User talk:Alan Liefting

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

Proposed deletion of Help desk (disambiguation)

The article Help desk (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a tiny dab page with a total of three possible meanings. Easily replaced with a hatnote in Help desk (which I have done).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Kimelea (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Fashion 5.0

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fashion 5.0, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals or newspapers. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read artilce before deleting category!

You have deleted category "Philippines" from USC&GS ships that operated entirely in the Philippines with all but one actually owned by the insular government of the Philippines. These ships surveyed the Philippines and are integral to the mapping history of the islands. They also had Filipino crews. Please do not remove again. Palmeira (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles about individual ships do not belong in a category about a country. If we allow ships into such country category what is there stopping editors adding similar, or more important articles into the category? Please read WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Each of those ships played an important role in the development of the Philippines. They not only surveyed the waters but transported field parties for triangulation and mapping of the islands. All but one were owned and mostly funded by the insular government. All were crewed, excepting the C&GS officers, by Filipinos and that crewing and the cadets that served on the ships became the core of the Coast and Geodetic Survey of the Philippines. Aside from surveying the ships delivered mail and performed other functions for the government of the Philippines. I am reverting you again. These ships played an important role in the islands and its communities. Palmeira (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But there there are literally 1000s of things that played an important role in the development of the Philippines and I can easily name some which are of far greater importance to the Philippines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CAT? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Philippine category helps readers locate subjects that pertain to the islands, including history and development. I will continue to put that category into those articles, partly in hopes people now living in the country will add background on those crews and the ship's role in local development. I think that is justification and explanation enough. Palmeira (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But that goes completely against the guideline at WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines. Since you had some involvement with the Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hope of Jesus Children's Home article

This article, which I wrote, has been on the English Wikipedia some time. What disturbs me is it was tagged for speedy deletion and apparently removed immediately. I really think any article tagged for deletion should be left for a discussion on its merits, providing it is not inflammatory or could potentially have libel issues, etc. If possible, could you please resurrect this article and provide a few days, at least, for persons to weigh its merits? All most of us want is for Wikipedia to be a meaningful repository of knowledge and sometimes people need to discuss disagreements about what should be in Wikipedia.Bill Pollard (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I a not an administrator so I cannot reinstate it. Probably best to talk to the admin who deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Yellowstone

Your edit to Yellowstone National Park asserts that it is mentioned on the List of World Heritage in Danger webpage. I don't see it there and I am have reverted your edit. If you can show you are correct, then I apologize. –droll [chat] 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That particular edit should have been on the Everglades article. Yellowstone was on the List of Heritage in Danger from 1995 to 2003. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Good work. –droll [chat] 20:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly

Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Redirects are costly and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The Cederberg Wilderness Area is administered by CapeNature.

i have reverted your edit here due to the fact there is adequate text in the article that identifies the location as being in the IUCN category as a wilderness area - SatuSuro 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted it back because it is categorised as a IUCN Category 1b. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Stub tag removal

Please don't remove stub tags from short articles, even if they contain long lists (e.g. Niphargus, Munidopsis). The prose content in such cases is still very short, and the articles are therefore stubs. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I see that it's not just those two cases. You have removed lots of stub tags which should still be there. Please could you go through your recent edits, and replace any stub tags that you shouldn't have removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

AWB removes stub tags automatically if there is more that 500 words. Also, the articles were listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs. Therefore, stub removal will always reoccur for these types of articles. It will be a WP wide issue so it may be best to take it up with the folks who look after AWB. They may be able have exceptions made for stub removal if most of the words are in a list. I don't see stub removal of the two articles that you mention as a big issue. I get the impression that stub status is ignored by most editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You may not think of it as a big issue, but it was the sole purpose of your edits (apart from removing the necessary italics from a title in one case). Do you not check your edits before clicking the "Save page" button? You must take responsibility for your edits; AWB is just a tool for suggesting possibilities. Other authors have not made this mistake on the articles involved, so it evidently can be avoided. Please do go back over your edits and undo those which should not have been made, rather than expecting other people to clear up after you. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see yet more misuse of semi-automated tools. Alan, the more you do this, the more likely you are to lose the privilege of using them. Your apologies would be welcome (I note, as a Kiwi politician) you won't say sorry, but seriously, despite blanking your own talk page, your record of mistakes is bad news for Wikipedia. Stop waiting for others to correct your mistakes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it misuse, or is it merely a difference in opinion? And I don't blank my talk page - I archive discussions that no longer attract comments after a week, or a month, or six months. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Misuse. And you removed the mass of comments that asked you to stop doing what you were doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you thought you were doing what you thought was right, but I had hoped the number of different editors (very few of them admins) who asked you to stop should have alerted you that you should have re-appraised. Your valedictory of "Sort out the fucking rubbish yourselves. I am sick of the hounding, and the bullshit, and dealing with editors who are as thick as two short planks" is hardly endearing to the community, one who has been here for a decade and one who will flourish despite your "retirement". Perhaps in your political dealings, you can help the "fucking rubbish" and those who are "thick as two short planks". If you could, especially in NZ, you'd get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Retirement

Very sorry to hear that you have retired and I hope you will reconsider and resume editing in the future. I also find myself frequently feeling frustrated on here so know exactly how you feel, but the project needs talented editors like you. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tamaki College

Need your help with this article, mate. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

After meeting some ecologists collecting them, I read your article about Mosquitofish in Australia. Much appreciated, thanks. 99of9 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that but I am afraid I cannot really accept the award since I did not write the article as such. I had split it from the main Mosquitofish article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem. I see I failed to read the edit summary... oops. Anyway, it's good to have the neat separate article. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Drainage

I notice you have removed several articles with significant sections on Land Drainage from the Drainage category. Please can you explain the logic for this, as it makes it really difficult to find the Land Drainage articles? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

They were articles about locations in the UK that only had a mention of drainage. Category:Drainage should be reserved for articles that are predominately about drainage and reserved for generic articles rather than country specific articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Sub-categorize by all means. Create new categories if you have to. What you're doing instead, to remove all mention of relevant (if over-broad) categorization entirely is harmful. Additionally, the rate at which you're doing it makes it impractical for reasonable efforts by other editors to keep up. I note too that you're continuing to remove this same category even whilst this is under discussion, an act that (yet again) shows what little regard you have for consensus with other editors.

You've carried out much the same at Heidenhain, where you pretty much de-categorized an article on a multi-million Germany instrumentation company. You removed several categories about the market sectors that the company operates in, because it was categorized into the sector categories, not some sub-category for "companies in <sector>" instead. You even began to edit-war when these were restored. As you also prod-ed the article (multi-million companies are rarely non-notable, because anything that big leaves footprints), I can only assume you have little or no real knowledge of them. Yet it's hardly a complex edit to fix categorization to move a company into the relevant sub-categories, rather than merely stripping categories blindly.

Bulk-stripping of categories is a regular behaviour for you, despite protests from others. Please be a little more constructive in future, and less quick to see a destructive removal as a necessary and the only possible action. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Liefting doesn't "fix" anything, he just strips away categories etc (sometimes so articles are entirely uncategorised) using his semi-automated tools, with no real regard to their real-world utility. He follows and advocates WP:CAT like some kind of gospel-based mantra. There's never any apology for the destruction he's causing, but he continues to deny there's any issue with his multiple and rapid fallacious edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article on Deeping Fen? Apart from the first sentence, and the small section on location, the entire article is about the drainage of the fen. For Adlingfleet, there is a short history section and some stuff on eels, but most of it is about drainage. For Laneham, over half of the article is about the Laneham drainage scheme. I could go on, but I cannot see that this is only a mention. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I read the articles. Now I don't know about the geography, politics etc of the area but are these article leaning too heavily to the drainage aspect rather than other possible topics? Anyway, as for the drainage category it is not appropriate since the article is about one small (in the global sense) geographical area) and Category:Drainage is for global (geographically and topically) subjects. You could create a Category:Drainage in the United Kingdom which would then be a subcat of Category:Drainage and Category:Water in the United Kingdom. I think it may aaaalmost be justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of geography and politics, the articles cover sparsely populated areas which have been the subject of major civil engineering projects over four centuries by notable civil engineers, to reclaim them for agriculture, so their history is the history of their drainage. Do you not think it would have been better to suggest sub-categories as a way of improving Wikipedia, rather than just removing the existing categories, so that it becomes difficult both to navigate around the system and to find the articles that need moving to the new sub-category? Bob1960evens (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be suitable categories apart from the new one I have suggested. Don't forget that categories are but one way of navigating through WP. There is no point forcing article into categories if there are better methods of getting the info out there. Is there a need for a Drainage schemes in the United Kingdom article to tie them all together? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, I have created Category:Land drainage in the United Kingdom. I will have a look at all my sources to see if I have enough material for a general article on drainage schemes. Thanks for the suggestion. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Occupy movement

Go ahead and revert back if I'm in error here. Cheers. B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Liefting doesn't explain his semi-automated edits, he will, at best, say "WP:CAT" to you. Isn't that right Alan? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: James Pearce (Sports Journalist)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of James Pearce (Sports Journalist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: seems likely that a reporter with the BBC for > 10 years is notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments at AfD discussion for the Hangover Helpers article

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hangover Helpers.
Message added 00:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

List of mechanical ventilators

Hi. Regarding your PRODding the above, can you please point me to which section of WP:NOT applies? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the spirit of WP:NOT that applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than a complete exposition of all information. This is a bit philosophical but Wikipedia is for knowledge rather than information. The list in question is information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I think the question is valid and you need to answer it explicitly rather than nebulously. Which section(s) of NOT apply/applies? And if I may be so bold, would you be kind enough to include edit summaries explaining your edits in future please? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Linda Biggs AFD

The Linda Biggs article has been nominated a second time for deletion. As you were a participant in the first AFD discussion, you may wish to particpate in the second discussion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

why delete man ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaica National Happy Party (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Elgin platform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories (talk)

Hi.

I left some comments on the talk page. - jc37 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I will mull it over. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Eponymous_categories. - jc37 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi Alan,

I've uploaded the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find the links at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for stalking me and helping to improve the articles I created such as the Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution: An Unfettered History and World Naked Gardening Day. SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Although I don't agree with you regarding the title change of Prostitution among animals, your edits do improve the other articles. The original uploader of File:Garden girl.jpg confirmed the photo is unrelated to WNGD. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since you are interested in a variety of articles, could you share your suggestions in Wikipedia:Peer review/A Free Ride/archive1? I'm planning to nominate the article for FA after the peer review is over. Any suggestion for further improvement will be much appreciated. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers for the beer. I'll drink that tonight! I don't know if I was actually stalking you. I saw your name came up in all sorts of places and on interesting articles so I thought I might have a quick look at your edits. BTW the "Prostitution" Behavior in a Tropical Hummingbird supports my case for some sort of article name change of Prostitution among animals. I might try and help with the peer review on A Free Ride once I stop blushing... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment). Since you had some involvement with the GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Some help needed

g'day - as far as I can see you dont like anything to do with Wilderness in tasmania, or the controversies - such as Lake Pedder or the Franklin dam as categories - it would be very helpful if you could come up with something that doesnt revert to Protected areas.

Something a bit more WP:AGF would be stating clearly why and how (even if you feel you done so already) - to do so here or somewhere - for the record it would be useful, to others who might not be as quick on the draw...as the discussions to date at xfd are simply inadequate.

It would be very useful, if you could indicate in your experience how large far-reaching controversies such as lake pedder might be better identified in the scheme of things, or please explain otherwise how your rationale for not having categories for such items helps the wikipedia user. thanks SatuSuro 01:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What I don't like, because that is not what they are for, is that categories cannot be used as a surrogate for an actual article. I thought I outlined it quite clearly in the deletion discussions. I want to see the numerous historical environmental debates documented on WP because they are extremely notable. I even considered doing it myself but I am just busy enough. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To say "you dont like anything to do with Wilderness in tasmania, or the controversies" about me is completely incorrect and I fail to see haw I gave that impression. As an environmentalist and a Wikipedian I want to have the info put out there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

apologies - I am not saying what I am - but the impression given in the Afd discussions to revert wilderness to protected areas suggested otherwise - (edit conflict)

Thanks for responding - but it still does not remediate the issue of where you have challenged the categories and havent come up with anything like a suitable replacement (imho) - surely there is a precedent elsewhere on wikipedia where a range of inter-related issues like that surrounded all of the pedder, franklin and wilderness issues in Tasmania (a good ornery mix of politics, divided communities, green/vs the others, lying engineers, and all the rest, people dying for the causes etc) - simply defaulting to protected areas for wilderness is short of an adequate coverage - surely you have in all of your trawling wikipedia havent found/seen a better way to do it? SatuSuro 02:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have said it numerous times - and you have replied that there is a lack of knowledgeable editors - that there is a need for actual articles. Topics such as Franklin Dam controversy, Environmental issues in Tasmania etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

so what is the franklin dam article about then? SatuSuro 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will move Franklin Dam to Franklin Dam controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow we are actually getting somewhere - what would you say to changing the category to Franklin Dam controversy then? try for s speedy non-controversial?? SatuSuro 04:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not to keen on a Franklin Dam or a Franklin Dam controversy category. I know all about OTHERSTUFF but even the Three Gorges Dam, arguably the most controversial dam ever, does not have its own category. So why should the Franklin Dam have one? It is even more tenuous a proposition given that the category has articles that should not really be in it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I see your point, i'll get out of your way - have a safe easter SatuSuro 06:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding cats to temps

Alan, I saw this edit and thought of you. Is that alright by you? I have noticed you taking an almighty number of cats off template/image etc pages and wondered if this would fall into that category (pun sort-of intended). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

re: geography categories

hi;

i mean this politely & in a friendly way, but i don't think you quite understand the schema for geography categories.

individual rivers are meant to be listed as subcats of their tributaries, watersheds & region (etc.); it makes things easier to find & to group in associations.

it is also meant to mirror the layout of the same data @ commons

Lx 121 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to mirror the layout at Commons here on Wikipedia. Also, per WP:SMALLCAT there is no need for a category that contains one other article apart from the eponymous article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

i)disagree about common & wikip co-ordinating categories. it makes organizing information MUCH simpler, if/when identical topics have at least simillar categorization structures

ii) "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." -- WP:SMALLCAT (which is not to say that i agree with all current wikipedia practices in organizing information; there is much room for improvement)

iii) the river categories actually have plenty of room for potential growth. aside from articles/data about the rivers directly, there are also the cities & regions located along the river, bridges, dams, parks & conservation areas, etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Wikipedia categories named after

After being confused for about 4 days, I think I understand what you mean now. You meant that the categories should have their PARENTS removed that are non-wikipedia space categories. Is that correct? If so I'll get on it, since HotCats make this a pretty easy task for a human -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. That's right. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 12:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

LOUD prod

One month ago you prod'ed LOUD Technologies and it was kept because of my arguments at Talk:LOUD Technologies. You just prod'ed it again today but the arguments have not changed. Nothing has changed. Do you intend to try and delete the article once per month? Take it to AfD next time. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I had requested a speedy deletion last month but it was rejected by an admin who has a predilection for keeping rather than deleting articles. Since I am of the opinion that it is not a notable topic for WP I thought I might try a PROD. Anyway, I have no interest in taking it any further. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oxford

I have never known of a professor at Oxford or a comparable university brought to AfD in my 5 years here following AfD that has not been found notable (actually very few from Oxford have been brought at all,since almost nobody would think to doubt it) , and at the very least the assertion that someone is one certainly as an indication of importance. Using a7 in such a case is Pointy. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Byron Harmon

• withdraw, sir.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even got my trousers down yet... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

lol.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. When you recently edited Conservation in New Zealand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fish and Game and National Parks Act 1980 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mr DPL bot. For a soulless and mindless heap of computer code you sound awfully human. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

American Numismatic Association

In this edit to American Numismatic Association,

you removed the categories Category:Numismatic museums in the United States and Category:Museums in Colorado Springs, Colorado

I think those categories are worth keeping. The ANA's Money Museum is an important part of its activities, but does not have a separate article. American Numismatic Association Money Museum redirects to American Numismatic Association#Facility. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The American Numismatic Association is not in itself a museum. I will put the categories on the American Numismatic Association Money Museum redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand Aluminium Smelters

Hi Alan. FYI I have split off a new page New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited from the page Tiwai Point. I have put it in the categories; Companies of New Zealand and Manufacturing companies of New Zealand. Are these categories ok? Kind regards. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a good idea. Category:Companies of New Zealand was redundant to Category:Manufacturing companies of New Zealand so I removed it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, bro!Mrfebruary (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your move request

I've declined your technical move request since your proposed new title, Commemorative coins of Lithuania, is already in use for a different article. Perhaps you can reevaluate and see if you want to merge the contents of A into B instead. It seems that some of the same coins may be in both articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi, Hello, newly you me have sent three notifications of speedy deletion of the articles, I do not find well the reason, believe that all the articles must begin somehow, each one has his tactics, in this case, I prefer beginning with what I have well to hand, shields, uniforms, the information of the infobox, then with the expansion of the article. In addition the above mentioned articles for months I observe them and they were never created even, I believe that Argentine football has a world importance and in the version in English only the top divisions possess "acceptable" articles with regard to the clubs. I have database of football clubs of the world, in I make concrete 78.158 teams of the whole planet, initiate it 6 years to hand, in notebooks!! I have seen infinity of articles about football teams who do not exist by any means, have even exactly as the articles that I have just created, but without any type of information more there of his geographical location (i.e. Clubs of England, Scotland, Japan, etc), not infobox at all, please he does not even consider to revert this situation. Thanks--Hernan1483 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) you

You need to create articles that are more than one line and an infbox. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, but ... it is a process, at least I in spite of only winking cannot create it, initiate them it does less than two hours and I began with what that I considered the base to initiate it, if at least you will take the inconvenience to investigate in the network a minute you would see that it is not an article to be a nuisance, that they are really clubs of football.--Hernan1483 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not create them off-line or as a subpage in your user namespace before going live? It is always nicer - and better - to see a fully formed new article rather than a stub. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But it is that it was in the middle of the process of created, translating the history of every equipment, the obtained titles, different national participations, probably you have reason, if this way you consider it I do not have problem with which they are eliminated, but, seriously, please he throws a glimpse, and you will see multitude of pages of clubs with only two, three, five lines. Seriously, there is no problem, eliminate them and better I will follow your advice. Forgives the inconveniences :) --Hernan1483 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Having the existing short articles that are in dire need of work is not an excuse to add to the workload. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles created need expansion, yes, but they are legitimate attempts at bettering Wikipedia and should not be slapped with a speedy deletion right off the bat. Ducknish (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Read my talk page comment on the articles. Ducknish (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But there is no need for us to accept sub-standard articles. There are sufficient avenues for a contributor to make a good go of creating an article that is more than a mere sentence and infobox. There are also sufficient warning about adding unreferenced material. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the A7 criteria before continuing to tag articles with it. It is for articles that have no possible reason clear for why they matter. A soccer club obviously has at least some importance. If you contest the notability, you should put it up for a full deletion discussion. Speedy deletion is not for getting rid of articles you don't like because they're too short. Ducknish (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I also recommend WP:NOTCSD Ducknish (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)More the pity really. The various deletion processes can, and should be used to shape a robust, reliable, and respected encyclopaedia but they are being used to retain a huge range of articles that are rubbish, too short, are covert SPAM, or otherwise don't belong in an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That does not justify abuse of speedy deletion. If you want the articles gone, put them up to a real discussion.Ducknish (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm noticing you have a lot of articles you nominated for SD still standing, that didn't really fit the CSD when you tagged them. You may want a quick refresher look over the CSD, A7 in particular.Ducknish (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite aware that I did overstep the line with the three football club articles but given the rubbish that comes through as new pages we really should be taking a much harder line on stuff that is not needed. Deletion is not permanent. An article is easily recreated if it is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is no excuse for tagging pages that do not unambiguously fit the CSD. There's a reason there are multiple deletion options on Wikipedia. If you feel a page should be deleted, don't try to force it into speedy deltion when it doesn't fit.Ducknish (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Alan, you do not understand my point, I begin to create them and in less than 2 hours you say to me that they are going to be eliminated, when there are articles perfectly established with enough exage of only little lines, it is not an excuse, I repeat am creating them or at least it it was, sincerely already I am tired, instead of losing time in vain discussions you might realize improvements in them, in this case these articles concerned to a totally incomplete and out of date page, because of it concentrate on them, in addition you must know well that as soon as you begin there are more possibilities of receiving contributions, Already I do not have desire of continuing and continuing, you are the one that "gives the orders", so eliminate them or is what you want with them. This is a Wikipedia not a Quicklypedia?--Hernan1483 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And, with due respect, you are missing my point. There is no need to create very short articles in the main article namespace -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nur ein Schritt ist genug, um zu walkr zu beginnen..."Only a step is enough to begin to walk"--Hernan1483 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice sentiment but not really applicable. I have suggested that you "walk" in off-line places {eg word processor) or create the articles in your user namespace. There is also the option of Articles for Creation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem, now it erased everything.--Hernan1483 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Morganmyrmo

Hi Alan, I removed your speedy deletion tag from User:Morganmyrmo, that was a redirect after a valid username change. While it was dodgy to come in with a new username and participate in the AfD discussion, the redirect is useful for linking from previous discussions on talk pages (before the username move). Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What is stopping the old name from being used in future? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Stopping the old name from being used by a new editor? I don't suppose anything is, from what I have seen some previous usernames redirect to current usernames. With the username changed, it should be available as a redirect (I am not that familiar with username changes, but I think it should be available for use now that the username has been moved over), however for the sake of transparency, in particular with the COI issues in the AfD discussions at hand, it should probably be kept until their closure (in particular this one that you have already commented on). Feel free to renominate it now, or in the future if you see fit. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: ProCharger

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ProCharger, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - John M. Gaver, Jr.

It is not a good idea to insert a speedy delete notice into a Thoroughbred racing article, or for that matter, any article, on which you have no expertise. I suggest, so that you don't disrupt the work of knowledgeable editors and force unnecessary effort on them, that if you have doubts then post your thoughts on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing page where it can properly be assessed. Thank you for your cooperation. Hialeah Harry (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please

reverted self - some other time - couldnt be bothered at the moment SatuSuro 05:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards's talk page.

Rename not Minor

I note that you renamed the NAPLAN article, and marked the edit Minor. Probably a good idea, but hardly a Minor edit. Tuntable (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a function of the MediaWiki software. When moving a page there is no ability to choose it as a minor edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Cyanide Sisters

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cyanide Sisters, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 is not satisfied: "and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted". Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence Johnson (inventor) Speedy

Surely you are aware that we always regard a NYT editorial obit as absolute proof of notability . The rationale is that thheir judgment on whether a career is notable is more reliable than ours. Did you not notice that reference ? DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Autobiomentary

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Autobiomentary to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. "Neologism" isn't a valid speedy, and while I'm sure there is promotional intent here, I don't think this is a G11. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shame really. Now it will hang around for ten days, get picked up by google, get itself cached, and waste the valuable time of overworked editors. Sigh.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, several people (including me) have proposed a speedy for "blatantly made up one day", but it always gets shot down on problems of definition. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it by that cabal of Conservapedians (not to be confused with Conservapedia) who oppose any change from the status quo???? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littleton Coin Company

Smash!

You've been squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.

You've been squished! Littleton Coin Company is clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the availability of reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this historically significant company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ric's Art Boat

Hello Alan, We thank you for your suggestion. We restructured the article "Ric's Art Boat" by realigning quotes and text. This adds to a better understanding and and degree of clearness. We are always open to any recommendation. Best regardsInternational-critics (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited SS Port Kembla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

Hi, Alan. You split the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article from the Hydraulic fracturing article. There is a discussion how to summarize the remaining environmental concerns sections. As a editor who contributed to the split process, your opinion and assistance is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Premier Marinas Limited

Hi, you have flagged my article Pre,ier Marinas Limited for deletion as unambiguous promotion, I have tried very hard to phrase the article as information only and I feel that the article is valid as Premier Marinas (where I keep my boat) are a real business based in real locations with many customers, I have tried not to talk about the company in terms of its benefits or in a promotional way, but I am happy to amend any element that you feel is of an overtly promotional nature. I have also provided an independent article from the YHA Gold Anchor Scheme by way of reference.

I would be grateful if you could remove the speedy deletion tag or let me know what element you take issue with, Wikipedia states that articles about commercial organisations are not invalid as long as they are not advertorial so please tell me where the advert is and I will amend it.--Dcbreeze (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Dcbreeze

If you would prefer you can reply on the article talk page, best regards--Dcbreeze (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Dcbreeze