User talk:Alan Liefting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.


It is
The Reader
that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia.


The Signpost
10 December 2014
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alan_Liefting.

File permission problem with File:Marriage and divorce rates in New Zealand.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Marriage and divorce rates in New Zealand.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Alan Liefting (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Wikipedia needs all the experienced editors it can get. Many experienced editors have left for various reasons and there is a huge amount of work the needs doing . I consider myself to be an experienced editor having started over 10 years ago and amassed over 100,000 edits. I have been repeatedly blocked because I contravene a topic ban that has been imposed on me, which is necessarily broadly worded (IMO and that of some other editors). The edits for which I am now being blocked (and make up only a small portion of the total) are not contentious. They are not detrimental to Wikipedia but my actual blocks are detrimental given the loss to the project of my prolific edits. Note that much of my work is on categorisation, which on the admission of some editors, is an area that is difficult to understand.
It is actually quite ironic that IP editors and new account editors can run amok with vandalism and poor quality edits yet as an experienced editor such as myself, who prides himself in building the project, with creating content, and with fixing problems, is blocked. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The bottom line of this appeal seems to be basically "I don't wanna, so I'm not gonna." You don't want to adhere to your topic ban, you don't adhere to your topic ban, and you want to be allowed to continue to not adhere to your topic ban. I'm afraid I don't see "well, he doesn't want to follow it" as a reason to lift a block that was properly placed in response to you violating your topic ban. You say your edits aren't contentious, but you were topic-banned from that area exactly because you couldn't tell, or maybe didn't care, if your edits in that area were contentious, so your judgment of them now is not what you should be relying on. That you seem to feel that you must either edit categories or not edit Wikipedia at all and deprive us of your activity, is regrettable. We never want to lose good edits or editors. But it's ultimately you who's choosing to make it an all-or-nothing proposition; you could just as easily continue editing everything except the things you're topic-banned from, and Wikipedia would welcome that.

If you want your topic ban lifted, then you should commit here to not violating it, get unblocked based on that commitment, and appeal the topic-ban to AN with a good reason why it's no longer necessary. Doing end-runs around it instead is just going to make it appear even more like you can't control your behavior in the area of categories. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

In other words you think that it is ok to be blocked because I did a few completely uncontentious edits? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Alan, myself and others told you to stay away from category related edits. We didn't say stay away from category edits unless they are not controversial. You knew perfectly well that you were on a very short leash when you came back from your last long block. Despite this, you violated the topic ban anyway. It's not a matter of whether the edits are contentious or not. You knew better, and did it anyway. I'm very, very disappointed. With your >100,000 edits you should have known full well what would happen if you violated your topic ban. With being blocked for violating the topic ban six times before, you should have known you would have been blocked for violating it again. Did you honestly think this time would be the charm? That somehow all your prior blocks for violating your topic ban would have no bearing? Alan, please, you know as well as I do this is not reasonable behavior. Whether the topic ban is reasonable or not is immaterial. It is in place, and you continue to violate it. Given that there are six prior blocks for violation of the topic ban, I'm honestly surprised the block is not indefinite. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)