User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Alan Liefting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Comment

I have re-read my statement, and realized that I sounded harsh which was not my intention. unfortunatly CMC is less than adiquate for providing the suptle neuances neccisary to create a good discussion. My research has led me to believe that Homosexuality and demon possesion only occurs in isolated pockets and has yet to create any consistant theology or practices. I may very well be wrong, so if there is a significant factor that I am missing than please let me know. what I am saying is that I did not mean to shut down any dialoge in the last comment, and I am hoping it didn't stear you away from this page.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel that here is a connection but I need to do a bit more research. My edit was a little brief and did not do the topic any justice. (can you explain what you mean by CMC?). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry, Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). when I typed my statement I just wanted to give you the reasons why, when I re-read my statment I was like "what an ass". Coffeepusher (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. You did highlight to me the need for more thorough editing.

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT:Films Based On War Books 2

Hi,
You do realize that capitalizing this while leaving all the other pages alone broke the sort for the whole set, eh?

I'm reverting this portion of your edit.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

AWB does the capitalisation by default. See WP:SORTKEY for reasons. This will be an ongoing issue whenever AWB edits those pages. The soultion would to have the DEFAULTSORT on all the related articles with upper case on all words. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You understand this matter more deeply than I. My point is: The sort was correct before. With the change, Upper sorts before Lower, and that item is now out of sequence. What is the downside of leaving it in peace with lowercase?

Varlaam (talk)

If it is left as lower case the next time AWB does an edit on the article it will be changed back to uppercase. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

But if/when AWB does its job, it will presumably be non-selective, and update the entire set at one go, won't it? Thus saving us time/trouble perhaps? Ideally?

An aside:

Alan (may I call you Alan?),

From my spelling you may already have guessed that I'm Canadian. From yours, you are presumably from the UK (/Eire/Oz/NZ/etc). (Is that correct?) If so, I'm just wondering:

1) You have a special interest in US history?

2) How did you happen to notice the double occurrence of McCullough's footnote? (I was too tired to do that properly when I did those adds.)

Varlaam (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) (in Toronto)

Replies:

The edit you are questioning was done as one of over 600 articles on an AWB run. I am not sure which article you are refering to and so I am not sure what set of article are affected. The articles you mention will not be automatically updated. They will be done on a random basis depending on whether or not they are in the list of an editors AWB run. If it is a small list they can be manually updated.
You can call me Alan. I am from New Zealand and we generally use first names regardless of how little we know each other.
DEFAULTSORT only affects the order in categories. The article will still appear but in a slightly different order so is is not a big issue.
I have no special interest in US history
The doulbe occurance of the ref would have been automatically picked up by AWB.

-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was List of films based on war books, 1775-1898.

Ok, that's clearer. I will probably do the updates myself in that case.

Ah, the special scent of Rotorua lingers in my memory. As does my encounter with the Wizard of Christchurch. I was forced to perform on stage at a Maori show in Rotorua. It's unwise to say no to a personal request from a Maori Master of Ceremonies.

(New Zealand leaves a very positive impression on visitors, it really does.)

Cheers, Dave

Dumb New Zealand story.

Sorry to regale you with this.

I met an old girlfriend for the very first time at the youth hostel in Rotorua. She was from England, and I got to know her better later, here and in England. But, years later, because of Rotorua and its special scent, whenever I smell sulphur, I think of her.

(Not in a bad way. That's just how memory works.)

Careful with AWB

In this edit, you changed "tragic death" by removing the word "tragic". Overall, better NPOV wording, except that it's a direct quote. Just thought you should know. Wyatt Riot (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with this edit [1]. It was referring to a character in the plot of a tragic opera, not a real person. You should not be automatically removing the word "tragic" from synopses of fictional works. Voceditenore (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was keeping a look out for quotes, title of books etc with the word "tragic" but I guess that one slipped past me. There was over 600 occurrences of the term "tragic death". With respect to the use of "tragic" in a synopsis, it is not always needed but in the case above it was neccessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Computers and environmental issues

Thank you Twinkle! I was the editor who created the category!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Robinson

On the Anthony Robinson - American novelist page, what further references and sources are needed? I've added several.

Tad Richards (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Tad Richards

I simply removed the word "tragic" in that article. It does lack inline citations however. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I noted the removal of "tragic," which seems reasonable -- all deaths are tragic. It's not clear - at least to me, but I'm relatively new at this - who made what edit, so I went to you as the first person listed as making edits on this page. What more does it need in the way of inline citations? I suppose I could go to Who's Who for the biographical citations -- birth date, college degrees, military service, etc., but none of these seem to be exceptional claims - military service says simply that he served, doesn't make any claims for medals or extraordinary action. I don't have access to US Naval records, could cite the biographical material on the dust jacket of his Navy novel.

Is the claim that he was encouraged to write by Mark Van Doren considered an exceptional claim? I have only the biography on Robinson's own web page as a source for that, but is it really a claim that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or likely to be contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community?

The thing about a novelist like Robinson is that although he's made a substantial career -- written novels that have been published by major publishers, reviewed in major newspapers (cited), and so earned a small niche in American literary history, but there hasn't been a lot written about him, so he's hard to find citations for -- and therefore, one would not want to make a lot of extravagant claims.

I looked up the Wiki entries for a few other writers of more or less similar pedigree, and found the same sort of flag on the entry for William Humphrey -- again, I don't know what more you'd put.

The entry for Vance Bourjaily has a lot of "citation needed" flags, and these seem to me justified -- they are claims for Bourjaily's pre-eminence, presumably made by reviewers, that could be easily looked up and cited. It's also a badly written entry -- Bourjaily deserves better.

The entry for R. V. Cassill has no flags at all, in spite of having the same kind of uncited biographical material. It also has a section called "works" which is clearly critical speculation and analysis by the writer of the entry, and is unsourced. In this case, it's well written, and if you were asking me I'd say it's appropriate.

So what is appropriate for these midlevel American writers - especially ones like Robinson who are still alive, so one can't even quote an obituary as a source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tad Richards (talk • contribs) 10:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian Clark (playwright) Deletion

I do not see a deletion tag on this page. If consensus is reached on deleting this page, I will not object, but as of now, I consider the page acceptable under the notablilty guidelines and am willing to defend it. I will leave more on the article's talk page. Thank you. Ytiugibma (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did place a PROD notice on it but another editor contested it and removed the tag. I will not be placing it up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Avi Soffer

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Avi Soffer - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of notability, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Closedmouth (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

North American Game Warden Museum

What is NOTOC_ Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

It stops a Table of Contents (TOC) from being displayed. In this case the article is too short for a TOC and it would appear in the wrong place. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. I had actually looked it up in the meantime WP:NOTOC. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

Conservation in the United States. That's good news. Thank you for the info. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

Articles for deletion nomination of Charlies (New Zealand)

I have nominated Charlies (New Zealand), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlies (New Zealand). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mpdelbuono (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, that article. After looking at the history I now recall splitting it from another page. Considering the content of Category:Food companies of New Zealand it would not be deemed to be notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well that was easy :) After seeing how active you were I was afraid I was going to upset you with this proposal. Glad to see we're on the same page. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

...and lets hope that page does not get deleted... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lighthouses and Lights

Alan, Please don't take that as a criticism from me. I just thought you should know. I know I've seen the discussion somewhere in wiki land. I live next to the Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, so I know what they call it, and I also know what they call it here. Frankly, a rose by any other name is still a rose. Or a rose is a rose is a rose. But maybe not here. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Stan

Can you expand on this message? I do not know what prompted it or its context. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-nuclear movement in Australia

Hi there, just letting you know I've started a discussion at the above article's talk page re the external links, if you want to drop in on it. hamiltonstone (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Crewe Murders / Arthur Allan Thomas

I'm not sure where you're planning to go with this, so if this is inappropriate please accept my apologies.

I'm a bit concerned about the split of these two articles. Arthur Allan Thomas is only notable in connection to his having been framed for the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe. Yes he did re-emerge from privacy to offer support to David Bain but other than that he hasn't been a public figure since shortly after the royal commission and, unless he's about to launch a second career in public life, it is unlikely that the article on him will ever be more than a stub. Regards Kiore (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I will reply at Talk:Arthur Allan Thomas. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. Cheers Kiore (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NZ school

Please reinstate the category. I realise that it is a little unorthodox, but it is very useful to have all schools in NZ in a category so I can check them all regularly for vandalism. See the template talk page.-gadfium 09:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Can the vandalism checking be done though the Related changes for the categories of interest? -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

It is done using Related changes for this category. There is no small set of categories other than this which can be used; categories by primary/intermediate/secondary get divided by geographical area, and categories by geographical area get divided by primary/secondary. Many schools do not currently have such subcats anyway. Also, categories often are removed by well-meaning editors who replace them while adding their own content, not realising that they are damaging the article, whereas infobox removal is much more obvious, and is more likely to be repaired by recent changes patrollers. You will understand that school articles naturally tend to attract people with less experience of the interface and less maturity.-gadfium 10:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that leaving the template in an article namespace category is a good method to track vandalism. I will undo the edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Environmental issues with energy

I have nominated Environmental issues with energy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environmental issues with energy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Teahot (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Human impacts on New Zealand's natural forest and tall shrubland.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Human impacts on New Zealand's natural forest and tall shrubland.gif, 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. Damiens.rf 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Environmental issues with aviation

CfD nomination of Category:Marriage, unions and partnerships In Pakistan

Stolen template

Just to let you know that I have adapted your user page template for my user page. Much appreciated!-gadfium 10:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No sweat!! Why is it that we are selective in revealing personal details? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Index of pesticide articles

The article Index of pesticide articles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't seem to do anything the category doesn't do

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PamD (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

Perhaps third time is the charm? The primary objector to the split has been inactive for three months. Could use some support if there are further objections... Yworo (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center

I have responded to your commentary at Talk:McDonald's Cycle Center#Priorities. Please respond there if you want to continue the discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Base-rich and base-poor

Hi. You've tagged this article as confusing – could you explain what's confusing about it? As an ecologist (and as it happens the writer of most of it) it seems perfectly clear to me, but I know what it's about already and I'm having trouble seeing it from a layperson's perspective. Richard New Forest (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reread the article and it not as confusing as I first thought. The opening sentence could do with a slight rewording to make it less "clunky" however. I have added some categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks – I'll have a go at making it flow better. Richard New Forest (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Electrical engineering books

Restored article

Here's the content. Greetings. --Tone 10:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Food waste in New Zealand

You may be interested in the Food waste in New Zealand article that I created. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I am interested indeed, I've added it to my watchlist. I'm planning to make the articles on food waste a good topic, so I will be, in turn, 'promoting' each article to good article status. Help is very welcome, if you're interested. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nav bars in Sustainability article

Hi Alan - the Sustainability article is currently under peer review - eventually for FA status but temporarily for GA. There have been two Reviews (and an additional automated review). These have all been supportive but the article is at present clearly too long. The History section is being reviewed (new editing on a separate page) and the current material used for a new article. None of the reviews has criticised number of nav bars. Certainly there do seem a lot of nav bars but I think it would have been polite to discuss your deletion before carrying it out, especially as no-one else has found it a problem. Would you please discuss your action on the talk page otherwise I think they will need to be restored. Granitethighs (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to see 18 nav bars on the footer of a WP article. Eighteen is a tad excessive wouldn't you agree? I don't think it was impolite to remove them without discussion and it was in no way a BOLD edit. With respect to the History section, it is not the done thing to have duplication between article. If you want to edit an article on the quiet you do it in user space, in a sandbox or as a subpage. My preferred method would have been to simply ~~spit~~ split it out. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits, Alan, whether they are "bold" or not. They are insightful, in my opinion. We need more editors with a keen eye working on the article right now. As to the nav bars, I have to agree with you. It was overkill. Many of the articles linked were only weakly related to sustainability. I'm glad you've taken an interest in the article and hope you'll stick around. Sunray (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The page is now on my watchlist. I am surprised it wasn't but I guess I am just busy enough with other environment articles! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good. BTW, we had identified the Environmental dimension section for drastic shortening. I've undertaken to work on that. It will be a few more days before I can get to it, but there is a subpage here if you are interested in working on the first part of it (Environmental management). We have been either re-writing sections individually and presenting them for comment by other editors or editing collaboratively, using different colours. Sunray (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me too, addressing your comments will give us focus. Unfortunately the editing of this particular page is an unpleasant task due to the constant disruptions and unrelenting nastiness of one editor. User:Skipsievert has valid (though non-mainstream) opinions and raises some interesting points, but he conducts every argument like a bitter domestic dispute and he never gives up). I find it very hard to spend time there, but hope that your comments will help us to re-group around the things that most need doing.--Travelplanner (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You Travelplanner, it might be a good idea to think about the nasty diatribe you are just laying on another editor here. Constant baiting and taunting come over to this page now also? Looks so. Accusing other editors of being sock-puppets or meat puppets by the team when they disagree with a team choice, and reverting any and all people outside the team?... and chasing away other serious editors, some newbe's to Wikipedia... that is the pattern on the article and has been. What is the point?

Myself, as the person that recently reorganized, and rewrote large sections and reformatted the History of economic thought article, with just about the most disparate, and competitive group of people that could be imagined,,, and it came out nicely, and is now stable, and only took about three weeks, how is it that your editing team has been working away for over a year?? to produce an obvious problematic article (my opinion) that is not welcoming to any outside actual edits? I wonder about the team on the Sustainability article as to pov. What in the world does this kind of past editing mean [2]...

Does it seem a little odd that I mostly reorganized and rewrote large sections of the main Economics article a while ago, that gets about 142,000 hits a month, and did not remotely run into pointing at editors, name calling, and personality opinion taunting, with a very very diverse group of opinionated people there? - skip sievert (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia skills and community inquiry

How do I learn about how to create new Wikipedia pages, specifically; Wikipedia skills and community, in general? 99.190.90.167 (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A good start is at Wikipedia:Community portal (one of the links on the left hand side). Wikipedia has become very complex and bureaucratic over the five years that I have been using it and there is always something new to learn. If you intend to do a lot of editing I would suggest starting an account. There are many benefits in having an account than being an anonymous editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What are the benefits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.138.188 (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Why create an account?. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Alan Liefting. Hopefully this message finds you and yours well. What are drawbacks to creating an account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.184.18 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there are no drawbacks??? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the creation of Language linked pages equivalent to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation); i.e.: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organização) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(350_ (organisation) http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(Organisation), http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organizzazione) http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(организация) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_ (organización) http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(组织)

If so, have you created pages in non-English, if so any suggestions on the best approach? 99.54.141.191 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Palm Oil

RE: splitting out the environmental effects of palm oil as fuel
Thanks! Jay L09 (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. The palm oil article needs expansion especially due to the increasing use of it as a fuel. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Grren articles

My issue is that I'm not sure about the parent, child and various subcategories. Also, I believe that this is currently an overused term and that for some categories (LEED buildings) we are classifying things will be the norm in the future. I'm not sure if that is the right way to categorize things. I last looked in there several months ago and was confused I admit I have not been in that structure in a while, so maybe things have changed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

My concern that "Green" is often an informal term and there is sometimes a more formal term that we can use in WP. I note that Category:Green politicians has been appropriately deleted. It looks like you renamed what is now Category:LEED certified buildings. Another good move. There is still some work to be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria

You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers#New discussion and poll: reviewer criteria - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

International School of Management (ISM)

Hi! Your move request seems to have exactly the same proposed name than the current name. Did you mean to propose another name? Jafeluv (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories in templates

Why did you remove the categories from Template:Annotated_image/Mollusc_generalized? --Philcha (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates do not belong in article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please add "hangon" to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350_(organisation)

Please add "hangon" to [3], to avoid speedy deletion (see notice). References have been added for [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.138.65 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is not up for speedy deletion so it does not need a "hangon" tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 99.155.152.176 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation) being vandalized, i.e. deletion of related information, see history: Can you stop?

350 (organisation) being vandalised, i.e. deletion of related information, see history: Can you stop deletion of partially created work? [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.89.139 (talk) 01:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Trow Ghyll Skeleton

Hi Alan,

I see you are the last person to edit the Trow Ghyll page. I'm interested in researching this story for an item on the BBC. Please could you email me at: jamie.coulson@bbc.co.uk - I can then explain more.

Regards,

Jamie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manfromaunty (talk • contribs) 12:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ecology of the United States

I have nominated Category:Ecology of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about Sustainability editing via e-mail

Thank you for offering to discuss issues related to editing of the Sustainability article via e-mail. BTW, there are more editors than just Granitethighs, Skipsievert and me involved. While I do sometimes exchange information with WP users by e-mail, I make it a practice not to discuss disputes using that medium. The issues that are currently in play are not new and should either be resolved through talk page discussion or through WP dispute resolution. I am going to make one more attempt to discuss things on the talk page before taking any other steps. Sunray (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of YIMBY

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nsaa (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Committee of Fifty

I just checked, and was surprised to find that I am the "creator" of the article on the committee of 1893. Then I remembered that, back in 2007, I just broke up an article which had the committees of 1829 and of 1893 together. I created an article on the committee of 1906, and thought it best to break up the other one to properly disambiguate the whole thing, but I did not add any content to the two earlier ones, and I don't know anything about them, except what is written there. The article(s) do need attention, though. Kraxler (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Of interest, Biased "editor" agenda...? Climate change denial

Climate change denial

[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.156.118 (talk) 07:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

See here for response. — Spike (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Bases Campaign

you created this article and just found it and i would like help you improve it. but i look for sources and cant find any can you help me where to look for info thanksOo7565 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation)

Hi Alan … er … Mr. Liefting. You keep removing the WP:ORG notability template from the above-captioned article. But, rather than begin a war of reversions, it’s considered good form to look to the talk page wherein the person who put it back said why s/he believed it to still apply and why your additional references did not affect the application of the template, comments to which you have yet to respond. You should have worked it out there before deleting the template again. The last thing any of us should want to end up in is an edit war with WP:3RR implications. — Spike (talk) 21:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I should make clear that my motivation here is that I do not want to see two good wikieditors, two good Wikipedians, end up in an edit war. I am just trying to head it off. — Spike (talk)

I had forgotten that I had removed it in the past. I looked at the refs and knowing that there is a dearth of info on the org I removed the tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to say it's notable because you say it's notable. Provide evidence of its notability. Like, by referencing reliable sources that actually talk about the organization. -Atmoz (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Date Pages

The pages like October 24‎ are for events that have occurred which are globally notable over time. While it is possible that the International Day of Climate Action turns out to meet that requirement, as of today it does not. Please respect the guidelines of Wikipedia:Days of the year#Events and revert your addition. -- Drappel (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re:Food waste in the United States

Sadly, no I cannot. I've just started a new term in education and the work that I am receiving is phenomenal. Any and every hobby, and my social life, have been thrown out of the window for the moment, which means the article, and others under my belt, won't be worked upon for a while. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Granville Island Water Taxi Service

Hello, and thank you for your note about Granville Island Water Taxi Services. I have responded to your concerns on the article's talk page here: Talk:Granville_Island_Water_Taxi_Services. Please let me know if you would like me to try to dig up additional sources, as I know I saw them covered on the local TV channel as well several times. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful...

I think you know what the mistake here was. Zoo Fari 02:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Issues with poultry farming

The article Issues with poultry farming has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Blatant content fork. See WP:FORK

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Field day a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It was split two separate ways so there was no other way to do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not the point, No discussion was made and the page with history needs to be moved by an Admin now. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  - No discussion is needed if it is an improvement over what had existed. Also, when pages are split there is no way of splitting the history. Leaving an edit summary as to where the info has gone is sufficient. See WP:SPLIT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    - Yes, discussion is needed for consensus. You could have created Field day (disambiguation) for the list for it to be then request it to be moved to Field day with the article moved to the new name you had. Also use the Move tag is how you should move articles and if it can't be moved then take it to WP:Requested moves. Bidgee (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Stop doing copy and paste moves! If you continue to do so you will be blocked for disruption. Bidgee (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
      - No discussion is needed if it is an improvement over what had existed since it is hardly being bold. I only see the need for discussion if there is no clear way forward or it is potentially contentious. The split that I carried out would easily gain consensus since it improves the pages affected. There is no need for Field day (disambiguation) - Field day can be the prim dab page in this case. There was no need for a page move because it is a split. They are mutually exclusive operations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
        Main problem I have is not that there was no discussion but you when and did a Copy and Paste move. The Australian article should have been requested if you couldn't move it yourself as the history of the page needs to be moved with the content! Also it wasn't a split but a copy and paste move. There is a different. Bidgee (talk) 08:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
In this case there was only one way of splitting because the edit history was not simply about Australia. The edit history contains all sorts of other stuff. There was a huge mish-mash of stuff. In this case a cut and paste splitting and leaving target links in the edit summary was the only way of doing it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article editing

Alan and Ohana – the latest edits on the Sustainability page are, to my mind just not acceptable. The article is at present of a high stabndard, aiming for GA at least and possibly FA. Aden and Skip have been suspected of at least tandem editing and possibly sock puppetry (see enquiry). Both are editing the Lead which has been worked on by a team of editors extensively. This is provocative to say the least. The editing is not IMO constructive in any way. I understand that editing is “ongoing” and that “ownership” is always an issue but the review process of the article has taken over a year by a team working together, with the exception of Skip who has constantly created difficulties. Unfortunately, IMO the article can only deteriorate under this sort of editing. Can nothing be done? Granitethighs 05:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see the edit warring resolved but I am staying away until such time that it happens. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I consider it an unhealthy situation of too much control by several people who are not following guidelines concerning n.p.o.v. - That is not going to change unless other editors take it upon themselves to get involved in a positive way. skip sievert (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GCC6

Hello.. i am contacting you in regards to the page GCC6 which has been flagged and consequently deleted even though I placed hang-on flag to discuss your decision further. Please get back to me with and explaination of your objection to my work.

Khalid

Hello Alan. Again, this is Khalidco who is the author of the page GCC6 that was quickly deleted for no expressed reason. The indication of importance of this page is far greater than what can be measured from someone in Australia for example. The page will provide information about a web site that is going to serve a large population in the Arabian Gulf (GCC) countries in ways that have not been available not too long ago. Further reading of A7 makes me wonder if we are both looking at the same page. I am the develper of that site and you can verify that using tools such a domaintools.com which will display to you the adminstrative contact person's email. The same emil is used when I registered with WIKIPEDIA.

Khalid User:khalidco (talk)

p.s. I think you should've replied to my previous response or at least respect the hang-on tag that I've placed before you killed it.

I merely tagged it. I cannot delete pages since I am not an admin. I guess the admin agreed with my opinion since it has now deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: 103 dalmations

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (103 dalmations) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! JamieS93 20:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You say "(T)he speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia". On the contrary, the speedy deletion criteria are set to narrow so it does not protect the encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hello Alan and thanks for your reply. I still don't see why it was tagged!? The page describes a utility on the net that is very useful to so many people. The site in question has the ability to act as a link between interested parties in GCC countries. The net is not as yet being used there to the desired level and such sites would be quite helpful. Wiki is starting to get more visitors from there and it would help direct people to useful sites as opposed to other non-useful sites if you know what I mean. The site also uses a special program designed to installed on delers' computers and used to manage and publish on the site directly. I know you are doing your best to make wiki be as useful and neat, but keep in mind that there are so many millions of users that can have a different opinion.

Any topic on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines as well as other criteria for inclusion. It may be notable to some people but not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh Alan. You just tagged for deletion and expect an Admin to necesairly check your judgement and override it!? The question is, why is it that you do NOT think this article about the site is USEFUL. Assume you are planning to travel to Work in Dubai. It would be nice to find a site on the Internet that can help you pick an appartment and a place to live. Wouldn't it? I thought the hang-on tag would be honored, but I was wrong. I am really impressed by how organized, informative ,and neat wiki is, but I heat to see you patrolling the whole Internet. ;)

An admin will check to see whether a page should be deleted or not and takes the appropriate action. Obviously the admin concured with my judgement and deleted it. If the article was about finding an apartment in Dubai then I would expect such an article to be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such articles do not belong in an encyclopedia. There are other places on the internet for that sort of information. If you like you can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review but I do not fancy your chances to have it restored. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To me at least, an encyclopedia is a place where I can find information just about anything I can think of. The Dubai example was just an example. What you failed to explain is why a "speed" delete tag was placed and my hang-on tag was ignored. The whole procedure took less than one day from start to finish. This is a summairly judgement which shows speedyiness and lack of thoughfullness or real consideration. The admin who "concurred" with your decision is on vacation appearently and if you look at the log of deletions, you would understand what I mean about not always checking after others. Anyhow, I am glad I discover by myself how messy and picky team work can be in wiki.

Repies to points made:

The aim of WP is to be the sum of human knowledge but it must also be notable information. WP cannot have an article about all webpages for instance
The reason for speedy deletion was given as "A7: Article about a web site, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"
The admin who deleted would have ignored the "hangon" tag because it met the criteria for speed deletion
The speedy deletion process took less one day because it is supposed to be speedy. Due to copyright issues, vandalism, spam etc there are many pages that should be deleted quickly
Team work on WP is not picky and messy - it is a consensus process to arrive at the best outcome for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for GCC6

An editor has asked for a deletion review of GCC6. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Khalidco (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Our wikipedia page keeps getting deleted

we do not know why. This is a person of signifigance in the local and widespread underground hip-hop music community and is the staple in the production of many music compilation CD's circulating today. We would like to know what should be written t make this person matter in the eyes of wikipedia?

Dicussion

There is a current discussion on the Sustainability discussion page. Your opinion is requested. skip sievert (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Cove (soccer club)

You originally tagged this page as an A1, which I feel to be incorrect; the article does clarify what it is (a soccer club) and is not an A1 candidate. However, it is not notable so I have switched it to A7. Thanks. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 03:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Erucatonia for speedy deletion

I understand it needs to be wikified, but I"M NOT A VANDAL. As this has been labeled a HOAX!!! I am certain that the you are either a GI doctor with 20 years of experience in diagnosing rare disorders, or at the very least a medical researcher. The syndrome is rare! DO YOU KNOW WHAT RARE MEANS?! However if you don't believe me, (as I am not the one who defined the term) do a search on "unable to burp" and you will find people who are suffering from it. I did a search and did not find it listed with the AMA, go figure; then again, I didn't find a listing with the AMA or the CDC for roemheld syndrome either, but it diagnosed by german doctors all the time. SOOOOO, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR, BUT IT IS NOT A HOAX. It may be the wrong term, as this was pulled form a doctors letter (he could have made it up as a descriptive term) but the great thing about wiki, is that if the information is out there, somebody will bring their knowledge to the table and fix it, not delete it. you can answer me on my talk page As there is no foundation or info pages on it, I'll give you a list of forums with sufferers. I expect you to read at least one of them, if you plan on deleting the page!

http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Gastroenterology/i-am-physically-unable-to-burp/show/729008 <<this one first http://ehealthforum.com/health/topic52397.html http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Gastroenterology/constant-air-in-the-stomach---unable-to-belch/show/235564

Maybe you should quit neurology while you are ahead, save everybody a headache.

eximo (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The article name got zero google hits. I put a speedy deletion template on it since it looked like a hoax. It also looked prey dodgy with an edit summary that included "Information taken from a patient diagnosis and description letter written by...". This is not how we write WP articles. Make yourself familiar with the core principles of WP, especially verifiability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Stardust sign

I left an explanation on the talk page in an effort to avoid speedy deletion. Please reply there and maybe you can talk me into deletion or I can convince you it's worth keeping. Based on these other posts, I may be the least upset person ever to post here! RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Carpenter sisters

Hello,

Two items.

1) Please re-check the 'orphan' status of Carpenter sisters. I was in the process of adding comments to the discussion page then adding links in the 2 minutes you placed that maintenance template. Once you confirm the non-orphan status, please remove that tag.

2) While most new articles need significant cleanup, I try hard to do better. Your "Cleanup|date=September 2009" tag on Carpenter sisters is unclear. Please state specifically which part(s) needs cleanup and does not meet the Wikipedia format. Having reviewed many articles, I can see some minor elements that may need cleanup for GA or higher status. When reviewed, the article should start at B-class. So, give some details or please remove the tag.

Thank you, Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "bold" comment. I removed most of them except for Carpenter sisters in the lead and in family. Is that adequate? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

With a few exceptions it is generally only the first appearance of the article title that is bolded. See [{WP:MOS]]. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I thought that was one of the exceptions. But another part of WP:MOS dealing with bold text conflicts. For now, I will be conservative and moved the second bold text to italics. I also removed the maintenance tag since you did not bring any other item up. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Thank You for the little cleanups here and there. Any suggestion for a lead picture or info type box? Later I will work on ref issues and alt text. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

List of merchant ships lost in Convoy PQ17

Hi, a comment on the tags of the above list. Please note that the previous article was renamed (moved) to an article with the 'List of' prefix. That brings the article in line with similar lists elsewhere (e.g. here). That said, the list article has the source of the list with inline citations, an extensive reference pool inherited from the main PQ17 article, as well as internal and external links, etc.

The rationale for the creation of this list is the extensive amount of ships sunk in convoy PQ17. Including the list in the main article would have cluttered the article uselessly, rendering it a jumble of names, dates and countries.

As a note, I would have preferred if the article had not been tagged within less than ten minutes from its creation.

Thanks, ReuV ^talk 22:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ramë Bllaca

Hello Alan Liefting, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ramë Bllaca has been removed. It was removed by Arberkyqyku with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Arberkyqyku before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Eugene pandala

Seems to assert notability to me, you might take it to AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Melitten vs Melittin

Somebody moved the Melittin page to Melitten however when google searching or looking at journal articles the spelling is Melittin. Additionally the word is still spelling Melittin through the whole page. Please advise? I think maybe it should be moved back to it original page. eximo (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that google web and scholar searches favour "Melittin". The article should favour common usage so it should be moved back. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined

I declined speedy deletion for Mitrananda for the following reason: "Conceiving a TV programme that holds the world record for maximum participation" is a statement of importance. — Sebastian 07:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Cruise ship pollution in the United States

It looks like that has been removed sometime over the past few months from WP:ACCESS regarding the disapproval of right-aligning table of contents because it does not look right on some screen readers, so you can just revert that then. Gary King (talk) 07:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind; it's found here as "Avoid floating the table of contents if possible, as it breaks the standard look of pages." Strange that it's not at WP:ACCESS anymore, but there you have it. Gary King (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. It seems the template has created quite a bit of discussion. Firstly, there is no standard look of WP pages WRT the TOC. They are either floated left or right, placed in non-standard locations or not displayed at all. That all depends on page layout. In the case of Cruise ship pollution in the United States I floated it right since it improved the page layout. Having the TOC part way down the page and with the lump of white space does not give a very good layout. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The TOC can hardly be considered long in that article when you compare it to many popular articles. I assume you've seen an article with a TOC much longer than 12 items. Gary King (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion tag

I have removed the speedy deletion tag on Undertow (wave action) because it contains more than a definition, but also explains its environmental role. Feel free to bring it to AfD if you feel that is not enough though; I just don't think it meets the speedy criteria. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: List of the places that The Simpsons air

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of List of the places that The Simpsons air - a page you tagged - because: A7 does not apply to television shows and especially not to a notable series such as The Simpsons. Use PROD/AfD instead. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. The leftorium 09:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Leader of the Pack (2point4 Children

Hi, you have said messaged me saying that the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. However, my objection is based on the fact that the show was a popular BBC sitcom and other sitcoms have individual episode pages, such as Only Fools and Horses. I am going to pad out the existing page and complete pages for all episodes and link to the 2point4 Children page as is the norm for most television shows on Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration, Rich Brown User:rabbro —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

Speedy deletion contested: Brandise Danesewich

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Brandise Danesewich - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. The leftorium 15:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Leader of the Pack (2point4 Children)

Hi. I did not delete the article you nominated, as there was no reason why it should be deleted given. Please can you make use of the appropriate tags on WP:CSD? If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a message on my talk page. Stephen! ^Coming... 09:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy

you put a speedy tag on Kenneth Berrill, but an obit in The Times is not merely indication of importance, but proof of notability, as shown in multiple afds. I notice multiple comments in the talk page archive from other editors, including admins, that you are nominating for speedy even though the criteria clearly do not apply--as for television programs. Please patrol more carefully--some of your speedy nominations are very appropriate, and I just deleted a few of them myself. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to add my comments to DGG's, please remember that if an article asserts even the smallest amount of notability, even if it isn't cited, it is not a candidate for speedy deletion. For example, you nominated Micbandits. However, the article stated that it has been signed by a major record company. Whilst it would need more assertion to pass AFD, it won't be speedy deleted. The guidelines of WP:CSD are written to protect articles from being deleted whilst they are still in their early stages, and to give the editors a chance to get all the references in place. Stephen! ^Coming... 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability

Regarding articles businesses, I'm trying to discern and understand what qualifies for notability, seeing various seeming conflicting circumstances, and have that question for you as someone who seems knowledgeable and has tagged things for notability. The McKee Foods article/page has no references other than their own website. Aside from technical criteria it is a company that certainly seems notable, but because of the technical criteria is that one that should be removed or merged? Or perhaps it being fairly well known warrants neither, but rather someone making the effort and finding references rather then challenging something that's pretty obviously notable? What do you do with a company like that which is "notable" if for no other reason than it is of significant (notable?) size and produces products that are widely sold and known, but doesn't have any articles written about it? There doesn't seem to be any provision for something which is clearly notable but doesn't have readily available reference source material. Can you shed light or point me to a place that does? The "Notability" page does not. Thanks - Pbgiv (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Boomz

Another editor has added some references; in my view it's still not good enough, because they are blogs and Myspace and it's still a dic-def and WP:MADEUP; but I said I would invite you to have another look in case you wanted to change your !vote at the AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Flabby revisions

I added a bit to the project page and I'll take a run at translating the press release announcing the change from the Wikimedia Foundation some time over the next few days.

After reading a bit, I've concluded that what is being proposed in the WikiProject is a much weaker step (i.e. last sighted version not the default view) than what is already implemented in the German language Wikipedia (last sighted version is the default view).

I'm a bit surprised there is so much discussion about this. I wonder what happened to be bold?

I think one could extract predictions from the data here -- if the German Wikipedia was adversely affected I think you'd see it in the stats. As far as I can tell, the number of active editors in the German and English versions of WP have been flat over the past year-- there is no obvious adverse affect one could attribute to the adoption of sighting in the German WP.

One could argue that the German WP is more popular because of the change -- there are more editors per speaker (37 Editors (5+) per million speakers vs. 27 Editors (5+) per million speakers).[7] The German WP is second in size only to the English one... and that with a lot less native speakers.

Personally, I'd like to see the issue go to a vote. Sighting isn't a big departure from what we have now. I think there is a lot of appetite for change.

Are you aware of Babelfish - http://babelfish.yahoo.com/. This is useful for extracting info from foreign language pages. Example: [8] Nephron T|C 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability talk page

Alan the Sustainability talk page is not operating properly. I suspect it is too long but I am loath to interfere because archiving was intended to be automatic. But the automatic archiving seems to have gone awry too - do you have the expertise to get things operational again? Granitethighs 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

After I set it all up to how the rest of WP works it was changed back to the non-standard format of talk pages. I don't like wasting my time by having my stuff undone. I am trying to steer clear of the Sustainability pages until the edit warring and endless discussion goes away. Sorry about that. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Poet Amar Abadabadi

Dear One,

A few months back I created a page for my father Late Ranvir Dutt 'Amar Abadabadi who was a great Poet. Author and Journalist of the country. He has served the litrar field of the country for more then four decades. Today when I was searching the Wikipedia I found with great regrets thet page here in question has been deleted ? I request ou to please help me in restoring that page becouse the person who has mention in The Hindu History of Urdu Litrature should and must find his mentiion in Wikipedia.

Regards

Rasbehari DuttaSitarist, Composer and Conductor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicrbd (talk • contribs) 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The page would have been deleted since it was not suitable for Wikipedia for any one or more of a variety of reasons. A mention of the person in a book is not a reason for inclusion in Wikipedia. See WP:Notability (people) for more information. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Biùtiful cauntri poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Biùtiful cauntri poster.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ZML.com

Hi. Please take note that ZML.com is a redirect to ZML, and if you are going to request a speedy on a redirect, please also do it to the page it redirects to. I have done this for you, but I see plenty of references on that page. 80.44.254.153 (talk) 09:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A redirect to an article up for speedy deletion deserves a speedy deletion as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does it deserve a speedy deletion? It seems to have enough reliable references on the page. 80.44.254.153 (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all the refs are reliable. One is a blog. To be included in WP a topic must also be notable as well as having reliable refs from third part sources that are independent of the subject. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Tom Kelley (photographer)

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Tom Kelley (photographer) - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. The leftorium 12:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Aromat

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Aromat - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 00:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment

trying to start a page and don't really know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dooodger (talk • contribs) 03:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Read the info at:

the top of your talkpage
Wikipedia:About
Wikipedia:Community portal. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Xiaoshenyang

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Xiaoshenyang - a page you tagged - because: references in Google News indicate notability. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Skomorokh, barbarian 04:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Kettleman (game)

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Kettleman (game)) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! NW (Talk) 04:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that speedy deletion criteria are set rather too narrowly. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As the author of said page I have no qualms with its deletion. After reading the qualifications of notability and citation, I do not deem it a worthwhile article. It is not an attempt at vandalism as was proposed, simply too obscure to matter. Thanks. Goatandcatandram (talk) 05:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you mark it as {{db-author}} ? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you care about that page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibookg42010 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Which page? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Mott

Hi Alan,

Regarding your CSDA7 tagging of that article. I would say notability has been asserted and that it's ineligible for speedy deletion. Wouldn't AfD be a better option here? Crafty (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The notability is insufficient according to WP:BIO and WP:PROF so it will get deleted on an afd. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% and would cast a delete !vote myself in an AfD. Nevertheless as I understand it where notability is merely asserted (not established) then CSD cannot be used. Crafty (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a real shortcoming of the speedy deletion process. The onus is on editors other than the person who created the article to determine its notability and verify the sources. This is wrong in my view. If an editor creates an article the burden of proof should rest with them. Anyway all this is an aside. Feel free to remove the speedy tag but I am hoping an admin will save us time in the AFD process and knock the article on the head. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about the CSD process too. :) In any event I'm happy to let it be dealt with by an sysop. If they decline, to AfD it goes. Crafty (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(←)Hi Alan,

The speedy deletion request for this article was declined. The article creator has done considerable work on it and I have a feeling that Mr Mott now meets the inclusion guidelines. Crafty (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. I will no longer be pursuing deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Greenlee Partners

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Greenlee Partners - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

TheSorceress

Hi. I replaced your db tag on this article with a PROD becaue, though it clearly needs to go, WP:CRYSTAL isn't a speedy reason - it's part of WP:NOT which is #1 in the "Non-criteria" section of WP:CSD. I wish A7 covered non-notable books, but at least we have A9 for music now. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, another drawback of the speedy deletion process. Speedy deletion is supposed to take the pressure of the PROD/AfD process. Mutter, mutter, grumble, grumble... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delhi Urban Jargon

hi there! i am building a list of most commonly words used by college student in delhi. plz help me improve it. thanks.Bigsuperindia (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The topic is not likely to be kept as an article in Wikipedia. There are other fora on the internet for such information. Information on Wikipedia must be notable and from reliable, published sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

this will be a part of DELHI Bigsuperindia (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Before doing any work on the article read the notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for nice information. I'm working on it as it is surely an interesting topic. i'm have discussion with delhi editors on it and if they agree on continuing on it i'm go head. thanks Bigsuperindia (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jurassic: The Hunted

I have declined your request for deleting Jurassic: The Hunted under db-repost, as this does not apply to articles that was speedily deleted. This isn't the first time that I have declined a speedy deletion from you, as it wasn't a candidate, and from looking at the other posts on this talk page, I see that this happens with some frequency. Please can you review the policy WP:CSD, and if you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was speedily deleted (see the log page) so db-repost was justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m afraid you are missing the point. The article was originally speedily deleted under A7, which is for articles that have no indication of notability, or that they will ever be notable enough. If you read the criteria for ‘’G4 – Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion’’, it explicit in what is or isn’t included: ‘’ This also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to ‘’’speedy deletions’’’.’’ (My emphasis). Because it was speedily deleted, it is ‘’’not’’’ a candidate for G4. There may be other criteria that the article fits, but db-repost is not one of them.

As I said before, please review the criteria of WP:CSD, as a significant proportion of articles you have tagged for speedy deletion have been done so incorrectly. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note on my talk page. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

You are the subject of discussion at User talk:Grutness.-gadfium 19:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I started the discussion as I was unsure whether or not to ask you. I personally think you would make a great admin and would be willing to nominate/co-nominate you. However I think it would be better than rather doing it now we wait and discuss this at User talk:Grutness (or some other place) to improve your chances of acceptation. Thank you and Good Luck! Kiwiteen123 (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that but I do not want to be an admin for a number of reasons. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see why you might feel that... If you re-consider drop me a line and I'd be happy to either nominate you or support a nomination thanks, Kiwiteen123 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiwiteen123 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Bonaventure Historical Society

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bonaventure Historical Society, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bonaventurehistorical.org/Documents/3years.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

False positive. Article was split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization

I note that you reverted my edit at Wikipedia:Categorization. There is a discussion at the talk page on it. See also Template talk:Cults. I have not seen templates in art namespace cats as "common". Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, removing it from WP:CAT doesn't change the fact that it is and has been common practice throughout Wikipedia.

See also this header: Template:Template category.

I hope this helps. - jc37 23:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as common practice at all and I do a lot of work on the categories. The templates are generally shoved in Category:Wikipedia templates and its sub-cats. That would be the better way to do it in order to keep content and maintenance pages separate. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates, like any other page, can potentially be categorised in more than one category.

Is there some particular reason that you're adverse to following this common practise? - jc37 23:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree that templates, and all other WP pages for that matter, can be in more than one category. What is common practice as I see it in all the work I do on the categories is that, like the rest of WP, content pages are kept separate from maintenance pages. It is not common practice to have templates in categories that are for article namespace articles. Can you give any examples? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, first, templates contain content. See WP:CLN.

That aside, that's the whole reason that templates have their own sort key, to be able to quickly be able to tell what is what is where.

Anyway, as for examples, I'll go take a look. - jc37 06:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the templates contains content but the template as a whole does not need to be a member of a category that otherwise contains articles. Templates are sorted in subcats of Category:Wikipedia templates. They do not need doubling up amongst articles in categories used for article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope. as stated in WP:CAT the goal of categories is navigation. And that includes templates. If it aids someone looking for info on a topic to get to a template which lists articles on that topic, then the category has well done it's job.

Anyway, you wanted some examples.

It's not easy to go randomly look at categories and see if the tau shows up lol

But here are two that I found fairly quickly: Category:Transport in Paris and Category:Comics.

And in looking around I found a LOT of templates in cats containing article, but which did not use the tau sort key. Here's just one example of that: Category:Yorkshire and the Humber.

I spent all of a couple minutes, and have found lots of examples (I'm sparing spamming your talk page with them all : )

So yes, it's common practice. yes it's been stated in WP:CAT for a very long time, and yes, templates are content, and yes categories' purpose is navigation.

It's great that there is a top-down category system just for templates. But that doesn't preclude the templates from being in categories which contain articles. - jc37 06:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Hogan

Since you, or your bot, signed the speedy (sure was!) deletion notice on my talk page, could you please copy the edits I made to user:Huw Powell/Brendan Hogan? I thank you very much, and look forward to stealing commas from this project to use elsewhere. Huw Powell (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I cannot do it. It was deleted by User:Orangemike. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Two AFDs

Perhaps you would be interested in voicing your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollyoaks Community College and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollyoaks High School?--Blargh29 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/governments

Hello Alan Liefting, I note that you have contributed to Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2008 taskforce and have an interest in New Zealand Politics, are you willing to join me in re-creating Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/governments? It is no longer in use and New Zealand politics articles in general need substantial improving. Drop me a line if you want to help: There is work to do! Kiwiteen123 (talk) 27 November 2024 T 06:40 (UTC)

I will try and do some stuff on it after my exam! Need to also consider forming a Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2011 taskforce at some stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes we do, I created 50th New Zealand Parliament yesterday... i have now decided (I hope you agree) that Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Politics is a more appropriate name, I will also be more active after my exams, Thanks, Kiwiteen123 (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

more complete - or merge with another article

This article seems slanted to the AMS point of view. There is a more robust history that needs completion, such as the issues of philosophy that is not shared with AMS. How can you talk about "Montessori in America" and just not mention AMI, for example. I think full disclosure would require some discussion of the AMS philosophy of Montessori, and its distinction from other types of Montessori teaching that exist in the field in the US. I think this article may fit better on the AMS article; or merged with "Montessori Method", so a wider body of interests can develop a more complete picture of exactly what is involved. Havis1 (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Which article are you referring to? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's called "Montessori in the United States" I saw your comments at that page. So, I thought I would write you. I didn't see any significant discussion at that page. Havis1 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Urserfy Request

Would you mind "userfying" my deleted article on "Sand Point Country Club" and emailing it to me? If Wikipedia doesn't give you my email address, please reply here or on my talk page and I'll give it to you.

Thanks,

George R. Brumder (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not an admin so I cannot do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you tell me who is an admin? Is there a directory or something? Thanks. George R. Brumder (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See WP:LA or if you go to the name of the deleted article it will say who deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Do not delete the Facebook diplomacy article, it is well referenced.

Article about diplomacy was marked for speedy deletion, it should not be deleted. I wrote an article and the bot flagged it quick and left your name there. I do not believe the article Facebook diplomacy should be deleted because there are enough references that are adequate and substantial enough including Newsweek AND because the article is not about the Facebook company and involves a movement of people including over 250,000 subscribers that are familiar with the science and development of Facebook diplomacy.

If you would like and think 'Facebook Diplomacy' is inappropriate for the article title, I will move it and re-write the article as social network diplomacy. But really based on additional verified references from the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, Los Angeles Times and FoxNews I sincerely believe the article should be called Facebook diplomacy. Problemsmith 07:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Problemsmith (talk • contribs)

Speedy tag removed

Hi Alan. I removed your speedy tag from Red Fledglings because it really wasn't a test edit - i.e. an edit designed to test how the Wikipedia software works - but a genuine attempt at an article. It seems from reading your talk page that you have some problems with the current CSD system, which is perfectly reasonable - but still, G2 is what it is. Taking care to familiarise yourself with a category before applying it is a good idea. Cheers, Olaf Davis (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Audition Day (30 Rock)

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Audition Day (30 Rock) - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When I put it up for speedy deletion it had ten words with two being a redlink that did not make any sense. In that state it was not the sort of article that should exist on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Time's Up Single

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Time's Up Single - a page you tagged - because: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks like another editor agreed with my suggestion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Creed Live

Might wanna check on this one. Someone's rabidly defending it with Facebook and CD Universe, neither of which is reliable. I think you could probably explain yourself more tactfully than I. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I AM the someone...and let me tell you a thing, Alan...from what I see up there this is not the first time you mark something for deletion without reason...Creed Live is a serious project ! They broke a world record to make that Dvd and you're telling me you doubt something ?201.229.209.174 (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia will be determined by the AfD process. That is also the forum for attempting to convince editors of the articles notability. Note also that I do not have a final say on deletions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I had been asked by some colleagues to place my bio on wikipedia. OK, so maybe what I wrote wasn't well written, but according to the criteria, the bio, albeit short, qualified. Yet it was speedily deleted as if not read!

I receiving a special citation for being one of a handful of individuals who worked hard to build 'Special Olympics'; One of only two presented a 'Lifetime Achievement Award' for the Pharmaceutical industry; being the only Westerner appointed Associate Professor at the Shanghai University or in TCM for that matter - or a combination of them all, clearly met the criteria. Other awards not withstanding, if it was a matter of rewording or someone else writing, why didn't I receive that request. I just returned from China so did not have access until now to respond.

ewh

Chinatcm (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If an article has been speedy deleted it would have been read by at least one person but more likely to be reviewed by at least two editors. If it was deleted it would have not met the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, writing an article about yourself may violate the conflict of interest guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Green building by country

I have nominated Green building by country, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green building by country. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you Alan... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: BuildFast

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of BuildFast - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 23:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Wiki-uc deleted

I went ahead and speedy-deleted Template:Wiki-uc, a template you nominated for deletion. The author of the template, Flaming (talk · contribs), requested speedy under CSD G7. Per that guideline, the deletion discussion has been closed. Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Beats By Dr.Dre

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Beats By Dr.Dre - a page you tagged - because: A9 does not apply to headphones. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Tim Song (talk) 19:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, point taken. However, the page was a real mess when I tagged it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

{{hangon}} to WJ Souza

Please see the talk page; of course, if it has not been worked on in a week, I say prod. (Leave a {{tb}} on my talk page if you wish to reply.)-- fetchcomms☛ 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to know, the article has been moved into the Article Incubator at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/WJ Souza.-- fetchcomms☛ 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How?

How does one set image sizes as a preference? I have used Wikipedia for years and do NOT know how to do it. I had not even heard of it. How can a new user be expected to know that? That image just looks so small, it looks bad. History2007 (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Go to my preferences -> Appearance and change the image size to your desired setting. The image size is ok for me. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Who is your optometrist? He must be a genius... It just looks so bad to me. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The original image is less than 300px. Did you set the thumbnail size in your prefs to 300px? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not thinking about myself, but the IP users who just click on the page. History2007 (talk) 07:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. I checked it while logged off. The default image size for IP users must be set quit low. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But in the end it may not matter that much. If you want to make it larger, ok, else no problem. There are so many articles in need of ref-help and error removal that we should probably move on to clean those up. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 07:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kip Kay

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kip Kay - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Converted to PROD: Create your life lesson

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have changed a page you tagged (Create your life lesson) from being tagged for speedy deletion to being tagged for proposed deletion. The speedy deletion criteria are very narrow to protect the encyclopedia, and do not fit the page in question. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Fiffu

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Fiffu) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hi.

I see you deleted John Thompson (acquitted murderer)

Could you please arrange for it to be usified so I can see what happened?

Thanks

Aa42john (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete it since I am not an admin which is also the reason why I cannot userfy it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hello Alan Liefting, I got your message, I'd like to ask do I need to sign my name on the articals I Create or do I need to sign my name here? New Zealand ftw (talk) 08:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Only sign your name on talk pages (as pretty much a general rule. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Artical editing.

Hello, I'd like to ask why you edited out "In the Nelson Lakes National Park" Island Saddle

I'd like to say that infact Island Saddle is located in that area as I have visited it myself and the tour guide told us, plus the map even says it is.

I'm sorry if i've caused any harm.

New Zealand ftw (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The boundary of the Nelson Lakes National Park is at least 10 km to the west of Island Saddle, on the other side of the Waiau River. I am using a first edition park map. I know of no changes in that area since the map came out. The DoC management plan shows that Island Saddle is not in the park. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok, I'm sorry. But when i visited the area the guide said that it was located in the nelson lakes national park... but yes if the map says it's wrong it's wrong.... Also I don't really know what range island saddle is in... could you fix that up please. New Zealand ftw (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Los Rehenes

Hi Alan, I've declined the speedy deletion of Los Rehenes as I take "released three successful albums in a row" as an assertion of importance. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Common Heritage of Mankind

Hi. You flagged this article as needing cleanup. Could you please mention on the article discussion page which issues you think need addressing. Thanks200.66.91.130 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

CO2 Australia

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your feedback re the CO2 Australia article I submitted. Just wanted to clarify, is the main issue with notability and secondary sources?

I look forward to hearing from you.

With thanks, Kimberley —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKimberleyL (talk • contribs) 05:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As it currently stands it is not eligible according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It may be notable if it was appropriately referenced. Also, some it reads like an advertisement. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan, thanks for your feedback. I have made some adjustments and seeking more resources for referencing. Will this be suitable for making the article appropriate for Wikipedia? With thanks, Kimberley

Yate telephony

Hello Alan,

Thanks for the warning received. I understand that my article is not notable references. Now we put these references, and soon I will be significant additions to the article. In these days I ever make improvements Article started by me. I please me explain further what you should do for that article to be a valid one.

Thanks a lot. Heinrich Huniady (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

removal of content

hi, i have reverted the edits you did to my talk page. please, bear in mind that contents of user talkpage do not constitute Wikipedia. they are private. in future, please do discuss with the user before removing content. Prince Waters (talk page) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your message above does not fit in with WP philosophy:

User talk pages are not private. They can be viewed and edited by anyone. Obviously some rules apply as per Wikipedia:User page
User talk pages are most definitely part of Wikipedia
The edit in question was the removal of an inappropriate category which is a perfectly sensible move.
Simple not-controversial edits do not need discussion.

I note that another editor changed your reverted edit to Category:Editor handbook so it does not appear in the category: -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

A question

Greetings. I found you on the Wikipedia talk:Graphics tutorials page and you seem to be experienced in this matter. I wanted to ask you whether you know which is the simpliest software that I can use to convert a .pdf file to .svg (to make it suitable for uploading to Wikipedia). Cheers :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I set up the Wikipedia:Graphs page but I do not claim to be any sort of expert on graphics even less so with .svg formats. Can you get hold of the original data? It may be easier to create your own svg graph rather than doing a conversion from pdf. Also, you could try over at WikiMedia Commons? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Allright, thanks for the information :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 11:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Good edits on the printing and design article categories! Thanks —Parhamr (talk) 08:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Attribution when splitting pages

Hi Alan Liefting,

I think this splitting [9][10] was a good idea. But please take care to indicate in the edit summary where the copied content came from (cf. Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Why_attribution_is_required). Thanks!

Regards HaeB (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I did make a note that it was split in the edit summary. Admittedly in the latter edit mentioned above there was no link but the source was fairly obvious from the description. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
		For your efforts in creating numerous overview articles on New Zealand topics
		_{this WikiAward was given to Alan Liefting by dramatic (talk) on 07:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)}

"Gosh!", said Alan as he blushed and coyly accepted the award.

"Thank you very much. I feel honoured." -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: WorldLingo

Hello Alan. I am decling speedy deletion of WorldLingo because they provide machine translation services that can be accessed via the Microsoft Office Suite application which is used internationally by millions of people across the world. Being that Wikipedia is a resource that millions of people use to research information about things that they encounter in their daily lives, an article about this company should be included. Furthermore, because of the open format of Wikipedia, all users are free to add more information that may not have yet been added. This can also be said about other providers of machine translation services like Language Weaver, Systran, MyMemory, etc. Lastly, no disputes have been entered against MyMemory with regards to notability, yet WorldLingo provides them with machine translation services that they use as well.Blackdaz (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I did not format my response correctly the first time. However, the article that I had submit did show that the machine translation services that WorldLingo provides is used by Microsoft Office. Does this not merit some notability? Some hundreds of thousands of people that use the translation service via Microsoft may be curious to find out some information about the company whose service that they are using. Blackdaz (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Powerwave Technologies

I didn't create Powerwave Technologies, but I noticed the article at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and thought that I might be able to improve it. I added some references, and I think that they are enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Hang Ups

I have declined the speedy deletion here as the band has received more than adequate coverage in reliable sources, as well as satisfying the notability guideline via album releases. Before pursuing deletion further, please see the article's talk page for details of the coverage that I have found. I would advise leaving more time after an article is created before tagging for deletion. While in an ideal world new articles would be created with substantial content and references, it can sometimes take several revisions before an article gets to this stage, particularly when relatively new editors are involved. Tagging a new article such as this for deletion only a minute after it was created could be seen as a little WP:BITEy. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Flagged revisions (Germany, Poland, Russia ...)

I noticed you signed up first somewhere and self-identified as initiator (instigator?) ... Do you have any information about the effect of the implementation of flagged revisions have been where implemented? (I have to admit that when I tried the simulation, I couldn't get a good idea of how it would actually feel like in practice). Note: I voted in favor of them, even though I wasn't sure it could be implemented well. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Flagged Revisions as a means of trying to get some traction on having it implemented. I have been trying to get info about how it has fared on the German Wikipedia with no success. I will do some more digging and cajoling of editors, hopefully with more succss this time. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. (Then you can tell Jimbo, too. lol) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google search for the words "german wikipedia flagged revisions" and found the following, which are slightly informative about the matter.

You can also consult Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the German Wikipedia.

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you, too, Wavelength. I'll look through those. (Excuse delay, my watchlist has been somewhat overloaded with holiday extras), oh, yes, happy holiday to you! Proofreader77 (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change vs Global Warming categories

Hi. I note that you removed Category:Climate_change from Global warming controversy. I'm not challenging this, just would like to better understand the rationale for distinction between that category and Category:Global warming. The category content doesn't seem to overly reflect the distinction made between the two major (and like-named) articles. (or maybe they do, but it's not clearly apparent without looking at a great number of articles)

Also to suggest that whatever the answer is, it be encapsulated in the 'lead' -- or whatever the equivalent is -- in the category pages. Cheers --Jaymax (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess it should be in both categories given its notability. Yes, the categories should have a description as to its contents. the GW category doesn't. There is a bit over overlap which I am trying to sort out. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Conservation Area (United Kingdom)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Conservation Area (United Kingdom), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Conservation area. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

False positive. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

But FYI, it is not a speedy deletion candidate so I have removed your tag. Have you read the criteria recently? If not, please check them out. Thank you for your understanding. Bobble hobble dobble (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sand Canyon Review (Magazine)

The page in question has been nominated for deletion; though it should be made mention that other student/campus produced magazines have wiki pages as well - The Pacific Review, to make mention of one such magazine. Pacific Review It also should be noted that The Sand Canyon Review has hosted work by several artists of the written word and as well as those in the visual arena. If any changes are need to keep this wiki page going, they will be made. Please understand that during the creation of this page, it was made with the best intend to showcase one of the programs from this college campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craftonstudent (talk • contribs) 01:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Craftonstudent (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Craftonstudent

Mention that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sand Canyon Review (Magazine). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sand Canyon Review

The page in question has been nominated for deletion; though it should be made mention that other student/campus produced magazines have wiki pages as well - The Pacific Review, to make mention of one such magazine. Pacific Review It also should be noted that The Sand Canyon Review has hosted work by several artists of the written word and as well as those in the visual arena. If any changes are need to keep this wiki page going, they will be made. Please understand that during the creation of this page, it was made with the best intend to showcase one of the programs from this college campus.

Craftonstudent (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)CraftonStudent

PS- Just reposting this message since I just noticed I can send you this directly - new to wiki.

Speedy deletion declined: Bengt Oelmann

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Bengt Oelmann - a page you tagged - because: Profs are inherently notable enough for A7. PROD or take to AfD if required. . Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Ged UK 13:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Josue Lajeunesse is notable

I saw your message about the Josue Lajeunesse article being nominated for A7 speedy deletion. Lajeunesse is the subject of a major documentary that is coming out. See the first sentence of the article, which I believe explains his importance. --AFriedman (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it a major documentary? How can we tell if it has not been out on genal realese? Regardless of those questions, a subject of it is not a reason for the article. Have a read of the notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The documentary has received a number of awards and nominations at important film festivals [11]. It was reviewed by significant periodicals, including the San Francisco Chronicle. What aspects of notability do you think are problematic? I've read these guidelines as well. --AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

John Lyons

I really don't think this stub is the same as the previous version, which apparently read like an advertisement. I'm not in the guy's fan club, so would you be so kind as to actually look over the article before tagging it? I literally created it seconds ago -- and I've been on wikipedia for over three years, with a long edit history, so I'd appreciate a chance to salvage the article. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, pal. Appreciated. If it is not all that great, just drop me a line as to any problems that need fixing and I'll tackle them. Not enough time (or interest) to do a big bio, just enough to get it on the list and over the prod threshold. Montanabw^(talk) 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Taste The Wave

Why is it being nominated for deletion? I was just trying to help out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominic Edward Aragon (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for inclusion as an article in Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Filmography

I have been a Wikipedian long enough to be aware there are busybodies who have nothing better to do than nominate new pages for deletion, but this is the first time it’s happened while I was creating an article. From the time I started, 10 minutes had passed when your tag appeared. Is it unreasonable to ask that you wait a decent amount of time, say an hour, before trying to condemn a new page before it’s completed? Are you familiar with this book? Do you know anything about film reference information? Aardvarkzz (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I will comment at the AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

The article was kept, but I am concerned at your use of a speedy deletion tag for Sheila Rodwell.[12] The article stated that she was an OBE and a scientist, and it gave links to two obituaries in major publications. Even a cursory search would have shown that she was the head of a research institution, widely published, and frequently quoted in the press, so proceeding to AfD also made no sense. I don't know what other articles you are nominating for speedy deletion or AfD, but if your reading of notability on this article is representative then I'd suggest you reassess your understanding of the speedy deletion criteria and that you spend more time looking for sources before making deletion nominations (see WP:BEFORE). Fences&Windows 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for AfD that are not adequately researched (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Atal, Sociologist) cause unnecessary work for other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Water and religion

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Water and religion, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.wissenschaftsparlament.eu/node/800. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

False positive. Article was split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Arahura River bridge photo

Hi Alan, I believe your Arahura River bridge photo was used in the stuff.co.nz article Historic West Coast bridge replaced, in case you weren't already aware. Although I don't see a credit in the stuff article, by reducing the contrast and gamma, the cloud patterns show an exact match. XLerate (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh! Wow! I'm famous...! Thanks for the note. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, donating a photo to the public domain can have unexpected consequences. One of my early photos on Wikipedia commons was File:Makonde elephant.jpg. This photo has since been reproduced many times as an example of Makonde art, and is the illustration in the Britannica article on the people. It might possibly be the best known example of Makonde art in the world. I do wonder if my humble keepsake might now be worth something, and if so it's solely because I made the photo readily accessible.-gadfium 07:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I know that at least one of my public domain photos has been published in a book and others used on the web. Eat your heart out Brian Brake!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Patrolling for notability

I have noticed some comments on your talk page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yogesh Atal, Sociologist suggesting that you have at times been a bit hasty in tagging articles. Please consider taking a more relaxed attitude and using {{notability}} rather than {{csd-a7}} if there is any doubt at all. New article patrol is important, but overly-hasty tagging upsets people unnecessarily - and sometimes, it can lead to an article on a notable topic being deleted unnecessarily. - Eastmain (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Portalboxes

Is there a good way to monitor Wikipedia for the 99.* anon's portalboxes, so they can be cleaned up as appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

These sort of anon edits are difficult to monitor. I had another anon with a different IP address doing the same thing a while back. I was alerted in both cases by the anon edits appearing in multiple articles on my watchlist. It was then an easy job to check all of the anons contribs to see which ones were inapprop. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

I know we have had our differences, but I wanted to wish you a very Happy Christmas... Johnfos (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have but a faint recollection of differences. Thanks for the seasons greetings, however, and you would not have known this, I find the celebration of Christmas rather offensive. Cheers and thanks for the thought. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Water and religion

Why was the CSB tag a false positive? Is the information on http://www.wissenschaftsparlament.eu/node/800 public domain? Regards, The leftorium 11:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed your post in one of the above sections. What article was the content split from? (Attribution is required per WP:Copying within Wikipedia and WP:Splitting.) The leftorium 11:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The stuff at http://www.wissenschaftsparlament.eu/node/800 is a copy of the WP water article and it was the stuff that I had split out. I have given attribution in the edit summary. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, I can't believe I missed that. I must have looked at the wrong page history. Sorry! The leftorium 20:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carborundum Universal Limited

Please review the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carborundum Universal Limited. I am not the only editor who wonders about WP:BEFORE. Under the circumstances, I would encourage you to direct your efforts at Wikipedia in areas other than the deletion of articles. Besides, creating and improving articles is usually more fun than discussing possible deletions. - Eastmain (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not more fun to you, but more useful to the encyclopedia when the nominations for deletion are notable topics that properly belong in Wikipedia. --68.127.232.132 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted edit on QUT Student Guild

You recently reverted an edit I made to the wikipedia article on the QUT student guild as an anonymous user (58.170.83.117) without a comment as to why. I would appreciate it if you could let me know why you removed that section. I have restored it pending your reply. 120.19.104.75 (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It was unreferenced and since it was a criticism section references are particularly important. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well...the entire page is unreferenced, and references for the section that I was working on were forthcoming. It would be helpful if in future you remembered to always provide an edit summary, especially when reverting another editors work, and you can elaborate on the talk page if you feel that you can't express your reasons in 200 characters or less. You can also change your person settings to remind you if you ever submit without filling in the edit summary field. Thanks! Handschuh-^{talk to me} 00:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

An edit summary was automatically entered by wp:huggle. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Template cats

Hey Alan,

I've erased the space I then Debresser took at the important discussion you started at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Templates_in_article_categories. It's just out of my reach.

— Cpiral Cpiral 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)