedy deletion tags have been so far off its worrying we have somebody running about so clueless about guidelines. You do NOT place start class articles with ten sources up for deletion. Continue this disruptive behaviour and its only a matter of time before you are reported at ANI and your actions discussed. So please STOP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

When there is so much patent trash on Wikipedia crying out to be culled, it does amaze me that experienced editors can get quite so aereated about an apparent widening of the scope of a process. I am sure that Dr. Blofeld is both correct in process and sincere in his/her intentions, but investing this concern into developing better processes to raise the quality of Wikipedia would surely make more sense and be a better use of time. Ho hum - let's let anything with the merest smidge of notability take its place in Wikipedia. (Bang goes any hope of me ever becoming an Admin!)  Velella  Velella Talk   15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff that should be culled from Wikipedia as well as a lot of stuff that needs improvement. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I did not realise that article assessment and number of sources were of importance to the deletion process. Sources vary in quality and do not determine the notability of an article. Also, please do not make threats about ANI - either report me if there is a problem or keep you perceived concerns to yourself. And please don't shout at me... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Steve Bandoma

Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Steve Bandoma. In my opinion, the awards section represents claims of importance sufficient to satisfy criteria A7. If you still want to delete the article, please use an alternative deletion process. Monty845 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Mbongeni Buthelezi

I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Mbongeni Buthelezi. In my opinion, the large number of exhibitions, the artists presence in major collections, and some of the external links all represent claims of importance sufficient to satisfy criteria A7. Further it appears that if some of the external links were converted to references, this article may well pass the much higher notability standards. Monty845 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Harrington's Breweries logo.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rename?

About the WP:PROD of Herman F. Becker

Hi Alan!
Yup. No hits as a taxon authority at IPNI. I'll ask about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that correct WP:PROD. Gone now. Now lets see if we can get rid of that foreign country's flag in our respective countries' flags... :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Novara (bicycles)

What is non-notable about Novara (bicycles)? REI seels more Novaras than any other brand and REI is a US and Canada-wide co-op? It would be similar to stating that Kenmore Appliances is a non-notable brand of Sears--Degen Earthfast (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

article on Hydraulic Fracturing

Hi there! I had some concern about your well-motivated page move, which I've spelled out on the talk page. It would be great if you could weigh in there, and tell us a little more about the whys, hows, and all that. Sindinero (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It is work in progress. Replied over there as asked. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Giday back Alan Liefting!

Things are good, although I am concerned about the recent licence granted to Shell to embark upon Fracking in the Karoo of South Africa. My homeland, and a place of natural beauty with many rare plants and a unique but fragile ecosystem. I would very much appreciate if you could add this to your list for inclusion in this topic. Also, am I allowed to ask you to link to to a Facebook page in protest of this practice? Its called BOYCOTT SHELL SA! Even if privately as I'm sure you must have an extensive network of sympathetic voices.

p.s. apologies, I posted this all over other topics until I worked out what I was doing. This is my first ever dip of the toe.

--Sevencents (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The granting of a licence to Shell allowing them to carry out fracking may not be notable in itself but I will investigate the issue. As for your request for linking to a Facebook campaign page, this would not be done since it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As an environmentalist I would like to carry out your request but I cannot as a Wikipedia editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Editor review

Sorry I missed contributing to your editor review, but I didn't really want to mix it with the pompous and self-righteous indignation these reviews seem to produce. My two cents worth is that I have rarely found myself at odds with your contributions and have suffered the same frustrations at Speedy deletions and AfD failings mostly because those involved haven't read or haven't chosen to read WP policy and guidance. Including everything relevant is fine, including everything that's junk is not so fine. Anyway - keep motoring and keep warm in the snow!  Velella  Velella Talk   09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD G11 on Actiontec Electronics

I removed the G11 CSD tag on Actiontec Electronics as the page and the editing history doesn't look at all like unambiguous advertising. It's been edited by a wide variety of editors, and is a pretty well-established company. None of the editors in the editing history look like they are promotional. Yours, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: ASR9000

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on ASR9000 to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Two articles for the price of one?

I'm wondering about the separation you made between Cat and Domestic Cat. It's a reasonable distinction in principle, the problem is that it doesn't exist in the resulting articles. For example, the Cat article contains the word "domestic" 108 times, and every cat picture there shows specifically a domestic cat. Either the articles should be reunified, or the information about domestic cats should be consolidated under Domestic Cat, leaving Cat to contain only information about cat species generally. However, that article would duplicate the existing article Felidae, and exchanging one duplication for another would not be progress. What would you think of unifying all Domestic Cat information into the article of that name, moving any generic Cat information into Felidae, and turning Cat into a disambiguation page, which would reference Felidae, Big Cat, Lion, Tiger, and all the other cat pages. Ornithikos (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I will have another look at them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Technical problem with this Discussion page

I noticed an oddity on this page. When I'm editing a section, the Page Notice at the top mentions me rather than you:

    "Giday!" said Ornithikos to the editor that arrived at his talk page.

This can't be what you wanted. I would guess it has escaped notice because when you edit the page your own name appears. Ornithikos (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I have sorted it out. For some inexplicable reason I used MalnadachBot instead oy my name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
This is just a test to see whether the sentence above now uses my name ? Wow - so it does ! Velella  Velella Talk   15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The bug has replicated into its own description. Oy!
I've rarely gotten through a day without remembering:
I really hate this darn machine, I wish that they would sell it.
It never does the things I want, it just does what I tell it!
Ornithikos (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't understand PROD on ASR9000

Can you take a look at ASR9000 and see if what happened there makes sense to you? It seems your SPEEDY was turned into a PROD by a 3rd party, and I don't understand the explanation. The ASR seems to have some level of 3rd party coverage, so basic NOTE seems to be met. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Avaya Secure Router 2330

Please stop listing the Avaya Secure Router 2330 page for deletion. If you want to request deletion for product pages, first request that the pages be repaired, or content added or wikified. Then only after you have waited for months and the repair is not accomplished could you ask to delete. Look at this page [[1]] It has little to no content and has been tagged for years to get resolved or someone should delete it. Other pages - [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. If you want to clean up products how about consolidating all theses [[5]] phones into a few pages. Geek2003 (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2330 page is just like hundreds of other product pages.

Geek2003 (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Domestic cat article

Hello Alan Liefting! I have seen your edits to the Domestic cat page changing it from a redirect page to the start of a new article. There has been a discussion on Talk:Cat as to whether there should be 2 separate articles for Cat and Domestic cat or whether they should be merged. The comments in thus far are in favor of a merger. Please comment on that talk page as to why you created the second article and whether you think the two articles should be separate or merged. Thank you! --Tea with toast (話) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I should point out that, although I advocated rolling back the Cat division as preferable to duplication or complication, I personally think you were on the right track. I wish we had gone farther in that direction, until Cat became a redirect with all its contents absorbed into Domestic Cat or Felidae. Oh well. May the Great Ouija Board live long and prosper! Ornithikos (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the lead Naayar (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

2005 NZ Elections

Hi Alan Liefting, thought you might be interested to see that I've added a graph to the 2005 New Zealand opinion polls page. Would love to hear your comments and similar plans on this theme--Trevva (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Category:Years in the future

Why are you removing it from the individual future years? Even if you think it redundant for the years 2020 and later, 2010s is not in the future, so 2012-2019 need to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(Copyedit) Oh, you think it's unnecessary for 2013 because 2013 is in Category:2013, which is in Category:Years in the future. I disagree with that analysis. Perhaps it should be discussed in WT:YEARS? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I was going to say - The years that I removed already had a category in Category:Years in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets start to delete all the product pages

OK what is wrong? Geek2003 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not deleting "all" the product pages (I cannot in fact delete anything since I am not an admin) but I am putting up a lot of articles about people and products up for deletion that I found in Category:Avaya. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems like over the last two weeks you have focus on deleting Avaya products except for a few others just to keep it looking like you do not have a ax to grind against Avaya. Geek2003 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It may "seem" that way to you. That is a perception of yours and an accusation that I do not like having made against me. Let me explain how this flurry of deletion requests came about. After your edits in the previous set of deletion requests of Avaya products I thought to myself "hmmm, do I detect an editor who is using Wikipedia from product promotion?" and then thought nothing of it. Then tonight, after coming across Category:Avaya (I usually do a lot of work on categorisation), I found quite a number of article that were incorrectly categorised and others that did not meet WP notability standards. You are an editor of many of them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing so I do focus most of my edits on all these pages and other computer/IT pages along with the other users of these projects. We are trying to create good pages and most of these Avaya pages are stubs that we are working on. Constructive feedback or assistance, in helping us add to the pages is better than just requesting that they be deleted. Geek2003 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
And I am trying to make sure WP sticks to a core of good article that meet the policies and guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Then help all of us learn by teaching us what is wrong with the pages and assisting us in correcting the incorrect content to make the pages better, instead of just deleting them. If you would join the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel and leave constructive feedback on what needs changing I am sure that we would be glad to work on it. Geek2003 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I will correct or tidy up articles if they need correcting or tidying, but if it does not meet WP notability standards I will not hesitate to request a deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The deletion requests that you accomplished today 15 on specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel related pages in less than an hour seem to indicate that you did not accomplish any investigation or research into page before you you elected to delete the the page. Geek2003 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I am comfortable with the level of investigation that I carried out before putting the articles up for deletion. Lets see how the deletion process pans out rather than making assumptions about my ability as an editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Status and Advice

I have declined the speedies on some of the articles you tagged ; they do not meet the speedy criterion, being informative, not primarily promotional. — Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. They do describe the subject from a NPOV, after the minor rewriting I gave it to remove a few words that seemed promotional , and they do need third party references. I've advised the editor further. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

More generally, why not try merges into broader product lines. None of the arguments you give in your AfD requests involve an argument why merges are not suitable, and , according to WP:Deletion policy, they are preferred over deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Ohito Declaration

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Ohito Declaration requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Brianhe (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Relisted as copyvio since this appears to be cut & paste copy of http://www.xiao-en.org/cultural/life.asp?cat=54&loc=zh-cn&id=1021. Brianhe (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion was a good option. BTW, it wasn't my article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Template primarysources on Dell PowerConnect

Hi, I added a note for discussion on the Talk page of the article as I think that -because of the nature of the lemma and the references used- it is more then logical to use them. If you only meant that besides the own references also external references would be welcome: yeah, that would be nice; but if you placed the template because you think that the use of the own references should always be avoided I have a different point of view; but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise (or at least discuss it). So if you have anything to say on the subject - please do so on the Talk page above. Tonkie (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have replied over there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Dashboard on my page

Alan, I see that you removed the dashboard from my page. I haven't replaced it yet, as I wanted to see what your reason was. So, why was that removed ? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the page from showing in content or project categories. I could not find which template was causing it to do that so I ended up deleted lots of stuff. When you reinstate it make sure the page does not show in categories in which it does not belong. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I'm linking directly to {{dashboard}} , so it's adding my page into other categeory pages (like administrators ). Since that's on the dasboard itself, there's no way to remove that without editing the dashboard. I'll keep it out of my page. Thanks for the heads up. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 23:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm... {{Dashboard}} does not seem to add categories. Maybe it was another template that was on the page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not template:Dashboard , it's Wikipedia:Dashboard </nowki> :) It adds in a category (administrators). I didn't have anything else on my page except the <nowiki>{{Wikipedia:Dashboard)). When I re-added it in on a test sandbox made just for that test I checked and saw that page listed in Category:Administrators.

It's on the Dashboard itself, I'll keep it off my page. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 01:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of '1995 in' articles

I think it's a move to avoid red links in various articles and templates rather than to aid searching. @pple complain 09:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Avaya Auto Unit Replacement

Please see my comment on the talk page. I closed the AfD as delete, although there was an !vote for redirection. I noted in the AfD closure that there was a case for a redirect if a suitable target could be found. After I deleted the article, when I was cleaning up the links to the page, I found one that seemed suitable as a redirect target, so I created it. If you think this is an unsuitable redirect target, that is fine. But, otherwise, I am not sure there is an issue with this redirect. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose redirects are cheap but there were two !votes to one for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
There was nothing in the delete !votes to indicate a problem with a redirect (assuming there was an appropriate target, although an appropriate target was not identified in the discussion). Hence my closing comment. However, I am not familiar with these switchers and such, so the target I thought was appropriate may not be. If it is not, then I would be happy to G7 it. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess it is your call as an admin. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with the redirect on this one. DGG ( talk ) 12:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment of Planetary boundaries

Thank you for your assessment of Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OR Books

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol.
Message added 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, Alan Liefting. I'm writing to question your questioning of "the general notability" of this page, which includes a variety of sources respected in the publishing industry (Publishers Weekly, Shelf Awareness, Publishing Perspectives, etc.); OR has more than its share of notable authors and is one of the most interesting new publishers around. Giachen (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Unified Communications Management nom statement

From the guide to deletion: "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." It only takes a few extra seconds when nominating to link actual words to all those shortcuts, and it makes the nomination much more coherent to newer users. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should follow community consensus but in this case I choose to ignore it. If a newcomer is not familiar with the acronym an explanation is a simple click away. A newcomer should make themselves familiar with WP policy and guidelines as well as the "spirit" of WP before they participate in AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

New Wikipedia user - user page edited

Hi Alan, I am a new Wikipedia user and have a message you edited my user page, what was wrong there? Thanks. YZaid (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2011 (GMT)

Yzaid, I removed a category from your talk page since it was a content category, ie. one that should only include articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Random survey

Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, you are making me think. I don't like it and it hurts!! Looks like there is huge debate already going on but here is my take on it.
Wikipedia has all sorts of stuff on things that are not true - God and other deities, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter, ghosts etc. None of these are true. I will ignore the philosophical use of the term truth and use it in a vernacular sense. But we have articles on all of these topics because there is verifiable sources on information about them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not very satisfied with my explanation. I might wade into the foray at Wikipedia talk:V/First sentence at some stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

PN Bowling Club

Hi Alan - sory about that - the redlink fooled me. Normally I'd have expected the general bowls article to have ben started before the merge proposal, but it does make sense. As to "Hows things" :) not too bad here - hope things are fine with you... I suppose you'll be getting into campaigning mode soon? Grutness...wha? 02:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I should probably request a Bowls in New Zealand article at WPNZ. We are coping well enough with the last vestiges of the quake and the snow. For a wide variety of reasons I have decided not to be a candidate for this election but I will be heavily involved with the billboards. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Hello Alan. I'm dropping a note here to let you know that I've created the account User:*alan* due to a request from the ACC interface. The account was requested through that form because the name was too similar to a number of existing accounts, including your doppelganger, User:Alan. Had that been your main account rather than this one, we probably would have declined the request; as it is, I don't think this should create too much confusion (at a guess, about 80% of requested accounts never edit anyway). If you should feel that this may cause problems, though, please let me know and I can talk with the new user about getting a name change done. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the notification. I don't know what WP policy is for having a username redirect is but it seems that you have fulfilled the request for a username in a suitable manner. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Rose Doudou Guei biography speedy delete

Not so quick with the trigger there, ed.... There are numerous articles on Wikipedia for First Ladies of many other countries. What's wrong with Cote d'Ivoire First Ladies? Are they not as notable as the First Ladies of the State of Kentucky? (There are five biographies on Wikipedia for First Ladies from Kentucky. I don't know if any of them were assassinated or not, though...). Rose Doudou Geui was married to the President of Cote d'Ivoire and assassinated with her husband, the President of Cote d'Ivoire (a country in Africa), likely by the current President of the country. She may not have been Carla Bruni, but I'd like to find out how to appeal the delete/redirect decision. Thanks! OttawaAC (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: A couple of pointers to help other editors

Giday Alan. thanks for the feedback. Noted! I'm very new to Wiki editing, sorry! Cheers Ertvarkie (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Exclusively promotional"

When G11 says "exclusively promotional", it actually means exclusively, not "mostly" or "somewhat". I'm sure you will agree with me that there is nothing promotional about the sentence, "Direct Care Group was started in 2009 and is currently headquartered in Bonita Springs in Southwest Florida." That's a plain, absolutely non-promotional, objective statement of fact.

Promotional material can and should be removed by stubbifying, but the existence of some promotional material does not justify tagging the entire article for deletion as pure spam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Curious about archiving talk page

Hi Alan.. Thanks for taking care of archiving the 2011 Virginia earthquake discussion. I had planned to do it but got busy at work and you beat me to it. I'm also far too slow and deliberate. :) Since you did, I'll pose a question to you that I was curious about. With the earthquake discussion, or any article's discussion page, is it ever appropriate to manually select sections/topics and add them to an existing archive or is it preferred to wait for the next archive. Example: you created Archive 1 for the earthquake page. If one of the remaining topics comes to a close, is settled, or inactive, is it proper to copy and paste just that section into your Archive 1? Or would it wait until another archive is created? Low importance question but I was just curious. Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. I think that may answer your questions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain the conversation on Talk:Climate_change_mitigation? Graph okay?

Could you explain the conversation on Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Why_is_an_image_from_Skeptical_Science_included_references_from_The_Guardian_and_International_Energy_Agency.3F? Is the graph (File:Global Warming Observed CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel burning vs IPCC scenarios.jpg) okay from Skeptical Science? I ask you because I have seen what appears to be disruptive behavior from Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy. Thank you. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the graph is that the abbreviations in the legend are not spelt out. I don't think the editing by NewsAndEventsGuy can be called disruptive. It is more a difference of opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Alan, and regarding the IP's concern about article content, I might agree with the IP. The problem is, every time I have looked at the page (so far) improper grammar obscured the IP's opinion. I'll go look at it again to see if they have clarified their concern. Meanwhile, hopefully the IP will review WP:DISRUPT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
UPDATE: Nope. Still just as grammatically unclear to me as before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Nifty red box footer on your talk page

Alan, how did you display the "I'll answer here" box at the bottom of your talk page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Use {{UserTalkReplyhere}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Just what I needed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting categories

Could you explain why you have deleted 10 categories on the Peace symbols page? Your reference to WP:CAT does not explain. Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Every article in WP is part of a hierarchy. As an example consider the article series History - History of the world - History of the United States - History of New York. Obviously History of New York does not belong in Category:History since it is the wrong level in the hierarchy. Articles should generally be placed in the lowest level possible and only the most relevant categories should be added to an article. Overuse of categories clutters up the article page as well as the category page. And since categories are used as a navigational aid this clutter makes them less useful. Another reason why I removed the ten categories was that some of them were only of a minuscule relevance. Categories are black and white. Articles are in it or they are not. Therefore, only categories that have a high degree of relevance to the article should be added. The articles themselves are used to link wide ranging topics. Categories on the other hand collect closely related topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your clear explanation. Marshall46 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And now could you explain the removal of the category "Healthcare" from BridgeHead Software? Darmot and gilad (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:Healthcare is completely wrong for a UK company the produces healthcare software. Had I known that it existed I would have added Category:Health care companies of the United Kingdom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Question of image usability from Skeptical Science website ...

Per discussion I saw on Talk:Climate change mitigation ... The graphs on http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php are cool (I was struck by http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12 where 93.4% of global warming is currently going to the Oceans).

  • Are these free for public use (on wikipedia), if you know?
  • Where on Wikipedia are its rules for image usage?

Thank you for your time. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The images at Skeptical Science are free to use under the Creative Commons so it seems they are ok to use on Wikipedia. The images may already be at Wikimedia Commons. Image info can be found at WP:Images. Essentially, any image not covered by copyright can be used on Wikipedia, and those that are covered by copyright can be used but with certain conditions (which depends on the type of image. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Cool, Special:Contributions/Alan Liefting. How does one use WP:Images to find potential usages? 99.112.212.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC).

Nomination of New Zealand Young Farmers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Zealand Young Farmers 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/New Zealand Young Farmers 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Geek2003 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

This looks like retaliation to me! Geek2003, you managed to find a stub article that I created that looks like it may not be notable and you put it up for deletion. Well even after a few hours there were three keep !votes. It looks you made a poor judgement call on putting it up for deletion. I hope the fact that I have put numerous articles created by you up for deletion has not clouded your judgement! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

National Report on Sustainable Forests

I understand you picked the article I wrote for immediate deletion. This is my first article so I would appreciate a little of your guidance.

I understand you thought the article was very biased. Will you please tell me specifically how it is? I used links next to every statement I made (in fact worried that had too many). My reading of Wiki instructions made it clear to me articles should be presented in a “compelling” style although I wondered if such a style might come over with a biased. I spent 40 years in government writing milk-toast documents that said nothing because a thousand interests did not want them to say anything. I assumed Wikipedians were trying to get away from that style—with the caveat that articles are factual, on a worthy topic and unbiased. I think the article meets those criteria.

I also understand that it was felt an article about a report may be of little value to Wikipedia and that inserting some key points from the Report was too much. The key points tried to inform the reader why the topic is worthy of their attention. The report is 600 pages long and the article is perhaps 2 pages. More importantly, the article has information about sustainable forest management almost no other Wiki forestry article has. I tried to politely point this out at the end of the article. Although I am now retired, I worked in international forest policy for 15 years and feel there needs to be more information on sustainability and forestry. Some of my former colleagues in Rotorua will agree with me.

Thank you for your advice,

Rob Hendricks ForestSFM (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC).


Rob, I did request a speedy deletion of the article even though as an environmentalist I found it interesting. BTW, the article was named National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2010. I asked for deletion because "it is an essay with a POV from which a cogent WP article would be difficult to retrieve, and it is about a report of doubtful notability". The report may have sufficient notability to deserve a mention in a Forestry in the United States article, but at present one does not even exist. Little ol' NZ has a Forestry in New Zealand article!! Any chance that you could start on for the US of A?? Note that there is a Sustainable forestry article. Would like to give you a more extensive reply but it is well past my bedtime. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


Many thanks for your response. In the past I worked with and am in current communication with the guy who wrote the Sustainable Forest Management article. He is in Ottawa. I'm in South Carolina. We've both been pondering what "it is an essay with a POV from which a cogent WP article would be difficult to retrieve, and it is about a report of doubtful notability" is actually saying. Here is my translation -- this is an article talking about something about which a compelling WP article would be difficult to find (or any where else) and the 2010--National Report on Sustainable Forest is also of questionable interest as there are few reference point to it. Do I have that correct?

The SFM article lists many of the country forest sustainability reports, of which the report I am writing about is one. Current Wiki forestry articles appear to have been written by people in academia and the environmental community. Practitioners in high levels of government are not writing articles. You can see this in the article on Wilderness. If I remember correctly, it does not even mention the legal classification of land called Wilderness established in many countries. Another is the biodiversity article that implies biodiversity is only found in national parks. We need more articles from people working in the forest management world so I am trying to add one.

I could write a generic one on the new kind of forest sustainability reporting a few advocates in some governments are trying to keep alive. Wellington has done one although the lack of collaboration between the Forestry and Conservation departments and NZ’s lack of a national forest inventory shows up in the NZ report. Regardless people need to know such reports exist, where to find them or demand they be done. People looking under forestry, forests, country or provinces etc. should find links to them. Getting countries to do this kind of reporting results in Australia's first national forest report, the initiation of national inventories in Japan, Chile (among others) so reports could be also produced in those countries,

I will pass on your comment about a "Forestry in the USA" article. I think someone in an existing institution should write to get them more into the new world of communication. I am writing this article out of frustration that people currently responsible for the US Sustainability Report is apparently afraid of doing it.

Please advise

Rob Hendricks 76.6.127.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC).

Alan -- have I gotten your reason for deleting my article correct? Here is my translation -- this is an article talking about something about which a compelling WP article would be difficult to find (or any where else) and the 2010--National Report on Sustainable Forest is also of questionable interest as there are few reference pointers to it. Do I have that correct? The answer is important, as my strategy now is to write a generic article on forest sustainability reporting.

Rob Hendricks ForestSFM (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

Firstly, to be pedantic - which is important when building an encyclopaedia, I did not delete the article. I asked for it to be deleted. Only admins can delete articles and I am not an admin. My gut feeling is that a Forest sustainability reporting is better to be a part of the Sustainable forest management article at this stage in WP growth. Fell free to create such an article but other editors may want to have it merged. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Alan -- Yes, I guess that was pedantic which is OK if the communication is clear, which it is not. You speak as if you're the innocent by stander, which you are not. I will write a generic article and defied it by saying all the forestry articles are not part of the forest article. The WP editors are not fully aware of the forestry or sustainability world and the articles approved for WP reflect that. I will work with the guy who wrote the Sustainable Forest Management article. Thanks

76.6.127.220 (talk) Rob —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC).

Please

Could you PLEASE in the future tag the pages first?Geek2003 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that I only had one ref and that it was sourced the subject in the New Zealand Young Farmers article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
If we tag the page first then we should have time to resolve issues before wasting others time taking pages to deletion requests. I thought this is what was the recommended actions, not just jump to the deletion request, or have I misunderstood the policy?Geek2003 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
So you did not find any refs on Donald Shepperd??? The order of the Sword was on the page before you tagged it for deletion.Geek2003 (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to merge them?

I don't understand??Geek2003 (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give some context to your messages. I cannot mind read and there is too much happening at present to make assumptions about what you mean. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You want to delete the 1120E, 1120AS, and the 1140E. I was putting together a page to move everything to but now you want to delete it?Geek2003 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I am of the opinion that such a page would be non-notable, but other editors may disagree. You can use the {{underconstruction}} tag or build the article in user namespace to avoid deletion. However, there is no guarantee that it is not deleted once transferred into article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Gorse in New Zealand

I'm nowhere near qualified to be writing about biology at all, but as a result of a bet with a biologist I ended up creating User:Sonia/Biological control of gorse in New Zealand. Not sure what I'll end up doing with it- perhaps merge? Either way, any advice you could give would be much appreciated. sonia♫ 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be great to add it to the Gorse in New Zealand article. Mind if I do some tweaks on it before it goes over to article namespace? There is also a discrepancy between the current article and your user namespace work. I have the first biological control listed as being the 1920s and your ref is giving the 1930s. The ref I use is coming up as a dead link. It is from a reputable organisation but a less formal publication. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I hope you won the bet! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Your ref is technically right; the first agent was, as far as I can see, imported in the late 20s. I cited '31 as it's when the first systematic release was carried out. Re tweaks-- feel free! It is a wiki after all, and I'm sure that I've got some of the technical wording wrong. I have until Friday next week to get the content into mainspace in order to win the bet, and I do intend on doing so :) Thanks! sonia♫ 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's an idea

...when another editor asks you to explain an unexplained deletion on the article talk page, why not go to the article talk page and explain your deletions, as if you were working with a colleague, instead of edit warring to make your deletion again? Sounds like a good idea to me.

Now, I'm going to restore "Phosphate mining" as a category to an article about a man who operated a phosphate mining company, and if you disagree with that, you bring it to the talkpage and say why you disagree witht it, because if you delete it without discussion again, I will bring this to the attention of admins. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't take kindly to threats such as calling in the admins. You are most welcome to bring my edits to the attention of the admins but I think you would be wasting everyone's time. I chose not to discuss it on the talk page since I gave a suggestion to you to become familiar with the categorisation system in my edit summary. Note that on on my first edit I used HotCat which does not always give the option to add an edit summary.
If you are keen to discuss things (and I would if it is controversial or something with which I lack experience) why didn't you initiate a discussion on the talk page? I see that you have now added more suitable categories - apart from the phosphate category, which I will remove. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see this thread on WP:ANI which concerns you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Reboot

Alan: Some sage advice from wiser Wikipedians has convinced me that my part in our little mini-drama has been far from ideal, so I'd like to apologize for my brusqueness, and for generally getting off on the wrong foot with you. If possible, I'd like to start over and ask you a couple of questions about categorization, which I do a lot of on Commons, but in a relatively limited subject area.

It has been explained to me why "phosphate mining" is not an appropriate category for the subject of the article, and I can see the sense in the explanation - more or less an application of WP:WEIGHT in that phosphate mining is not the primary reason the subject is notable. My confusion comes in this: it was suggested that a cat such as "phosphate mine owners" or "phosphate mine people" would be more appropriate (similiar to what I did by changing "Barbados" to "Barbadian businessman" and "Sugar" to "Sugar plantation owners") -- but those categories don't exist. And since they don't, aren't they in some way inherent in "phosphate mining" as the most appropriate available category? (Setting aside the WEIGHT concern.) Wouldn't it be best to categorize phosphate mine owners into "phosphate mining" until such time as "phosphate mine owners" is created, and they're transferred into it? Or is it best to actually create that new category (something I wouldn't generally do on Commons unless I knew I had at least a couple or three images to go into it).

Thanks for any clarity you can bring to this, and, again, my apologies for my side of our dust-up. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict - rather opportune since I was still on the defensive) I accept your apology but it is hardly a drama or a dustup. I see no need for a Category:Phosphate miners category even though I am an enthusiastic creator of categories. There is a Category:Miners and Category:Coal miners that have some articles but Category:Phosphate miners would get very few articles. Also, the category system is black and white - an article is either in a category or it is not. Antony Murray worked for a phosphate mining company as well as doing many other things. Antony Murray was not a major player in the industry and it was not a major part of his life - therefore he does not need to be in Category:Phosphate miners. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your acceptance of my apology, and thank you for your thoughts on categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request for IPadWanderer now raised at AN/I

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification but I don't have anything to add to the discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"good afternoon to you, Alan Liefting, your expert help needed"Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello there, I noticed that you have done some improvements to my article Dimitar Dobrev (academic) and am writing to thank you but also to ask for your assistance. Another editor (in fact several) have been adding warning boxes to improve it i.e. "this article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It may require cleaning up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2011. It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject. Tagged since August 2011. It should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines. Tagged since August 2011. This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2011) The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (August 2011) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)" This is my very first article and I have put a lot of work into this and most certainly do not wish to see this get deleted! As I already explained to another editor ("Cindyamuse") because of the difficulty posed by it being sourced from another language, it may well be that from what you see, as an external observer, this article does not meet with the Wikipedia quality standards. Why does it say that it lacks inline citations when I have provided those - but they are originally from the Bulgarian language and had to be translated so the English reader could see where they came from. What must I do to improve it, can you please suggest any helpful ideas, but please do not remove! --Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)snejana--Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrevasnejana (talk • contribs)

Nomination of Focus on the Family (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Focus on the Family (disambiguation) 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/Focus on the Family (disambiguation) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Howard J. Brown, Management Consultant

Dear Alan,

Just got your delete request on "Howard J. Brown, Management Consultant". I appreciate Wikipedia and by extension all the work you do to make it the great resource it is. I am convinced Howard makes the grade, but am glad to be tested as I want other articles to all be up to standard as well... I re-read the "notable" lists for people and academics and will gather more citations that meet those criteria.

One thing: World Game was a very important simulation game, started by Fuller, run by Schlossberg, Gabel and Brown. Of that list of four people only Brown is not on Wikipedia. I hope I can find a way to "prove" that.

I like how you wrote above "I spend too much time on Wikipedia." I guess I am about to start.

Lwolberg (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Update of the Category:Language

Hello. In the Category:Language you removed some links to other EN Wiki projects. In my opinion these links connect Wiki projects. Please return their back. --Averaver (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject pages are not put in content categories. They are linked from the talk pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Those links were to WikiProjects categories (not to pages). --Averaver (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The point I made still applies. Content and project categories are kept separate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

products

I know we disagree, but why place a prod on a significant consumer product, as they will always be disputed. Furthermore, they can be merged or redirected at the worst -- and, since some of the recent batch of your prods might even be notable based on the reviews, I think you are acting indiscriminately. I've deprodded so you can think more carefully about how to handle the individual ones. It might really be helpful to simply try to merge the least notable--there is not likely to be much opposition, & if it does need a discussion, I'll support you. I'll even help in the merges, if you like. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

  • As I have stated before products need a prescriptive notability guideline since it is too easy to create a referenced article and there are too many editors keen on creating such articles. The notability guideline are used to shape the contents of WP and since there were too many biographical articles, musical band articles etc being created a set of notability guidelines were introduced. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Opal card

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Opal card, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A3 tag was placed only one minute after creation, which is far too soon: enough content has now been added to make clear this is a valid article. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

A page that only contains a template is not an article. New articles are best made in user namespace or have at least some sort of useful content for readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but new users don't know that, and often put in just a link or a few words and then press "Save page" to see how it looks. It is extremely discouraging and WP:BITEy if a speedy tag immediately pops up. We have an unfortunate reputation for being unfriendly to newbies, and rapid A1 and A3 tagging is part of that problem - hence the {{Hasty}} and {{uw-hasty}} templates. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I find it incredibly annoying and frustrating that we make it so easy for idiots who don't read all the instructions with which they are presented and then create crap articles that we then waste our time deleting, sometime over and over again. We should be encouraging good editors and keep the bad editors at bay. This is big picture stuff but now that WP is so well known we must change from the model of open editing model to an open editing for those who want to build WP. Over the years editing has been tighten up but we need to tighten it up even more. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion unwarranted

Alan,

Please help me prevent the persistant deletion of the Independent Music Conference page. I used this page as a template: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Millennium_Music_Conference


The MMC page, as well as many other music conference pages have been featured on Wikipedia since at least 2006.


There is no reason why some music conferences would be acceptable content unless ALL music conferences are acceptable content.

WikiPeteyAH (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, individual Wikipedia article articles are judged on their merits rather than compared with other pages. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I had the Independent Music Conference article deleted since it was promotional rather than being an encyclopaedia style article, The article as it currently stands requires a lot of work and I am unsure if it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the seemingly never-ending and convoluted editorial guidelines, rules and regulations that are being quoted, there are THIRTY TWO other music conferences featured in Wikipedia, and unless you plan to "speedy delete" all of them, there must be some way to feature the Independent Music Conference that is also acceptable. Repeated "speedy deletions" have made corrections or improvements impossible. RESTORE THE PAGE and allow us to make any required edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.214.219 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot restore a deleted page since I am not an administrator. If you look at the deletion history you will see that it was deleted because it was SPAM. The other articles that you mention are obviously not SPAM otherwise they would be deleted as well. I will reiterate what I have already said: comparisons cannot be made between separate article since each one is written differently and is about a different topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, can I suggest that you log in using your account and sign you talk page edits? There are many advantages if you do so. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Re: Template:Waste Management, thank you for the reversion Alan, regards AnthonyPA (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Photos of Christchurch heritage buildings

I'd like to draw your attention to a new article on historic places in Christchurch. On the article's talk page, there is a list of missing photos. Of the 320 items that are registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in the geographic area of Christchurch (excluding Banks Peninsula), there are only 80 registrations that we haven't got photos of. If you have a camera and would like to contribute, have a look what needs doing. Please leave a note on the talk page if you managed to get some photos, or if you know your way around Wikimedia Commons, you could upload them directly (note that it's complicated and I recommend that you start by leaving a note if you've never uploaded to Commons before). Thanks for your consideration! Schwede66 05:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Shirley Community Centre building is just down the road from me. I will try and get a photo in the weekend. I have too few daylight hours to do be able to do much more. I hope you like the changes I made to the article. It is now a bit more in keeping with the rest of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan, have you had a chance yet to take some photos? Schwede66 20:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah yeah. I forgot. I will wait for a bit of sunshine to get a nice shot. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. I prefer quality over speed, so I'm totally with you. By the way, I put some suggestions forward on the list of historic places talk page. We obviously weren't quite on the same page before you did your edits, so I'd value your thoughts on the suggested way forward. Schwede66 22:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Simple Skincare

Hi Alan,

I've removed the speedy tag from this article - Simple is a major brand in the UK, and the list of awards alone constitutes a claim of notability. The article needs some serious fixing, but it's not a candidate for A7 - could perhaps be taken to AfD, which might attract a few editors to source it and tidy it up. Cheers, Yunshui (talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

AfDs are not a method that is used to get articles tidied up. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
much less speedy DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was: if you're determined to get the article deleted, AfD would probably be the most appropriate method - and the article might coincidentally get patched up by concerned users as a result. Obviously that isn't the function of AfD (now that WP:PNA has gone inactive, I'm not really sure which forum does serve that purpose now). Yunshui (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD

I'm sure you know there is no such speedy criteria as "unremarkable product" or "it does not contain any information of encyclopeadic value" The place to discuss adding such criteria would be WT:CSD, but you're probably aware such a suggestion has been rejected repeatedly. If the page you added it to had been covered by G11, promotional, I would have just changed the tag and deleted it as such, as I have changed many A7 tags for things not subject to A7 but which were pure advertisements, but this purely descriptive factual page does not meet the requirements for that , either. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I see you've also made a speedy nomination giving "neologism" as the reason. Please stop. This sort of thing might well be considered disruptive, though I myself will not take any admin action. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You can please ignore what I wrote earlier, I'm getting some technical explanations elsewhere on how to prevent the problem from happening again. OttawaAC (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Urban75

Could you explain on the article's talk page why you removed those categories? You didn't give any reasoning in your edit summary. As I said, I might be persuaded to agree to some of them, but I certainly won't be persuaded without any reasoning. Thanks. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Have a read of User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_13#Deleting_categories, WP:CAT, Help:Category and Help:Categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge?

In 2010, you created an article on wildlife smuggling. However, our older article on wildlife trade discusses the legal and illegal trade, as well as smuggling. Due to the current lack of references and scope, I would like to suggest that you consider merging your article into the wildlife trade article. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, how did I miss that article? I will look into it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no hurry on this. Take your time. If you need my help with anything, just ask. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I feel that your opinion/suggestions would be valuable. The proposal is here. LittleBen (talk) 06:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost interview

environmentalism page

Hi, I don't know why you reverted back the changes made to "Environmentalism". I originally wrote the definition that's used on the wiki today and wrote to include information on Earth Day. I would like an explanation as to why you reverted my edits. Personally I think information about Earth Day and the changes to the Clean Air/Clean Water act should be intact. Also the sentence in the definition was made to be too long. --Turn685 (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Christchurch suburb boundaries

On another matter, I have for a long time been keen to define boundaries for Christchurch suburbs. When I started to look into it, I found, to my big surprise, that they aren't defined anywhere! That doesn't help with putting a map together. It all sounds like WP:OR to some extend, but maybe we as a community of Wikipedians can agree on something, and that will enable us to have suburb maps. I've put some thoughts onto the Woolston talk page; chip in if you've got an opinion. Schwede66 22:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Laugh? I Could Have Cried book cover.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Laugh? I Could Have Cried book cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Bill Subritzky.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Bill Subritzky.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XLerate (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category removal - Bats

Hi, could I suggest that you add a brief reason when you remove a category from an article? It may cut down on future reverts if other editors understand your approach to categorisation. It is also unhelpful to revert an editor and then immediately carry out an unrelated edit to the same page, as it hides your revert edit summary on their talk page. If given a chance, I would have suggested diffusion to a sub category, perhaps a geographic relative of 'Category:Bat roosts in Britain' rather than a complete removal? Scillystuff (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you are referring to the Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge article. My approach to categorisation is outlined in WP:CAT, is aimed at maximising readers ease of navigation, and follows what I hope is a consensus in the community. I do some ad hoc monitoring of my recategorising to check on whether I am following community consensus and in general I am. Since I get very little questioning on my edits I am happy with the edit summary that Twinkle creates. Adding anything more would be an inefficient use of my editing time.
As for the reverting I assume that you are talking about this edit. I fail to see that affects the "edit summary on their talk page". I not even clear about what you mean.
The Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge article is first and foremost about a bridge. It also happens to be the location of a large bat roost. Having the article in Category:Bats is not helpful to our readers - it is an odd one out. Categories should generally contain closely related topics. Note that I have since created a Bats of the United States article which is used to tie up some of these loose ends. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I also follow WP:CAT which does recommend diffusion as well as removal and I do try and avoid over-categorisation. However, in this case I thought diffusion would have been better than removal.
I would be happy to explain what I mean about the unrelated edit. I, like most editors, follow changes to pages I have edited via "my watchlist", which only shows the most recent edit to each page watched. If you revert another editor and then one minute later make another change to the same page, "my watchlist" will only show the most recent edit. In effect, the revert is hidden from the original editor unless he specifically visits the page edit history. I am sorry if my original explanation was unclear.
I understand that a bridge is not a bat and I agree that Category:Bats was the wrong place for it. I disagree that removal rather than diffusion was the correct response for what is the largest urban bat roost in the world. I wanted to get your reasoning before I considered creating Category:Bat roosts in the United States as if I had misunderstood it was entirely possible that you would remove either the bridge from the category or the category itself. Thank you for your explanation. Scillystuff (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Category:Bat roosts in the United States is an entirely appropriate location for Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge. I would have have that placed in a Category:Bats in the United States which in turn would be in Category:Bats by location. Category:Bat roosts in Britain, which is another "odd one out", would get a similar treatment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

RefToolbar

RefToolbar is now integrated into Common.js (it is automatically available to everyone). My suggestion would be to remove your personal installation of RefToolbar completely, clear your browser cache, and try using the new version that is incorporated into the editor by default. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I prefer using RefToolBar 1.0 rather than the default version. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AgResearch logo.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AgResearch logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. +mt 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Charts and graphs

FYI, A page you created Wikipedia:Graphs is being requested to be moved to Wikipedia:Charts, you might want to comment at WT:Graphs. The text of the page was changed from "graph" to "chart" with an additional sentence note stating that graphs are not charts. Further the related page Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs was renamed to Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading charts.

70.24.251.158 (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Rich Christiansen

Just a note that I have undeleted this article because its deletion was contested by its creator and because it wasn't eligible for PROD in the first place as it had previously been PRODed back in August. A trout slap for both of us on that one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sea Empress oil spill

Noticed your edits relating to Sea Empress oil spill. Just a quick note that I had meant to investigate that article a little further, as the primary author had a bit of a history of copyright issues and the article appeared in one major swoop. Agathoclea (talk) 08:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Closing merge discussions

Alan,

Part of closing merge discussions is removing the merge tags from the pages (Politics and sports) and (Nationalism and sport). I just did that. Tanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Alan Liefting/Archive 13! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

A question awaits ...

A question awaits on Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_States#NYT_resource for you.  :-) 141.218.36.152 (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories and images

Hi. According to Wikipedia:Categorization#Images: "A category can mix articles and images, or a separate image category can be created." Since there is no seperate image category for ad campaigns, then the image would appear to belong in the main category. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, a category can mix images and article but in practice it is rarely done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Then go change the policy page to reflect what you believe is current practice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I would like to but I find that any attempt at policy or guideline changes get nowhere. Note the the categorisation page is only a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Noted, and I agree about changing guideline & policy pages - I just thought this one would be an easy one if current practice is so settled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Images.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Occupy

I've reverted your edit to the template to remove every U.S. city from the list. You might want to get a consensus before you do that. On several of the smaller cities there have been AFDs for which their conclusion was to keep and there are ongoing discussions as well. — Moe ε 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I did peruse the AfDs and realised that some of the articles would be kept. The fact that they may well be kept is not a reason to revert my edit. My edit is predominately to prevent systemic bias but also for better readability of the template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It was an edit which I am also strongly opposed to, having the US links in the template is extremely useful to readers. It is not a case of bias, the Occupy movement started in the US and remains (at present) far bigger there than anywhere else. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Replied at Template talk:"Occupy" protests. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I fail to understand how a list of articles related to the topic, which have already been determined by the community as being articles worth keeping, presents any kind of systematic bias. This movement started and is most expansive in the United States. Just because it is a global protest doesn't mean there should be less articles about the United States or that the global view is skewed. I also don't believe it was done for readability, at all. If there was an issue with readability, someone else would have made that edit long ago. — Moe ε 00:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
It would be better to discuss it at Template talk:"Occupy" protests. Yes, the protest did start in the US but the template in question is for the global movement. As I stated at Template talk:"Occupy" protests some prominence has to be given to the origins in the US with a link to Occupy Wall St but all of the subsequent protests in the US should not be given undue weight. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dodge (given name)

Re Dodge (given name):
   The above is one of at least 5 places from which you removed calls to {{incomplete list}} around 23:30, 4 November. I've just reviewed Template:Expand list#Usage where i find in the current documentation:

Place this template tag in an article, immediately before any incomplete list. Wikipedia is not a directory, nor an indiscriminate collection of information; lists should have a clearly defined purpose and inclusion criteria. As such, an incomplete list is any well-defined list which is missing obvious entries.

It seems clear that at least the three i tagged meet that criterion for tagging, and since you did not argue for deletion of the pages, i assume you are unaware that

A set index article is meant for information as well as navigation...

(as stated at NOTDAB), and thus fundamentally different from lists where each entry must correspond to an existing article (of which the obvious example is Dab pages). The entries i began these lists with do correspond to articles, but those entries are just initial portions of lists for which there are obviously notable entries so far missing, not all of which need articles (before the entries are added, nor, perhaps in some cases, ever). If i am mistaken in believing there is nothing more than that confusion behind your removals that i am now reverting, please help me understand what problem you are trying to solve.
--Jerzy•t 04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Question?

It appears you have a question on Talk:Climate change in the United States (NY resource). 141.218.36.152 (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

List of Ecologists

Hi Alan-- nice to meet someone who is interested in ecology/ecologists and knows and works on categories too. I could use some advice on the above page, which you flagged as redundant some time ago. See my reply there, and let me know if that seems workable to you. Also I don't understand the hierarchy of categories: Does an article need to be cat as "American ecologists" and "Ecologists" and "Systems ecologists" (for example) to appear on all three indices, or does the lowest level roll up as it were? .

I'd like to see more stubs created for significant ecologists. Do you know or run across people willing to work in that area? (Seems like a good subcat for the WP:Biography project.) Thanks for all your work! --Araucana (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

For a category of this type I think it is preferable if all the individual biographical articles are moved into a sub-cat of Category:Ecologists by nationality. If all the ecologist bio articles were placed in Category:Ecologists it would make it a less useful navigation tool. Have a look at Category:Scientists (which I consider to be a well maintained category due to its importance) and you will see that there are no bio articles in it.
If don't know of anyone who is keen on ecologist article but you could post a msg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Alan. I see what you mean about Category:Scientists... that's very different from what's in the "Ecologists" category. But it seems, then, that without a List page like this, there would be no general index to ecologist bio pages, just the individual nationalities. By the way, I just ran a google search on Henry Oosting to see if the WP page came up (it's new), and what showed up, as #8, was the List of Ecologists! Thanks for the tip about WP:Science. Regards --Araucana (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Henry J. Oosting comes up as third listing for my google search. It must have now have been found by the google spiders. What is it you want from a general index of ecologists? To list them all or categorise than all together would create a huge unwieldy page since there must be thousands of articles about ecologists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question! I guess what I want is a central listing where one can determine ecologists who do/do not have a page on Wikipedia. Something like the List of biologists I just found, which links to this list and is much bigger (without being unwieldy, seems to me). (You're right, the spiders have found Oosting now.) If I search "ecologist" on WP I get redirected to "Ecology." If I search "ecologists", this list page is what comes up. If I search "American plant ecologists" (as a test), I get only 465 hits, and about 60 of the first 100 are not bio pages. So I think this list, if made more complete, may be the best way to get an overview of coverage. My goal is to get more ecol bio pages on WP and make it easier for people to find them... If you and others don't object, I'd like to keep linking bio pages here as I build or find them. Can't hurt, right? Thanks, Alan. --Araucana (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Occupy movement in the United States

The article you created, Occupy movement in the United States has been nominated for deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Iguanas in Fiji

Thanks for adding that about the problem in Fiji. Very interesting!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Categorising historical people

Alan, you seem knowledgeable about categorisation, so I'd like to ask you for a quick bit of advice about people in history - of technology like Robinson Thwaites‎, or pioneers in medicine. What one would intuitively want would be "Pioneers of Technology" or "Technology Pioneers" or "Victorian Engineers" ... but none of these seem to exist, and I'm hesitant to create such things. What is the WP thinking on this - can we not have a simple way of showing that someone was in at the start of a movement like the Industrial Revolution (or the history of modern medicine, surgery, ...)?

I guess the trouble I'm having is that if some is, say, incredibly good at something extremely specialized, then there isn't going to be a category - Historical Pioneer in the History of Brass-Smelting Technology in the North of England... is ridiculous. The alternative would be for the categories to be analytic, ie Person, History, Technology, Smelting, Brasswork, England; but it seems this isn't the WP view of things (it could be called tagging, or concept association).

Your advice? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories are for a characteristic that is clearly defined, which is why there are no "Technology Pioneers" categories. On the other hand "Victorian Engineers" is a topic that has clearer boundaries, however the contents of such a category are covered by the broader Category:British engineers. In the case of Robinson Thwaites‎, an article - rather than a category - called Pioneers of Victorian technology could be created and that article would mention him. A list could be crated for the topic although I am not in favour of lists. They tend to be created instead of decent articles with prose. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Not sure I have the knowledge or skill to assemble a proper Pioneers... article, but I'll think about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

About stoats in NZ

I can see you started the article and have been active there recently so you may help me with the following:

I read it some time ago (two years maybe) and I could have sworn there was some info (which I am now after) about ferrets having similar effect and status in NZ but there's no sign of it now, checked the edit history, no trace there neither, so.. was it ever there or was it only on external links? Ilderek (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ferrets are a problem in New Zealand but they are not as numerous as stoats and are therefore not as great a threat to the birds of New Zealand. There are other reasons as well. Ferrets were made illegal as pets back in 2002. Perhaps that is what you recall? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading about stoats, ferrets and some other mustelids (polecats?) being brought to New Zealand around the same time, I remember there were numbers, like this many stoats and that many ferrets imported in 'waves' over several years, I'm trying to find that info now and I was sure I read it here somewhere as that was the time wiki was one of the very few pages I could access from work :) Oh! found it just now :) http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ferret#History_of_domestication the last paragraph is what I was looking for!Ilderek (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not likely that ferrets were brought into the country around the year 2000. We have had strict biosecurity measures in New Zealand since then. Interestingly, a British professor advised against importing ferrets into New Zealand because of a possible threat to birds! I hope to do a Ferrets in New Zealand article at some stage. There is enough info for such an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I meant 1870s, same time when stoats first came. I found this http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Ferret&diff=33009176&oldid=33006934 and will try to follow it up with the user and MAF as the link (http://www.maf.govt.nz/MAFnet/articles-man/rbag/rbag0010.htm) is dead Ilderek (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms

Why is someone of you experience edit warring? Please self revert so we can discuss it on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like edit warring but I feel strongly enough in these cases to push for my version. What do you mean by self revert? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It just means to undo your own edit. If I do undo it I have violated the WP:3RR and if you do it your violation is negated. This seems to be a stupid thing to argue over, but when I wrote that article I ordered it that way for a reason so it would be nice to have more than an edit summary explanation as to why you think your version is better. Pointing to policies/guidelines or precedents that say alphabetical ordering is the way to go will help. My reasoning is that the "USA - Europe - rest" order is more logical as they are the two major players and at the regulation level are the most contrasting. Cheers. AIRcorn (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Best to take the discussion to [Talk:Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms]]. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree. That's the purpose of WP:BRD. AIRcorn (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
And yet you have neither self reverted or started a discussion. If you feel strongly enough about your version push for it at the article talk page not by reverting. Read WP:3rr and you will see that you are in the wrong. I am surprised that one of the 400 most active editors does not understand this. I don't want to go here, but will if you don't self revert. AIRcorn (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
reported AIRcorn (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD tag formatting

It appears that within the AfD template when placed in articles, there needs to be spaces between the vertical bars "|" where the page name is within the template. Otherwise, the link to the AfD is a red link. When the spaces are present, the link functions properly. I noticed this error in the template after you nominated List of environmental history topics for deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed those redlinks. I use TWINKLE to list AfDs so the problem must lay within its little cyber brain. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Turns out it's a matter of purging the cache. When doing so, the red link becomes functional. Someone directed me to the information at WP:PURGE. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

prod tags

It is not permitted to replace a removed prod tag. Nor is everyone who suggests a merge required to complete it. Feel free to take them to AfD, (please notify me) but expect to be challenged on both the point of not having looked for reviews, and for mergability. Sometimes the articles you deal with this way get deleted, sometimes they don't--PROD assumes the deletion will go unchallenged, and these product deletions are generally challenged. (I've let a few stand where I dont think it's worth looking) DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one is aware of the procedure with those PROD tags old boy. However, it would have been jolly good form if you had marked it for merging. Very good! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories For Discussion Biopower

Category:Biopower, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the invite,I'm flattered I would rather let the article do the talking,in line of recent advents (Greece Sovereign debt crisis and Italy).I would just say this it is important to try and understand the present situation with regards the present situations around the world.It would be interesting to find out,if Foucault was alive today,what would he think of the present situation in Greece and Italy;two of the worlds first or most important civilisations in regards normalised power and the founders of the modern doctrine Raison d'état.At this moment in time I would prefer to decline the invitation because I have lot on with my day job,writting,however,I will participate at a later date.

Many ThanksRichardlord50 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Account names

Giday Alan, I thought you might like to see a note I left to a user you had communicated with regarding her username. The relevant policy is WP:NOSHARE, an exciting new shortcut to add to the myriad you no doubt already have tucked away! Danger High voltage! 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy

Out of respect you would notify editors of AFDs. Why didn't you? An editor with 7 years experience would surely know to notify the creator of articles for AFDs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I no longer notify the editors of AfDs for pages they created (if I remember to untick the Twinkle option) since I have come to the conclusion that an AfD should seek third party opinions. The editor who created the page will invariably !vote to keep it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Surely you realize that decisions on AfDs are generally based on the arguments, not the votes. The creator of a page ought to be given a chance to explain why they think it should be kept and, if possible, improve it to satisfy the criticics. Unless you have some vested interest in the result, I don't see why you would have a problem with that. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Environmental impact of petroleum industry

Thanks. That was not mentioned in the discussion and I missed it. Funny thing was I added it for another move earlier. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New MP pages

If you have time before Friday evening, your help with this politics task force collaboration would be much appreciated! If you have questions, please ask them there. Schwede66 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Category for Police Gazette (UK)

Alan, as you know, I do find the WP policy on categories hard to understand, and really it's not for want of trying.

You've felt obliged to remove the category 'Publications' from Police Gazette (UK). It was, certainly, a publication by the British police force for many years. While I'd be delighted to understand the reasons for removal, the immediate need is to know what category to put the article in. Should I create a new category, Historical publications, or what? Former publications? Official publications? Defunct official British publications?

There is something deeply disturbing and paradoxical in a system which has to undo what would seem perfectly correct work without explanation and without providing alternatives - I'd much rather devote effort to building and to telling truth than to explaining, arguing, defending, justifying and rescuing.

With best wishes from a faithful Wikipedian. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And a good day to you Mr Chap. Can I call you Chiswick? Thanks awfully. Chiswick, I removed Category:Publications since it is a category that should not really contain any publication given it's level in the category hierarchy. The category should for articles about publications rather than for specific publications. I don't agree with the category names that you have suggested but you will see that I have put the article is some additional categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the additions. I see what the issue is around "Publications", but the effect is that HotCat shows the categories we're not supposed to use, while those we should either don't appear or have to be created according to some secret formula. But I'm very grateful for the constructive additions, thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bogan archive

Thanks for the manual archive, and apologies for a cryptic edit summary when I summoned Miszabot - there are clearly some undated threads which we'd have had to have tidied up anyway, so it's all good. --McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No sweat. The edit summary wasn't cryptic at all. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Furniture Brands International

In light of recent developments, don't you feel a little silly?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The question is academic since Twinkle removed it on my next edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I wondered what was going on. Anyway, you can see the article has potential. I have much more to do.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


Danish traditional Music

I have reverted your recent move which doesn't seem to have been particularly thought through. The article was on the mainpage. The article had been written under that name by me for a reason. It would have been a pretty good idea to at least ask on the article talkpage to suggest the move. As it is traditional music of Denmark and Danish traditional music is not the necessarily same thing. The traditional music of Denmark includes non-Danish traditions that have been established or that are practiced in Denmark. Danish tradtitional music is a style of music that is traditional to Denmark. Just like music of Ireland and Irish music is not the same thing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Untitled comment

Hi Alan I have just created an article and deleted it because it did not conform properly (I think I have been to hasty to create without properly think through). But it has left a robot message to delete the rest of the article, which is what I want. I can not completely delite it at the moment. Are you able to delete it. The name is Hirose Financial UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alta International (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked to have it deleted because it did not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dilthey

Dilthey is a core philosopher of contemporary hermeneutics. I have restored this category for the article; I recognize that h. has several branches, but he is certainly an important figure. hgilbert (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I will accept your change, however I would prefer that biographical articles were not in Category:Hermeneutics. The category should be about the "study of the theory and practice of interpretation" rather than those who actually do the study. Important figures can be incorporated in the hermeneutics article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You might compare with e.g. Category:Phenomenology. A subcategory for Hermeneuticists is one possible solution. hgilbert (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about that but I wasn't sure if "hermeneuticists" was a term in common usage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It might be good to open a discussion about this on the category talk page (with notice on the hermeneutics page) before choosing a path. hgilbert (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I messing up the creation of a page for one of Flynn's books?

Sorry if I am. Guidance is always helpful. Yfever (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I redirected it to the article for the author since I don't think it meets the notability guidelines. See Wikipedia:Notability (books). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
But this is an academic book, so wouldn't | this section apply? (This is only the second page that I have created, so perhaps I am missing something. The book is widely cited in its area.) Yfever (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that passage does apply but it asks for the application of "common sense". The book is not controversial and does not introduce any notable findings. I would rather see effort put into using the book as a reference for the Arthur Jensen article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Are only controversial books supposed to be included? I was basing this new page on one of Fynn's other books, What is Intelligence?. That book is much less controversial than Flynn's defense of Jensen. Indeed, back in 1980, defending Jensen (or even proving him a sympathetic hearing), was hugely controversial. Yfever (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I did not say that only controversial books should be included. What is Intelligence? is a more important book since it introduces the Flynn effect. If the book was indeed controversial why is it not used as a reference in the Jensen article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you familiar with Flynn's work? He introduced (what eventually became known as) the Flynn Effect 20 years before he wrote What Is Intelligence? That said, I agree that Race, IQ and Jensen ought to be used as a reference in the Jensen article. I will add it. Thanks for the suggestion. Yfever (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Category: Fruit

Hi, could you please point me to an explanation of why you are removing the category "Fruit" from so many pages? Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can. It had over 200 articles about trees (listed by their binomial name) that were listed merely because they bore fruit. The category is now of more use to readers. A reader would expect to find articles about actual fruit rather than a solid wall of Latin nomenclature as it was before I started. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
So you just go ahead with this sort of deletion without first explaining what you plan to do? Nadiatalent (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not deletion, and it seemed an appropriate thing to do. Also, I don't see the need to discuss something that that improves WP. And who do I explain the plan to? There is no need to discuss some basic categorisation.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how you can claim that this isn't deletion. If anyone disagrees with you it would be a huge amount of work to reinstate what you have removed. I consider what you are doing to be destructive. You could make a suggestion on a talk page and wait a week before commencing. It sounds as if you think that Latin names don't belong in wikipedia but common names do. Common names are an unusable jumble of duplicate names for unrelated plants and multiple common names for the same plant. Nadiatalent (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not deletion in the WP sense. The article is still there - it simply has one less category. We have to go out and find out what the wider WP community thinks. At the moment it is a polarised opinion between the two of us. As for the Latin name, I never said anything about them not belonging on WP. You are misconstruing things. It is imperative that we use Latin names since they are the authoritative name. On the other hand we must also use common names because they are common names. There is a serious need to categorise by both common name and Latin name. There has been a small start made on this. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Where has this small start been made? Is there going to be a "list of fruit-bearing plants by their scientific names" page? Nadiatalent (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Here: Category:Plant common names. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Nadia that this is a problem, not an improvement. You've also been removing Category:Trees from numerous articles without ensuring that they are in an appropriate subcategory. I could find no suitable reason for removing all tree species from the category, since users (like myself) will expect to find tree articles either in Category:Trees or one of its subcategories. I could find no discussion on the issue, nor did your edit summaries provide a rationale. So, this is not a polarized opinion between just one person and another anymore. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty much with Nadiatalent and EncycloPetey here. It's fine to sharpen up the category system, now that Alan Liefting has explained what he's doing, but less than fine simply removing a too-broad category without adding a narrower category. Frankly most of us average-joe editors don't know a lot about how the category system works (though we are reluctantly starting to find out), but I am pretty sure heaps of people want their articles to STAY in some category once they've been categorised. Category specialists have, I suggest, a special duty of care when manipulating a system that others barely understand not to do harm, and having an article de-categorised certainly feels like harm. If a tree species isn't allowed to go in "Trees" then it has to go somewhere, presumably a sub-class of Trees, and the moment of removal of the "Trees" category is the right moment for the entry into the sub-category. And of course, the same goes for categories of, er, all other categories. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Well actually I have been very careful to ensure that every tree species is at a very minimum in its genus or family category. I fail to see why the removal is seen as a problem. The categories are now of far greater use as a navigational aid. There is no edit summaries since I used HotCat. In retrospect I should have used AWB and have it add a rationale for the removal of the categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Tree_and_fruit_categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_13&oldid=1143853377"