User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 11

Thanks
Thanks for creating Waste management (disambiguation)! --mboverload @ 06:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No sweat. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, unsure about your edit to this, but no problem. I'd forgotten about that page, and I'm still unsure what it is! Will investigate. Tony  (talk)  09:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilderness hut merge
Hi, thanks for voting in the merge discussion, I have made a request there which you might like to comment on regarding which article should receive information about countries not currently covered (e.g. Australia, Canada, Norway, Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, etc). Thanks, --Ozhiker (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of International Sustainable Energy Agency
An article that you have been involved in editing, International Sustainable Energy Agency, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Beagel (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB bug
There is a bug with AWB that causes it to mess up set notation. For example, in this edit, it changed "{[0],[1],[2]}" to "{[0],[1],[2]]". I filed a bug report, but in the meantime please take special care to check AWB edits to articles that use that sort of notation. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Bridges in New Zealand
I note that the above article (which you created) has been moved and un-moved to/from List of bridges in New Zealand, but do you think that it would be appropriate to create a list? Adabow ( talk )  11:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Some WP editors have a love affair with lists. I am ok with lists up to a point. If a list is created, and for me I don't care whether or not one is created, it should be an annotated list - or better still a table with type of structure, location, statistics etc. Actually now that I think/type about it there are sufficient NZ bridge articles to warrant a (sortable) list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made a small start. Feel free to chop and change it any way you think it needs.  Adabow  ( complain )  02:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I have made a few tweaks. Should we split it into individual tables based on geographic location or type (eg. road, rail, pedestrian)? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You edit my user page?
Why did you remove some of my WikiProjects ?


 * Userpages don't belong in the WikiProjects that I removed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. But in the other WikiProjects, user pages belong there? T om ea s y T C 12:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, because they are for Wikipedians who participate rather than being for the project itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, they all end with members or participants. Thanks. T om ea s y T C 14:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Coal in New Zealand
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Coal in New Zealand, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_and_coal. 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. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

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) 00:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

UK Customs rank insignia
Hi. You recently made an edit to this template, but you left no edit summary by way of explanation. The category which you removed was a valid one, so I am a little confused by your action. Could you explain your thinking? Many thanks.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  09:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Templates don't belong in content categories although not all editors agree with this and it is not clearly spelt out as a guideline. The general convention is to have templates in subcats of Category:Wikipedia templates. Templates are used by readers when they are in an article and do not need to be in a content category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Coal in New Zealand
Hi Alan. I have tagged your article, Coal in New Zealand, as a copyvio because it contains text that is licensed under the GFDL, a license which is now longer allowed on Wikipedia since the switch to dual licensing in July 2009 (see Licensing update). Feel free to rewrite the text in your own words. If you choose not to, the article will be deleted after seven days. If you have copied GFDL-text into other articles as well, please let me know. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the only one I did a copy n paste. I will rewrite it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

United States an invasive species
Hi Alan Liefting, You have a good point on cluttered "Parent Page - Category:Invasive plant species in the United States" being less navigable now. There is a need for a "Child Page" - [Category:---?--in U.S.---?--] to collect the individual invasive plant species articles however, to be reached through the "Parent." Do you have any ideas how to title it, both for clarity and wiki category naming conformity ? It would be for invasive plants from anywhere that are a documented problem in the U.S. - not plants from here invasive elsewhere (such as "my" California Monterey pine in New Zealand I've heard). Thank You !--Cheers Look2See1  t a l k →  02:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Rather than using the categories for the individual species it is better to use lists. They can be annotated and sortable. Of course that pages of the type "Invasive plant species in Country" should be in the appropriate country category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Coal in New Zealand


The article Coal in New Zealand has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * At its current stage the article is actually speedy deletion candidate. However, I understand that this is a result of removing disputed text from the article. I believe that this is only temporary and during PROD period more substantial information will be added. If not, the article should be deleted.

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  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  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. Beagel (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move/rename of Medical cannabis
Hi! I wonder whether you'd be willing to revisit the move request discussion you initiated for the article currently named "Medical Cannabis"? Just a day or two ago I came across a naming policy statement that I imagine none of us who have participated in the discussion and !voting so far knew of previously. I certainly didn't know of it. The policy can be found at WP:UCN, and it appears to prohibit the proposal from being enacted. If you agree, I'd appreciate it if you'd consider withdrawing the proposal or, maybe better, just indicating it there if your opinion of whether it can be enacted changes after seeing the applicable policy. No hard feelings, of course, if you disagree that the policy applies or must be adhered to, for some reason. But I did want to let you know of it, and invite your further participation in the move request discussion. Please note, by the way, that this request to reconsider, in light of the policy, doesn't constitute improper canvassing since I'm sending it to everyone who has !voted on the proposal. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti redirection
Hello, I've noticed you redirected the above page into Bibliography of Jiddu Krishnamurti. I think this is wrong and should be reverted. The page in question is NOT a bibliography. A partial bibliography, together with listings of other media (a select videography and audiography) is at List of Jiddu Krishnamurti Works. The page you redirected lists works from a variety of media (not just books) created by others. Thanks, 65.88.88.208 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I reversed the redirection so now Bibliography of Jiddu Krishnamurti redirects to List of works about Jiddu Krishnamurti. However, this does not move the edit history. I wish there was a category to better convey these types of pages, because the "bibliography" categories are only partially accurate and so, inadequate. Thank you. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed another overexcited user reverted my reversal. I wonder if people actually take a look at the content before they go ahead and make these changes? Or because they see it as part of a category they automatically assume the content? To repeat, this page is not a bibliography. Further is not a page of works "of" or "by" Jiddu Krishnamurti, but about him. The article is more important than its classification. I originally assigned the category "Bibliographies by subject" because though inadequate, was also the closest I could find. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Slavery edits
Hi Alan -

I was looking at what you'd done with cannabis-related categories, and noticed you'd made some very rapid-fire changes using HotCat around categorization for slavery, and particularly for slavery in the United States. Some of those seemed beneficial, but many also seemed erroneous to me, and I've reverted or modified those as indicated, for the reasons given following their associated links, provided below.

(1) Herbert Aptheker. It appears from the article that this author wrote extensively about slavery in the U.S.A., and that it would be helpful rather than otherwise to include the article about him in the category, "Slavery in the United States" (SITUS). I reverted your deletion of that category from the article.

(2) James Osgood Andrew. It appears to me that prominent/notable slave holders ( the phrase "slave owners" is prima facie offensive ) in the United States are appropriately included in the SITUS category. ( Or perhaps you'd prefer to create an additional category under SITUS, something like "Prominent American slave holders", and add the subject to that? ) I reverted your deletion of the SITUS category.

(3) John K. Kane. This judge is notable, according to the article about him, for his actions in favor of slavery, and especialy for his 1855 pro-slavery verdict in which he "denied the escaped slave all legal rights and placed legal penalties on the actions of abolitionists." You removed the article about him from the SITUS category; I let that stand but, based on the contents of the article, added the category "American pro-slavery activists", which is included in the SITUS category. This one is a judgment call, admittedly, since the judge colluded with his son's anti-slavery activities, but he also jailed his son for contempt of court over the matter. On balance, his legacy is that of an activist promoting slavery, imo.

(4) Matthew Ashby. Here you removed the category SITUS from the article. In keeping with the example present in the article about former slave, Thomas Sims, I've added the category "American slaves" to the article, which is included in the SITUS category.

(5) Andrew Bryan. Here you removed the category SITUS from the article. The article's just a stub, but if you follow the links it contains you'll see that, as the article's creator rightly puts it, "Bryan has an interesting and dramatic biography", and a rightful place in the history of slavery in the United States. I restored the SITUS category to the article/stub for this reason, and also categorized it under "American slaves", which is included in SITUS, btw.

(6) John Crenshaw. You deleted the SITUS category, and added the "Slave traders" category. Based on the article's description of Crenshaw as "an American landowner and slave trader based out of Gallatin County, Illinois", and that he appears to have been involved in slavery only within the U.S.A., I deleted the "Slave traders" category and added the "American slave traders" category (which is, of course, subsumed under "Slave traders", and also under SITUS in a parallel fashion).

(7) . Here you removed the SITUS category from an image, that was "Apparently taken at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum, Springfield, Illinois", and thus seems appropriately categorized under SITUS. ( Although I admit I'm unsure as to the rules used to categorize images. ) I reverted your deletion of the category from the image.

(8) . Since this image originated in a book about the Underground Railroad, it seems to me to have been appropriately included in the SITUS category. I reverted your deletion of the SITUS category from the image.

If you object to any of these changes, please provide your rationale below ( rather than inline, ie not within the flow of this post, please ) and we'll see if we can come to agreement or compromise as to the way the above can be categorized most beneficially. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly you must realise that categories are a "in or out" status - you cannot be halfway. Therefore, to be added to a category the article must have a high degree of relevance to the categories in which it is included. A passing mention or indirect association with the topic of that category is insufficient for inclusion. See Help:Category, Help:Categories and WP:CAT for more info.
 * Replies in order:


 * 1) Writing about "something" is not a reason to be included in "Category:Something"
 * 2) Merely keeping slaves is not notable for the category.
 * 3) How is the inclusion criteria for prominent/notable slave holders determined? It could be a separate category as you suggest or it could be a list. I removed it as a judgement call.
 * Category:American slaves is appropriate but not that one as well as Category:Slavery in the United States. I have removed Thomas Sims from Category:Slavery in the United States. Why include this particular slave in Category:Slavery in the United States? Note that there are about 200 articles in Category:American slaves
 * 1) As per point 4
 * 2) A better option which I had overlooked
 * 3) Images are not included in article categories
 * 4) As per point 7
 * Based on the reasons given please reconsider your edits. Any further discussion should take place at Category talk:Slavery in the United States-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Copy-pasting this post, and the two above, from User_talk:Alan_Liefting to Category talk:Slavery in the United States to continue this thread and preserve its continuity. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 06:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your agriculture & national economy reverts
Hi again, Alan -

On your "contributions" page, just above the slavery edits I posted about above, I also noticed that you reverted something like 50 edits made by NortyNort, doing so in around 13 minutes. Most of these edits appear to have been driven by an objection to any inclusion of a country's agriculture in the category for its economy. Perhaps there are considered reasons for that objection that I'm unaware of, but your reverts seem hard to understand in view of (for example) statements like this one "Today agriculture represents 2.5% of total GDP and 3.6% of exports.[2] While agricultural workers make up only 3.7% of the work force, Israel produces 95% of its own food requirements, supplementing this with imports of ..." from the lead of the article Agriculture in Israel. Similarly, I wonder whether you really intended to exclude the article Agriculture in Mauritania from the eponymous category, as you did here? I don't work with categorization as my preferred area of contribution, as you appear to, so perhaps I don't know what's considered the norm in such circumstances. But it occurs to me that it would be a courtesy to inform NortyNort that you reverted all his edits, and to explain to him why you did that. I expect you just forgot let him know? If so, will you please do so now, i.e. please inform him on his talk page of your reversions, and briefly explain your reason for making that broad-swath group of reversions? It's hard for the "Bold, Revert, Discuss" thing to work when the person whose edits are reverted isn't informed of the process, and when it seems unlikely (?) that so many original edits would have been placed on his watchlist. Or if I'm mistaken, and the accepted protocol re category edit reversions differs from the usual procedure of informing another user when large-scale reversions are made, I'd be pleased to learn of that, too, of course. Thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, my edits were not "driven by an objection to any inclusion of a country's agriculture in the category for its economy." That is an assumption on your part. You will note that the agriculture by country categories are included in economy by country. To include the actual agriculture article in a countries economy category is redundant and adds unneeded clutter to the categories. The edit on Mauritania was a glitch due to the state prior to NortyNorts edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see; my mistake. That possibility hadn't occurred to me, so thanks for explaining; I'm glad to learn this, and I appreciate your informing me of it. It's up to you, but I still think it'd be helpful if you'd explain this to NortyNort on his talk page, i.e. explain both the specific occasion for your multiple reverts, and more generally, would explain that it'd be a good idea in the future if he'd check for a supraordinate category before adding a new category entry to an article. Norty obviously meant well, but it would be useful information for him to have, so as not to repeat the mistake. He's been around less than a year, so perhaps he's not come across this necessity before. I expect that if he were informed of it politely he'd probably be genuinely grateful for the suggestion, since it would increase his level of skill and make him a more productive editor. Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I did consider notifying NortyNort but I looked at the users edits and then thought I would let it slide. It was a balance of all sorts of reasons, including the quality of NortyNorts edits, my WP time and human nature. A good editor will review their edits as well as learning the nuances of policy, guidelines and conventions, and my hope is that the editor will learn without any intervention from me. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Suzanne Prentice


The article Suzanne Prentice has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners or ask at Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * PROD removed and ref added. I was hoping another editor would run with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While on this subject, could you please clarify why you have added the Suzanne Prentice Article to WikiProject United States? I've never thought of her as being particularly American. Thanks. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops. A mistake. A typo. I add a lot of talk pages to the WikiProjects and I use the shortcuts of WPNZ and WPUS. They are sort of the same. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of Şirince
In this edit you slapped an tag on Şirince, so apparently you identified some specific questionable statements in the article. Unfortunately, neither in the edit summary nor on the talk page did you leave a hint as to which statements you dispute the accuracy of. Lacking such identification of the issues, it is effectively impossible for other editors to apply improvements and determine that the issues are resolved and the tag may be removed. Could you indicate the problems on the article's talk page? Thank you. --Lambiam 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quock Walker category
You removed Quock Walker from the Category:United States slavery case law without an explanation. The article describes three trials at least one of which set precedent for abolishing slavery in Massachusetts in 1781. I don't see a description of the category that would exclude this article. Why did you delete it? Joja lozzo  14:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The question I ask would be "Is Quock Walker United States slavery case law?" The answer is no - he is a person. He was involved is a notable court case but he is not case law. That said the article contains information about case law which may be better off in a separate article. Have a read of my essay User:Alan Liefting/Essays/On categorisation as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Splitting out the trials would create three stubs of case law and a stub biography and all would probably be proposed for merging back again. Breaking it up just for ease of categorization doesn't make sense to me. The trials and their effects comprise significant content of the article. Basing categorization on titles rather than content seems unnecessarily rigid. "How do we get from the category of United States slavery case law to the trials related to Qouck Walker?" To my mind, the most straight forward way is to add the article to that category. What do you think of creating redirects from each trial to Quock Walker and categorizing the redirect pages? Joja  lozzo  03:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, but will they be short articles or stubs? Yes, I agree that splitting just for categorisation is not a good idea with the current level of content. Ideally, they should be split and the resulting articles expanded to a reasonable size. Categorised redirects are a good idea. Note the there is a American slave court cases which needs to document the cases in the Quock Walker. I added some entries but no detail. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Economy cats
This sounds strange but thanks for reverting my edits last week. OhioStandard notified me about it and I responded to him here. I usually check parent cats but didn't this time. Problem is that there are still agriculture articles like Agriculture in Niger with both cats that I didn't categorize but based my assumption off of. I know most are related to Africa and plan to resolve the redundancy soon.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there is a Category:Agriculture in Niger it is the category rather than the Agriculture in Niger article that should be in Category:Economy of Niger. I will change it. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. I remember when I scanned through the agriculture articles there was a few more, particularly in Africa related articles. I will look em' over again tomorrow and apply changes where necessary. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What is going on?
I just got a message from you today saying my article was marked for speedy deletion, but it is already gone before I have a chance to respond? And NO my article is NOT a repost of the previously deleted article. Yes there was an article on this subject about a year ago that got deleted. I had nothing to do with that. MY article was VERY well sourced and meets the criteria for notabilty and inclusion. Having it deleted before I can even respond is outrageous.Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You claim in your message to me that my comments are desired, but then delete within less than 24 hours? That is ridiculous. And I have seen NOTHING from you that would counter the many sources I had for that article. You simply saying 'it does not meet criteria' is entirely inadequate. How about you put the article BACK and let a free and open discussion happen? How about you counter the many sources I put up?Willbennett2007 (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I initially put it up for AfD as you can see, but then decided it was a candidate for speedy deletion. Speedy deletions happen within a very short space of time hence the qualifier "speedy" so obviously not all editors get a chance to contest it with the hangon tag. I could not check what the contents of the previous version of the page was since I am not an admin. Also, only admins can reinstate a deleted page. I suggest you ask for a deletion review.


 * As for my short message of "Does not meet notability guidelines" in the Afd I feel that it was adequate.
 * I am sure you do feel it was adequate. But I do not. You don't think you need to explain WHY? I worked very hard on that article and found over 25 independent sources that verify that subject meets the notability criteria. In fact that subject meets it far better than these wikiarticles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rouse_III http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_McCorduck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_E._Crowe

I gave sources from universities using the subjects works, independent journalists referencing the subject, I did everything the Wikipedia guidelines dictate and gave far more sources than most similar articles. Willbennett2007 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The messages on your talk page were generated automatically by Twinkle. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Your article is, at the time of posting this message, still available in the Google cache --Epipelagic (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was not my article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my error. I meant to post that message on Willbennett's page, not here. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I WITHDRAW my request for undelete. I took the time to email the subject of the article, and he asked not to be included on Wikipedia. He did not elaborate as to why.

From what I can see anyone can delete even an article with 30 sources, while other articles, that have few or even no third party sources can remain. So my confidence in the reliability of Wikipedia information has been seriously undermined.Willbennett2007 (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Replies to comments raised above:
 * Anyone can suggest that an article should be deleted but it is only admins who can delete an article.
 * Having sources does not necessarily mean an article will not be deleted. Not all sources are accepted by Wikipedia as reliable. Also, notability is the most important rationale for articles on WP
 * The first two bio articles mentioned above look to be of marginable notabiliy at first glance. The third is a professor and is therefore of some notability.
 * It is because of the vigilance of WP editors that WP is becoming increasingly reliable. Deletion of an article about anon-notable person does not decrease the reliability of information on WP. Over the six years that I have been on WP I have seen it become an increasingly reliable and robust source of information.
 * Requests for undeletion are made at WP:DRV. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So your rationale is that an author of 11 books that have been translated into multiple languages, and are used at multiple universities is not notable, but a professor at a university is?? Really?76.183.110.116 (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability cannot be compared between number of books written and holder of a position as professor. That is not a call that can be made - they are quite separate things. An article has to meet the various notability guidelines, of which there a quite a number. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am trying to understand this before I do any other articles. I found an author of 11 books that have been translated into multiple languages and used world wided. I cited several universities (including major ones like Auburn) that use this authors textbooks. I even cited Kent State teaching the network security quantifying method this guy invented.  I also cited multiple journal articles about the person or his books, and six pages of google scholar results where other people in his field reference his work. But all of that was not notable enough? I would think Wikipedia simply had very high standards, where it not for the fact that I can easily cite a half dozen LESS notable authors with wikipedia articles.  So I am trying to find out why this one got deleted.  And no one has given me any answer other than 'well I did not think he was notable'.  No, the subject of my article was not an Einstein, Hawking, etc.  But neither are most of the subjects of wikipedia articles. Before I spend a lot of time on any other article, I would really like to know what the problem with this article was?

Oh, and btw the subject of this article is also an instructor at a college, and that was also sourced and in my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willbennett2007 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was deleted because it did not meet the notability guidelines. The things that the person did were not notable enough for WP. The admin who deleted it agreed with me and the deletion review concluded that deletion was appropriate. Unfortunately, I cannot see a copy of the deleted article so I cannot give any feedback on specific points. Incidentally, I put Pamela McCorduck, one of the articles that you had previously mentioned, up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Pamela McCorduck. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK maybe I have some things to learn about Wikipedia. I was trying to contribute an article on an author that I thought was notable. If I was wrong then so be it.  Perhaps you can help me on another matter.  I don't know how to recommend an article for deletion so I went to the discussion portion of a page I think should be deleted and expressed my reasons.  Perhaps you can check it out and weigh in with your own opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_Slade#How_does_one_recommend_deletion.3F

Willbennett2007 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Go to Deletion process for details on the deletion process. I use Twinkle to put pages up for deletion. It is easier than doing it manually. Note that the full url is not needed when linking pages. A link to the page above is typed as Talk:Robert_Slade -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nurdles
Hi, now Nurdle is a disamb page I don't see any good reason not to redirect Nurdles, there. Are you OK if I change it? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. Yeah. Thats sweet. I was going to do that one. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Drosera arcturi photo
Hi Alan,

Couldn't help but notice that your photo of Drosera "growing in a crack in sandstone in the upper Waimangaroa River valley in New Zealand", which is featured in the D. arcturi page, is in fact D. spatulata. I think it should be moved to the D. spatulata page. MFdeS (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I spent a bit a time trying to id it correctly. If you are correct the Commons filename will need changing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a chance take a look at the CP photo finder, where there ought to be links to photos of every Drosera species. I sometimes find it useful to ID stuff.MFdeS (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit summary legend
The page Edit summary legend is a list of commonly used edit summary abbreviations. You added section Tweaks to the page, but without any abbreviations. I have never noticed Tweaks used, but if it is worth standardizing, please add the abbreviations that are in common use (in italics). Also, please review the entire list and consider removing those Tweaks example cases which are covered by existing abbrevs: MoS, re-cat, typos. Thanks for your consideration. AHMartin (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested moves and Environmental pollution in India
Hi, I just noticed this. Did I do something wrong? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Why? I commented out my requested move since in was the wrong target. Was it an edit conflict? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I had just performed the histmerge, and thought you had changed your request. Sorry for bothering you. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * After looking more closely at the article and its history I found that it should go to Environmental issues in India. You were too quick off the mark with the move. I did not get a chance to withdraw my request. Can you now move it to Environmental issues in India? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sorry about that. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

EnerNOC
Hi Alan Liefting. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted to inform you that I declined to delete EnerNOC, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: I've found sources that seem to establish notability. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or start an appropriate deletion discussion. Regards — GorillaWarfare talk 20:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
Generally, the subject of the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850 is pretty much aligned with discussions regarding climate change...so I was wondering why the removal of the category here.--MONGO 06:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The climate change category needs organising. Since there is an approp sub-category of climate change for the article I feel that that is were it should be. There are 100's (?) of similar articles that could also be in the climate change cat but if they were in it that would make the categories less effective as a navigational aid. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay.--MONGO 06:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet
You appear to be set on removing categories from this article which I have in the past argued should be there. Please see the new entry in the discussion page of subject article. Please discuss this on the discussion page to gain consensus rather than edit warring. Edison (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * To call it edit warring is a bit strong is it not? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When you change it to your preference, then immediately change it back when I undo your change to the status quo, without any discussion, that looks like edit warring. I am looking for the policy your rule is based on, and for evidence it is the consensus. Please work toward understanding and consensus at the article talk page rather than insisting that your view is automatically the correct one. (Please take that as a bit of an "Editor review.")  Edison (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave a reason in the edit summary. I am currently getting info to formulate a reply on the article talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also please note that the exhibition was not an "individual artwork" as your edit summary implied. It was a major exhibition with worldwide participation. Edison (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not suggest that it was a "major exhibition with worldwide participation". Most of the notable artists were American and the exhibition did not leave Chicago. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The exhibit included artist of worldwide renown, as I pointed out in the talk page of the article. Please read my comments on the talk page, noting the ten worldwide cities in several countries which have had Cool Globes exhibits so far. Also, your essay on categorization still contains the tag "Rather than editing this page please give feedback on the talk page. Thank you." yet you claim that all are welcome to edit it. Please be consistent, and do not cite an essay containing only your personal opinions. Edison (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake
Hi Alan - I see you removed the "History of Christchurch" category from the 2010 Canterbury earthquake article. I've re-added it. Events that will someday become regarded as historic are usually categorised as such immediately because it's impossible to really assess when something becomes regarded as part of history. In theory, any major event that has happened is automatically historic anyway, even if it is only a couple of days in the past, and this earthquake definitely counts as a major event in Christchurch's history. Grutness...wha?  23:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did consider the points that you raise. Is there policy or guidelines on it? It seems odd to be a current event and history. Granted it is part of Chch history but shouldn't it be added to the history category at some point in the future? Also, it is more accurately part of the History of Canterbury, which includes Christchurch. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Or more to the point, History of the Canterbury Region, which would be the correct name for that article by NZ naming conventions. Grutness...wha?  01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to put up a comment on the NZ noticeboard to that effect. I will put it up for renaming along with the others that I created. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:History of the West Coast, New Zealand
Category:History of the West Coast, New Zealand, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Phosphate mining in Nauru
I think this category is useful and it already contains 5 article, so I think it is not the smallest category one can find on WP. Anyway, you can propose it for deletion. Apokrif (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NZ Geographic magazine as a quality source
Hi Alan. At the moment Huia is going thru its nomination process as a featured article at Featured article candidates/Huia/archive1. One of the reviewers has queried NZ Geographic (or an article in it by Szabo) as a quality source. I think it's a fine quality source - if you have an opinion it would be nice to have backup on the FA page. Any other input there or tweaks to the article would also be great if you feel so inclined. Kahuroa (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input on the Huia FAC page, clears up the doubt and we will sort out substitutes for the Szabo refs. Cheers man Kahuroa (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No sweat. I have been meaning to see what WP is doing with National Geographic articles relating to WP articles. I reckon they should be linked thru the Further reading sections. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

the Public Policy Initiative Assessment Team wants You!
Hi Alan Liefting,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, with your expertise in environmental management and interest in categorization (which is something else the project must assess and I haven't quite firgured out how to do that yet) I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the | Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Protected areas by country
Template:Protected areas by country has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Farjad 0322 ( talk &#124; sign &#124; contribs ) 17:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

History of glass
While splitting it from glass, you have introduced several incomplete references (e.g. Heyworth 1992, etc.). Would it be possible to complete them? Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. By any chance, can you complete Price 2000? Materialscientist (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. Materialscientist (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Aquifers in the United States
As a heads-up, I removed the expand template per WP:EXPANDALTS. I see absolutely no reason to use Expand under any circumstances. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have undone your edit. The expand template is useful for both readers and editors. It alerts readers to a lack of information and editors for the need to expand the article. Of course they should not be used where a more accurate tag can be used. I only use them when the article is missing large amounts of info. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ship images
Thanks for help on getting ship images in shape! Djembayz (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is now ship-shape..... Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Kali for Women
Hi Alan, got your message about the speedy deletion note on Kali for Women. I have beefed it up a bit and added more stuff. I've also removed the tag. Could you please take a look and tell me if it's now acceptable? Sorry for the delay, I'm a bit busy in real life and don't log on very frequently. Rimi  talk  contribs 07:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:AWNB
Hesperian 12:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

categories for a redirect page
A redirect page may have categories appropriate to the subject of the redirect even though their relevance would be unclear if added to the main article. I know this because WP supports categories for redirects by displaying them on a category page in italics. If an italicized title of a redirect is clicked on in the category page, the visitor is taken to the main article to which the redirect points. The utility of categorizing a redirect is that the redirect may name a subject that is not notable enough for its own article but which visitors may type and for which visitors should find a relevant article, and that a non- or less-notable subject may have categories to assist in finding it, although it does not have to have a category.

I propose restoring categories to a redirect page. You had deleted them (and deleted them earlier, as well). Please let me know if there's a particular reason not to restore them.

Thank you very much. Nick Levinson (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Have a read of Categorizing redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly on point, since virtually that entire guideline supports categories for redirects. After the body's first sentence, When to Categorize a Redirect says, "There are some situations where categorizing a redirect is acceptable and can be helpful to users browsing through categories." There follow several subsections nonexhaustively describing acceptable uses of categories for redirects.


 * Do any of the categories in this redirect's case violate that standard? I don't see a violation. If there isn't any, then restoration is appropriate.


 * Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC) (Corrected indentation: 15:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC))


 * Some points:
 * To quote from the page "Most redirects should not be categorized."
 * The spirit of Redirect suggests that the topic of a redirect without an article should not be categorised.
 * If you think Boston Women's Health Book Collective is notable then create an article.
 * Redirect are not for categorising pages that are on a non-notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Most redirects are misspellings, similar names that are not topically different, and otherwise not in need of categorization. Those grounds don't apply to the redirect we're discussing.


 * In Wikipedia:Redirect, the section Categorizing Redirect Pages says, "there are two types of exception [to not placing a redirect in categories]", and the second type is explicated as, "[s]ometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category. (Redirects appear in italics in category listings.)" That applies precisely.


 * It's not necessary to create a separate article for Boston Women's Health Book Collective. I appreciate the invitation, but the title being a redirect is sufficient until someone chooses to create an article for it. In the meantime, the organization's importance is as the creator and publisher of Our Bodies, Ourselves. It is not necessary for the creator/publisher to be notable to warrant a redirect to a notable subject. Misspellings are almost never notable and yet they are authorized for redirects.


 * You wrote, "[r]edirect[s] are not for categorising pages that are on a non-notable topic." If you mean that the redirect itself must meet the notability standard, that is incorrect. If you mean that the redirect must redirect to a notable topic, it does. Since the destination is about a health book and the redirect's title is about a publisher, the categories are different. Therefore, assigning all the categories to the destination only would be error and probably incomprehensible. The proper method, according to the guidelines you have cited, is to assign categories appropriate to the redirect to the redirect, while those appropriate to the destination are to be assigned to the destination.


 * Italicization would not have been programmed into the Wikipedia software if the intent was that redirects would not be categorized. Nor would the policies have been written as they are. I recommend that if you disagree with the policies you bring it up on the talk pages of the policies you wish changed.


 * If you disagree with any specific category for the redirect, please specify.


 * Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change
Hi Alan. I just noticed that you'd marked Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change for speedy deletion, and that it's already been deleted. Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change is 100% new text vs. the earlier PR-heavy article The Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change (M7YAP). In the deletion discussion of the prior article, the issues given included lack of notability and self-referential sources. The new article, which is 100% new content, addressed that by:


 * including references from 6 different sources, including coverage of the subject in mainstream English-language environmental media like the Environment News Network and Living on Earth (a well-known US public radio program)
 * contextualizing notability by describing links to United Nations Development Programme, Kuwaiti government, and other named government and religious figures

CSD G4 says "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"; the new article is 100% new text, and I believe it addresses every one of the concerns in the AfD discussion of the prior article on the same subject.

I'd appreciate your looking at this again. Thanks in advance for undeleting Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change.

- Anirvan (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not an admin so I cannot undelete it. You will have to contect the admin who deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

NZ sport-by-year categories...
...are all done :) (I got bored...) Grutness...wha?  08:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Good effort. I was being careful with my edits so that we would not to bump into each other. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. I saw you were working back from 2011 so started with the early ones and worked forwards. Grutness...wha?  09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the computer and computing categories
Hello. I noticed your recent edits that replaced Category:Computing with Category:Computer in the main topic classification and I have a few questions regarding this action. Firstly, I cannot find any discussion regarding this change. It seems to me that such a change would require some discussion first. If there was a discussion, could you please direct me to it? If there was no discussion, may I ask why the action was taken? My interest in this matter is due to a hazy recollection of the Association for Computer Machinery and/or the IEEE defining computing as the topic that encompasses all aspects of computers. While I could be wrong, and I intend to research the matter further, may I ask if you were aware of this when you made the changes? I would also like to point out that WikiProject Computing has not been renamed, and if I remember correctly, there was once a computer WikiProject that was merged into it after discussion arrived at a conclusion identical to the ACM/IEEE regarding the term "computing". Thank you for your time. Regards, Rilak (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any discussion on the naming. I was being bold. The changes I made are a reflection of the common usage of the words and as such I felt that no discussion was necessary. Usage by the Association for Computer Machinery and/or the IEEE is of a lesser relevance than the primary dictionary definition. The naming of WikiProject Computing is not relevant to content page names. Also, having the seperate Category:Computers and Category:Computing is a nice solution to organising the categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt reply. Having been informed of the circumstances, my opinion on the matter is that your changes are not a benefit to Wikipedia, and at present, I oppose your changes. Firstly, the common use of the words is irrelevant in my opinion. What the average person sees of computing is a miniscule facet. Your actions were to conform with this minority view, and as a result, the countless sub-disiplines that are properly categorized under computing have become meaningless and confused, thus severely limiting the usefulness of the category system. Further more, the ACM and IEEE are not irrelevant organizations. They are the authority in computing, if one wishes to pursue any high career in computing, the ACM and IEEE are absolute all powerful. While I expect your reaction to my comments will likely be that of dismissive skepticism, I would like you to reconsider the appropriateness of your edits and open dialog with the relevant parts of the community because of my belief that the ACM and IEEE definitions are more in line with current professional practices.
 * Reading your user page autobiography, I see that you have an interest in the quality of the categorization system. I would like you to know that we share a mutual interest as a result &mdash; I like articles categorized according to an an understanding of the topic instead of a trivial or casual relation. Perhaps further discussion of the categorization inadaqutecies between academic and general usage is due.
 * Regarding the naming of WikiProject Computing, if I recall correctly, the discussion examined the definitions of the terms in a general-audience/common and formal context. While it is indeed irrelevant to your edits policy and guideline-wise, it is an example of wide and varied inputs that reached a conclusion as opposed to your undiscussed, inadequetely researched conclusion. I would prefer that the rules not be ueed to dismiss arguments, but rather a superior rationale.
 * Finally, I apologize in advance if the structure of this comment is poor, and if my choice of words are blunt. I typed this very quickly due to a lack of time and my pursual of this matter is of good-faith. I hope that it will to a better category system for Wikipedia. Regards, Rilak (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Category names follow the naming same naming conventions as article names and therefore should have:
 * Recognizability
 * Naturalness
 * Precision
 * Conciseness
 * Consistency
 * The changes I made are a reflection of these qualities. Also, I did not say that the ACM and IEEE were irrelevant organisations - I said that their stance was not relevant in this instance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be blunt, but do you get what I am saying at all? You think computing is just this. It is not. Computing is considerably more expansive than what you think it is and your references say. You thinnk you are meeting the criteria you've listed. I don't think you are because you are only leaning towards your criteria for a specific subset of computing. I agree that the previous categorization was problematic, and I can understand your edits,but it isn't better now. Finally, instead of directly replying to my concerns you are avoiding them. Perhaps you require further clarifications from me, and if so please ask, but I don't like the direction this direction is heading. I may revise your edits. Will I be opposed if I do so? Rilak (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take your concerns to the WikiProject or WP:CfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Internet history category
Hi Alan, I see that you're cleaning up the Internet history category. Any thoughts? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ted Nelson coined 'hypertext', so I think 'Internet history' is a valid category; 'history of the Web' or 'history of hypertext' would be more specific, but I don't know that there's a need for those categories.
 * Arundel Elementary School says " Vice President Al Gore visited the school to give a press conference concerning the implementation of an Internet network in the school. Arundel was the first school in the nation to have such a network."--so that needs *some* category like 'Internet history' -- possibly 'places related to Internet history' (again, that may be too specific).
 * For Hotline Communications and InterCon Systems, some reflection of their role in Internet history would make sense to me. Possibly 'history of Internet-related software' (i.e. web browsers, TCP/IP software, etc) would be helpful; this could be a super-category of web browsers.


 * I will reply at Category talk:Internet history in due course. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

History of hypertext
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of hypertext, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.digitalhumanities.org/companion/view?docId=blackwell/9781405148641/9781405148641.xml&amp;chunk.id=ss1-5-9&amp;toc.depth=1&amp;toc.id=ss1-5-9&amp;brand=9781405148641_brand.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Electronic waste in Japan
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Electronic waste in Japan, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.cnngo.com/tokyo/shop/urban-mining-finding-value-amongst-old-electronics-464333.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

About your request for deletion of Trade and Environment Database-TED
Please see comment and post your reply in the article's talk page. Thanks, --Lcgarcia (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you read my comment? I did not see an answer; too bad I did not get a chance to re-work the article. Is there any way that could be changed? Please reply in my talk page. Thanks. --Lcgarcia (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

L. William Seidman
Yes, I'm his grandson. Yes, I started and contributed much of the article. May I ask what particularly invited you to tag that with the conflict of interest note? I strove very, very hard to avoid any sort of statements other than the facts in that article, and nobody has complained a bit besides you or felt the need to revise the article. I've never seen that tag before on here either. Did you make it up specifically for this purpose?

Given that it's been five months now and nobody has seen the need to either revise or change the information therein, might I suggest you remove the tag if you don't find any objectionable information there? I didn't write that as a writeup or a fluff piece, friend, and plenty of other editors have had no problem with it. It seems every article on Wikipedia these days has some tag written in by an offhand critic, who then never takes responsibility for the followup. It's lazy of editors to tag articles, ask someone else to do their review work, and then never come back themselves. It's also ugly to find tags sitting on top of every article, it hurts the credibility of the encyclopedia, and again, in honesty, I find more conflict of interest and bias in the constant tagging than I do in the editing.

Just my thoughts. 75.83.90.137 (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I did not make that tag as can be seen from its edit history. I agree about the ugliness of tags and I remove those that are not needed (as well as stub messages). However, they serve a very useful purpose for both readers and editors - especially for bibliographic articles. I will review the article in due course to determine whether the tag is justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy declined
Hi Alan. I have declined your speedy deletion request for Ecessa. Although the article doesn't make any actual claims to notability, it has received significant coverage in several sites and publications, including at least one reliable source (Network World). Although I can see how this article could be an A7 candidate, I think in this case it's better to take the article through AfD. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Please work together. I know nothing of the road, so I would use his content and combine it in your article. Thanks Talk tome (Intelati) 20:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Peplink
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Peplink, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''There's enouhgh on there, at least about it's products winning awards, to get through A7. PROD or take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  14:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Voluntary Emissions Reduction
Hi Alan. I agree with user TimsTims that this page Voluntary_Emissions_Reduction should be renamed Verified Emissions Reduction. Do you have the correct permissions to do this? Would you be so kind? Thanks and Best Regards Mrfebruary (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure which one should be the article name. They seem to be used interchangeably so a redir from one to the other would be a good idea. The target page does not exist so you should be able to do it but we need to find out what would be the best page name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes they do seem interchangeable. I have left the lead sentence as 'Voluntary Emission Reductions or Verifed Emission Reductions (VERs)...'Mrfebruary (talk) 09:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories
Hi, for my education, what is the reasoning behind this edit? Normally I can rapidly use HotCat to change this template as soon as I know the year of establishment, but now I have to do it the old-fashioned way. I'm not challenging your edit, but as I'm not too familiar (yet) with the ins and outs of categorizing, I just am curious to know what is behind it :-) Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahh. I see the dilemma. As a hidden category is cannot be altered with HotCat. But hang on, it cannot be removed using HotCat so you have to go in and edit the old fashioned way anyway. I made it a hidden category since it is a maintenance category used by editors. Readers] do not need to see it. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see the logic now, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ringo "Ghost" series
You put a "prod" on Choosers of the Slain. I'd argue for uniform treatment of the whole Paladin of Shadows series. Maybe merge the individual book articles into the series article. What do you think? --John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We need to give a uniform treatment to all the articles using Notability (books). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you're active in this area, why don't you do a merge? --John Nagle (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Haast-Hollyford road
Hi Alan - I've done the merge of the Haast-Hollyford road articles, but the new article probably still needs quite a bit of tidying. Have a look and see what you think. Grutness...wha?  05:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I did see that. Good work!  I will do a few tweaks soon. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've finished for the time being, so if you want to do some, feel free :) Grutness...wha?  06:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be more careful with your PRODs.
You are currently tagging what look like dozens of articles with the identical rationale "non-notable per WP:BK". My concern is that you seem to be doing this in a bot-like fashion without regard to the actual merits of the articles. I became aware of this activity after you prodded HHhH, an article that cited both a major book award and substantial coverage by major news media. This, and the high volume of your PRODs, make me believe that you do not actively evaluate whether the articles you tag are actually notable. In prodding many potentially notable articles, you are creating an enormous amount of work for the editors who have to review or contest your deletion requests. Please consider adopting a more discriminate approach with, if possible, individual deletion rationales. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Maybe stop using Twinkle for this, and take a closer look. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I accept that I made a mistake on HHhH. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And on Barracuda 945 (novel), the first one I looked at. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NO, it does not meet guidelines. If have put it up for AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "NO" I did not say it did. But an article with a previous PROD can not be PRODded again. And a quick glance at the history shows that that's the case. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 21:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thirded. A little bit of research (even a Google search) shows notability on many of the articles you have first PRODded and then AfDed. Article expansion and development is always preferable to deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Will Grayson, Will Grayson PROD
Why did you PROD Will Grayson, Will Grayson? It very clearly has numerous sources from major mainstream newspapers. I don't know what type of anti-book campaign you are going after here, but please be more careful with your PRODs and actually look at the references in an article. Silver seren C 21:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not anti-book - just trying to keep things within WP guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And how exactly does Will Grayson, Will Grayson violate those guidelines? Silver  seren C 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Faithful Place
I'm currently in the process of improving the article, but seriously? There are reviews from Salon, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, NPR, ect. ect. Why the heck was this brought to AfD? Silver seren C 22:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Just so you know, you don't have to put "Delete" in boldface font before your AfD nomination reason. It's pretty much inferred that if you didn't want the article to be deleted, you wouldn't be nominating it for deletion. Thanks! Guoguo12 --Talk--  22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

nomination of Exile (novel)

 * I don't really have an opinion on whether the novel is notable enough for Wikipedia. I have no interest in those arguments. I will offer that it is probably more notable on its face than Exile (Star Wars novel), which was released the same year, and which has attracted enough editing to appear safe from deletion. My purpose in creating the article was to disambiguate from the lesser work. --Dystopos (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not re-add PRODs
As PROD notices say, they can be removed at any time by any user that objects with the PROD. I am going through all of the articles you PRODed and am looking them up on Google News. The ones that I find numerous sources for, I then remove the PROD, as it is quite clear that there are sources for it. However, I DO NOT have to add those sources in myself.

Please do not revert me again and re-add in PRODs like you did or I will be forced to take this to ANI. Silver seren C 22:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Silver seren, you're right: you don't have to add a single source when you remove a prod tag. However, it seems odd that you don't stop to add even a single source if, as you say, Google News shows "numerous sources". -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Because i'm trying to focus on the ones that are nominated at AfD right now, since they are in need of immediate attention. After all of the AfDs are concluded, i'll probably go back and work on the de-PRODed articles. It doesn't help that Alan is nominating for AfD all of the articles I de-PROD. Silver  seren C 04:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion says:
 * If any person objects to the deletion (usually by removing the proposed deletion tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed.

The English is somewhat mangled -- re-proposing a proposal? -- but what this implies is that if anyone removes a prod tag for any reason (or indeed no reason) then it may not be readded, ever. (I can imagine an exception: if it seems pretty clear that some nitwit is mass-removing prod tags merely in order to irritate. But then the person who added a tag in the first place should bring up the matter at WP:AN/I.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD nominations
Hey Alan, I'm noticing a ton of AfD nominations on books that are, by consensus, notable. If you have a broad problem with the notability standard for books, might I suggest that it makes more sense to go to Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) and start a discussion, rather than continuing to nominate individual books under your theory? Leoniceno (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You time would be better spent expanding short articles.Starzynka (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
You might want to be aware that your actions are being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron. Cheers. Snotty Wong  confer 18:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't personally escalate things to ANI myself, so that's a good as place as any to discuss.--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the act was done maliciously or intentionally enough to go to ANI, but I do think it needs to be addressed on the Content Noticeboard. There needs to be a way to revert all these PRODs before an admin accidentally deletes one.--Hongkongresident (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In light of this, I have two suggestions for you
 * 1) Please read WP:BEFORE and understand that while it is not a requirement that it be followed before a PROD or AfD it is both recommended and there are plenty of editors who believe that it should be required.
 * 2) Please consider slowing the rate of your additions. If you follow through on suggestion #1, then this will come naturally.  Since there is no deadline, you will also find that feedback from earlier AfDs will help you be appropriately selective and make more compelling arguments based on community feedback from prior AfDs.
 * While everyone wants to see Wikipedia improved, please remember that notability depends on the existence of sources, not the presence of sources in the article in question. Thus, if you assert that something "is non notable" or "fails WP:BK", you're implicitly asserting that you've searched for such sources and been unable to find them.  If you don't actually make such a search, then saying "no evidence of notability" or "no evidence that this passes WP:BK" would actually be more accurate statements. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that a prod a minute doesn't just imply that you are skipping the step of searching for sources. It also, in combination with the mistakes mentioned earlier on this page makes me suspect that you aren't checking whether the article was previously prodded.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here after seeing some of your prods, and I concur with the above. A reasonable presumption is that a published book by a best selling author will have reviews -- not presumption enough to assume the next book is notable, but enough to be worth checking for them. I am not an inclusionist about books--I think the standards for reviews we have been accepting are in some cases much too generous to minor works,especially in non-fiction. But it's necessary to check reviews--and a quick guide to the likelihood of reviews is the holdings in worldCat, which is very easy to see. Public libraries buy books, especially children;s books, on the basis of reviews, so if a lot of libraries are there, the reviews will be also.    DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Midnight 2: Word is Bond
I have removed the prod on Midnight 2: Word is Bond, as an editor has explicitly objected to deletion on the talk page. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no objection to opening an AfD. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dark Side of the Morgue and A Hard Day's Death
Not sure why you want to delete these. The link to Raymond Benson (that's me), internationally-known author of James Bond novels, suspense novels, and other stuff. Dark Side of the Morgue was a recent Shamus award nominee for Best Paperback Original PI Novel, and the two books are part of a series. Someone else apparently removed the delete prod notice, but I'd appreciate it if these were left. Best to reach me at User RBinPerson (talk). I apologize for my inability to write in Wikipedia code. --Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBinPerson (talk • contribs) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Northern Electric
Hi Alan, Just to let you know I posted a reply to your entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geek2003#Categories_for_discussion_nomination_of_Category:Northern_Electric Ottawahitech (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Town Roads in Batu Pahat
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Town Roads in Batu Pahat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Clearly refers to Batu Pahat. Perhaps not notable, perhaps worth merging, but not an A1.''' Thank you. Courcelles 09:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion Skyvector.com
Greetings, I specified why the article was important when I placed a third party reference. Read the "uses in industry" section of the article (again: Skyvector.com). If you look at other similar articles, such as fltplan.com or anything in category:aviation websites, you will notice mine is about the same as every other one. TheFSAviator &bull; T 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC) (please reply on the discussion page) TheFSAviator &bull; T


 * An article about a website needs more than third party references. See Notability (web). Also, the fact that a similar article exists is not a reason for keeping an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

So are you still nominating it for the deletion or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. You can use the hangon tag if you disagree with deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle
When are you going to be using Huggle again?  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  22:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No sure. Why do you ask? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I ask because you were a vandalism fighter before.  WAYNE  OLAJUWON  02:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * And I still am when I get time. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Boston Virtual ATC
I, the article creator, have removed the deletion tag from Boston Virtual ATC because:
 * The article is not about the website, but about the Flight Simulator X server it hosts
 * It is similar to orginazations like VATSIM and IVAO which do the same thing.

Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?   23:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you agree/disagree? Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    02:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It is a game community website. I will try for an AfD. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You still don't understand, It is not about the website, but about the Game server within. It is extremely similar/identical to VATSIM and International Virtual Aviation Organisation Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?   21:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still non-notable. The other article that you mention are also of dubious notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it non-notable? Because there are no news reports? Tofutwitch11 - Chat - How'd I do?    02:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Michael Halding
Alan, I have been trying to get this article up to Wikipedia standard for a while. It seems that the alleged Mr. Halding has some fans who are determined to keep this article but can't come up with any reliable sources. Any ideas what to do about it? Care to nominate it for deletion and see what happens? Ground Zero | t 11:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put it up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Michael Halding. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trees for Survival


The article Trees for Survival has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Does not meet notability for organisations.

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 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 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.  Schwede 66  03:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Assassins (Desperate Housewives)
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Assassins (Desperate Housewives), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Thank you. Courcelles 02:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Cite templates question
How do I use cite templates? I have been reading different pages for a while and trying to figure it out (then gave a try) on a page where I had used bare referencing.

I want to "step up" from just dumping the url in the ref clicked thingie.

1. Is there a button to click for the citation templates or do I need to remember the code and just type Cite web inside the double squiglies?

2. Shouldn't it pop out with the fields and all? Or do I have to type all that by hand (all the different pipes and all). I don't understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.250 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cut and paste one of the templates from Citation templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Still confused. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.250 (talk) 06:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Logged on editors can use some of the add-ons (gadgets) to call up a set of fields to fill in for references. Cut and past something like this:


 * Note that it is the citation template enclosed within the
 * Hope that helps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

That helps. I have to cut and paste the whole thing. gotcha. 72.82.33.250 (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

declined PROD: Vladimir Restoin Roitfeld
I declined this PROD, the Bloomberg source and another suggest that it's not obvious this won't meet WP:GNG. I've got no problem with you taking it to AfD if you like. Best regards, -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  06:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Help,I'm vandal labeled now
Can you help me? Have a bot just latched onto me as a vandal. Reverted a good edit on Shawn Johnson. 72.82.33.250 (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Shredder Company
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of The Shredder Company, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This was deleted by PROD, not AFD; therefore G4 does not apply. Thank you. Courcelles 05:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yealands Estate


The article Yealands Estate has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not notable per WP:GNG

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 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 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. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've fixed up the article and removed the PROD. Silver  seren C 20:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Query re category parameters
Hi Alan. I've a query re using [[Category: ]], which I hope you could answer.

In this edit, you added a null parameter at the end of the category. What does this do, please?

I'm wondering when I should consider using it, and is there anywhere in WP that describes this?

I searched Category, but found no help there. Many thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It adds the article to the top of the list in that category without any letter as a heading. See Category:Wind power in Denmark and you will see what I mean. More info at Help:Category and Cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Very informative - thank you for the info. & links. Trafford09 (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gorman Bechard
Good Day Mr. Liefting.

Can you please attend to the deletion of author Gorman Bechard's page? He had previously been accredited "notability" status so I am confused by the sudden deletion of his page. My additional comments have been put on his talk page. Additionally, I believe my name is showing up as his. I am an intern working out of the same location as Mr. Bechard and monitoring his content, which at times, has been tampered with. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Anna laffey (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take up any concerns about deletion through the deletion review process. Your name is showing up as User:Anna laffey and Gorman Bechard is showing as User:GormanBechard. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your wording in AfD discussion
You recently voted in an AfD discussion on the article Green Home. Since your vote, I have significantly rewritten the article. In light of this, I would ask that you reconfigure the wording in your vote to be more relevant to the current state of the article, whether that means changing your vote or not. Thank you for your time. Silver seren C 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Law of Nines
Just a heads up. Not that I agree with you, infact I don't, but an editor removed your proposed deletion tag on 21 October on this page and never notified you. I am giving you a heads up incase you still felt it deserved deletion. v/r,--70.114.38.28 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Recycling by product
I only found this article because it suffered a micro-vandalism by a suspected sock, so I stayed around and added some bits and pieces. As it is effectively a new article (albeit lifted from somewhere else) I have copy-edited it into Kiwi. If you don't like it that way please feel free to slap my wrist and/or turn it back into Uncle Sam's version. Hope you haven't had too many bricks on your head during the last couple of months of shaking around. Regards.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits all look good (apart from a spelling error). We will need to expand the lede a bit more. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Bridge River Rapids context
Please give me an idea of the sorts of context-improvements needed for this page; I am familiar with the location and when writing it tried to make it not local-specific, maybe I missed some aspects which you could help me out by specifying what the shortcomings are.Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The country in which it is located is not mentioned in the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed that as you know; re the refimprove, the books I'd need to line-cite I don't have handy nor will for a while; I was careful not to add stuff that was just local lore, not actually in the books listed in the refs; one day I'll get to that, but it won't be tomorrow or next week.Skookum1 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Certain bits I know which book or books it's in, but I wouldn't have the page-cites.Skookum1 (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Help with AfD
Sorry I haven't done this before, the article here is Reception of country music, the AFD slot I inserted is here Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_15. I have informed a couple of people on this matter. Thanks, it would be appreciated if you could respond to my talk page. Seniortrend (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Expand
Template:Expand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me how "Waste in the United States" wasn't a drive-by tag. The user just put expand on there and did nothing else. Template clutter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By "drive by" I assume it is an editor who goes around adding tags with very little thought. As you can see from the edit history I created the article by splitting the info out from another. I had neither time nor skills to create a decent article, which is why I added the expand tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving it entirely up to the editor to guess for himself what needs expansion because the tagger couldn't be arsed to explain what needs expansion. Tell me again how this is useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was quite obvious why the tag was there. Quite clear cut in this instance. The template is overused and I remove them, as well as other templates, where appropriate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you at least be arsed to explain on the talk page what needs expansion? Otherwise the template's just stating the obvious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it it is stating the obvious it does not need explaining on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Electronic Waste
I have editted Wikipedias Electronic Waste page. Below is one of the edits I have made.

"Informal processing of electronic waste in developing countries may cause serious health and pollution problems."

Changed to,

"Informal processing of electronic waste in developing countries causes serious health and pollution problems."

Any questions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elproximus (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 18
I have expanded your nomination concerning Christmas Island. I hope this is uncontroversial. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah. Good. That was an oversight on my part. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Superfund articles
Can you look at the merge suggestion I made on the Superfund article here? There are a bunch of articles that don't seem notable enough to stand alone, and I think they should be merged. Cmcnicoll (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The editor who created those articles did the same for a bunch of agricultural law articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

RE: Stub definition articles
Hi,

Although I don't know which agriculture and superfund articles you're referring to, I can't help but agree that I've created a fair number of articles that are unlikely to grow to reach start-class. The article topics seem so trivial.

And yet, my feeling is that I am not in a suitable position to draw that conclusion: the subject matter is too specialized for a layperson like myself to say what is or isn't notable. I got the material for the articles from (public domain) glossaries on these subjects, designed for specialists in the area, and so I figure that if the editors of the glossary thought to include it, that suggests that there are people who think of these terms as notable in their own right.

I can only hope that such people will come out of the woodwork, someday, and expand them into larger articles.

But, yeah, hope's all I've got. AGradman / how the subject page at 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen
I've declined your PROD on Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen based on a cursory review of the article. Some of the sources in the article appear to support a potential argument for notability under WP:GNG, so I felt that PROD was inappropriate, I suggest sending this to Articles for Deletion. All the best, -- j &#9883; e decker  talk  22:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)