User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 14

Wilderness
There are heaps of legitimate government reports and notable books on the subject - and yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wilderness_Areas_of_Australia - you seem to have depopulated it - what is going on? (in the terms of another retiree in the public domain - please explain (and please do not use the its all in the environment argument) SatuSuro 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I may well have misunderstood your intent - but Category:Protected areas of Tasmania is in the main a list of protected islands off the coast if you look at it - almost none of them have had a word of comment in either Tasmanian Hansard or the newspapers in the last 50 years - so I fail to see the connection - and the correlation between protected areas and wilderness areas is not necessary by any means - please accept my apologies if I have misread your editing - I know I would have done it very differently... SatuSuro 07:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am in the process of formulating some replies here and at the CfD. Bear with me for a moment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not depopulate the category - it was empty when I came across it today. Note that there is a Category:Wilderness Areas of Tasmania. It may have the incorrect capitalisation for "Areas". (The IUCN classification uses a capital "A".) -- Alan Liefting


 * Sorry in that case - take your time - if you have some good replies all is well! SatuSuro 11:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Resource for carbon capture and storage info
Hi Alan,

I know you've taken an interest in carbon sequestration topics, so I wanted to let you know about openCCS - it may be of use if you get into that area again. See my longer note here.

I hope the semi-retired lifestyle suits you - glad that you haven't retired completely! --Chriswaterguy talk 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * CSS is of interest to me but the recent edits to the related articles was to try and clean up the mess at Category:Climate change. I decided I could not completely retire since there is so much damn work to do! When I had retired it was really was frustrating seeing all of the rubbish the needed fixing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I sympathize... I've spend more time with Appropedia since about 2007... even more quality issues, being a small wiki, but at least it's friendly & positive! --Chriswaterguy talk 08:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like Appropedia is a good idea but WP has "market dominance" so it is important to get it right. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I figure that WP will always be there for broad encyclopedic articles, and will have market dominance for the foreseeable future - so yes, it's very important to get it right. Appropedia and openCCS will have a narrower audience, but have the opportunity to go into far more depth without worrying about WP's notability requirements, include types of content (esp how-tos, analysis and project writeups) that Wikipedia doesn't allow, and are able to set their own guidelines on sources.
 * I think of it as a wiki ecosystem - and as these more focused wikis grow, they should become very valuable research aids for Wikipedia editors (not to mention Wikiversity people). Anyway, not trying to draw anyone away from Wikipedia - I still love Wikipedia, even if the way the culture has developed frustrates me. (Speaking of which, I was happy to see TS's very civil and constructive note to you below, as opposed to jumping to conclusions making accusations - we need more of that spirit at Wikipedia.) --Chriswaterguy talk 01:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Category stuff
Could you have a look at Talk:Global warming? I think some of your maintenance work on categories may be going against the general editing guidelines on categories, so we should discuss it to see if it makes the encyclopedia better. If we decide it does, of course we can ignore the guidelines, but that discussion does need to be held. --TS 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

DATA Inc.
To whom it may concern,

It has come to my attention that you have deleted the page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DATA_Inc due to the fact that you deemed it as promotional.

The intent of the page is to chronicle the history of the organization. As the individual in question has built the organization from the ground up, developed methodologies that are in use in the industry today, and has won several awards, I question why you would deem this as a "promotional page."

Please advise and if so, restore the page appropriately.

Otherwise, if you still deem this page as promotional, please highlight exactly what you deem as promotional on this page, and I will determine if this is correct or not, and fix appropriately.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnikanorov (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not actually delete the page, I simply requested it to be deleted through an AfD and CSD. You are able to request a deletion review but it may rule in favour of the deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand electorate categories
Why are you recategorising NZ electorates to NZ [Region] electorates? Splitting them up now means a visitor or editor accessing through categories needs good geographic knowledge, or will have to search through several regional categories to find anything. At the very least this change should have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics before being started. Fan |  talk  08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am doing a lot of recategorising. Which particular category are you concerned about? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned about removing electorates from Category:New Zealand electorates to Category:Historic electorates of the Auckland Region (and other regions) as in this edit.


 * There was no consensus on this as it was - to my knowledge - never discussed
 * I don't believe splitting the original category into ever-smaller subcats is useful.
 * The historic electorates already have a listing in Historic electorates of New Zealand.
 * The usefulness of the original category was that it wasn't split, apart from Māori electorates - which form a special class of their own, and apart from the historic Goldfields electorates (now subsumed within Otago) should be the only separate category.
 * It is an arbitrary categorisation with many of the current electorates having historical connections, with existing in one form or another since 1853, this makes Nelson as historical as Wanganui and Rangitikei - and far more historical than.
 * New Zealand electorates have a habit of being recycled, they'll disappear for a parliament or two, or 17 only to be annoyingly resurrected at some later redistribution.
 * Electorates tend to straddle regional boundaries, and as their boundaries shift at successive redistributions they may only spend a single parliament within a tiny portion of a region before retreating.
 * You cannot correctly categorise any pre-1989 electorate as being within a Region that didn't exist before 1989.
 * Apart from the later mechanism to determine North Island seats in relation to South Island seats, New Zealand electorates stopped being categorised geographically at the 1881 redistribution - I can't see any justification to change now. Fan  |  talk  11:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Replies in order:
 * I don't see the need to discuss something that improves WP.
 * Splitting a category to keep it under the 200 page limit helps aid navigation for readers.
 * Categories and templates can happily coexist. Indeed, The existence of Historic electorates of New Zealand would actually support the splitting Category:New Zealand electorates.
 * Category:New Zealand electorates is more useful if it is split into current and historic electorates. Readers are more interested in the former.
 * Categories are a black and white/yes or no option. They cannot be used shades of grey.
 * The historic electorates can easily be reassigned to the current category.
 * An electorate can easily be assigned to two separate regions.
 * I don't agree, however there are limits to how we categorise historic events into a modern context. Take this example that I recently found: . A massacre in 1599 was categorised in Category:Military history of the United States. The US would not exist for another 150 years at that time! In our case I see nothing wrong with allocating historic political definitions into a modern context. Having a explanatory note in the category page is required to prevent any confusion.
 * Um, don't know what to say for this one.
 * I hope I have allayed your concerns but if not you may want to take it to the WPNZ discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see some merit having the historic electorates in their own category, and I can see some merit having all electorates in one category. Other than that, I'm with Fanx.  Schwede 66  00:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I see the greatest advantage of Category:New Zealand electorates would be to have current electorates alone. The New Zealand electorates page and Historic electorates of New Zealand give the historical info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with your suggestion that this discussion be moved to NZ Politics/Talk - can we do that before we continue this topic? Fan |  talk  01:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. And you don't need my permission. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Fan |  talk  06:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for ur good work.--Fotokannan (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Biosecurity in Australia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Viable, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Crowned Crane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion
thanks for marking my obviously legitimate page for speedy deletion 7 minutes after it was created... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elj1201 (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What aspect of WP:BIO qualifies the nomination for deletion of Greg Cosell? The article clearly passes WP:BIO standards.108.40.72.212 (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Iris Van Herpen
Please take this subject to a deletion discussion if you don't think it's notable. Given the cites already in the article and a quick Google news search, I don't think there's any question about her notability. I didn't even have to look in the Google News archives or on Google Books. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Nawaz Akram
Dear Alan, Mr. Nawaz Akram is notable inventor, and manufacturer from Pakistan. You live in NZ and may not know that in third world poor countries hero are not media sensation. Mr. Nawaz's NRE is the only company from south Asia that installed plants in Europe and Canada. Please do not delete this page. I am not related to him. He is a real hero from a poor country who has inspired a lot of young people. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As I expressed at the deletion discussion for Nawaz Akram Wikipedia policies do not discriminate on ethnicity. My decision to put the article up for deletion is based on the lack of sources listed in the article, the lack of available information and no indication of meeting notability guidelines. If you think there is a case to be made for keeping the article discuss it at Articles for deletion/Nawaz Akram. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Health care systems by country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Concurrent, Aide and PHC


 * Wetland conservation in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Department of Natural Resources and Fish and Game

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Agapanthus in New Zealand
I'm not sure that this really deserves an article, as opposed to a section in Agapanthus. Could you explain perhaps? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I would love to explain. It is a nice succinct article (in my opinion) that is sufficiently notable, as indicated by the number of references. If the contents were merged with Agapanthus it would give that article a geographical imbalance, and given how WP continues to grow, if you will excuse the unintended pun, it would have to be split out at some point in the future. Finally, a lesser issue is linking and categorisation. Having this standalone article allows for Category:Invasive plant species in New Zealand to be added and allows linking from Gardening in New Zealand. This lets a reader go directly to the topic of interest. I hope this explanation helps. You are of course able to put the article up for deletion or merging. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the logic of your argument but I guess the issue for me is that invasive species are often invasive in many countries. If Agapanthus species were invasive in this way, would you really want "Agapanthus in New Zealand", "Agapanthus in Australia", "Agapanthus in South Africa", "Agapanthus in the United States" (or perhaps "Agapanthus in Florida", "Agapanthus in South Carolina", etc.)? As a more realistic example, consider Giant Hogweed: this section suggests that at least six "Giant Hogweed in ..." articles could be constructed. However, the balance between smaller, sharper articles and larger, broader ones is always a tricky one for me. I think this is worth discussing at WT:PLANTS to see what others think. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since WP is not paper I see no issue with separate articles for any species that is invasive (within reason). If a topic is notable and verifiable it can have its own article. The different invasive species are problematic to varying degrees depending on the location and we can adjust the coverage in WP to suit. New Zealand, as with some other island nations such as Hawaii, have huge problems with weeds. I have created, or split out a number of articles about both plant and animal pests in New Zealand:
 * Agapanthus in New Zealand
 * Blue morning glory in New Zealand
 * Common Brushtail Possum (New Zealand)
 * Gorse in New Zealand
 * Gypsy moths in New Zealand
 * Old man's beard in New Zealand
 * Stoats in New Zealand
 * Wilding conifer
 * For the US I had split the lengthy Kudzu in the United States article out kudzu. I have also done a few for invertebrates. There is a possible progression that could and does happen: "Plant" -> section on "Invasiveness" is built up -> split out to separate "Plant by County" article -> split out to separate "Plant in County" articles as it expands. How much a plant proceeds along this continuum depends on WP editors and notability. With the likes of Agapanthus in New Zealand I merely skipped all the immediate steps and created the article from the word go. One of the many reasons in doing this is that splitting an article it a real painful process. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion had been posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants. Further comment should be made there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Information request.
.    Hello. My name is Dean Camp. I recently signed up to edit, and the article "Aftermath of World War II" was the first one one the list offered to me by Wikipedia. I made some edits concerning a comma and information from page 35 of "West Germany under construction: politics, society, and culture in the Adenauer era" by Robert G. Moeller, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1997. I noticed that the information was quoting the source in some places without using quotations marks. . .    Today, I had time to do further citation research and noticed that "Page 35 is not part of this book preview" anymore. Aditionally, "Pages 84 to 93 are not shown in this preview" either, which are also, like page 35, referenced by the Wikipedia's article's citations. This omission of available pages indicates that the source provider, "Google books", has made changes to the available information since I made the previous edit changes three days ago on 22 January. . (Q) Why has Google removed the cited page, especially since is is the exact page referenced by footnote 42? Is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauzeandchess (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Dean. You shouldn't suspect anything sinister. Google Books works in mysterious ways. What you see today may change tomorrow. What you see in the US is usually much more than in the rest of the world. It's useful to know that a reference does not have to be available online in order to be suitable for Wikipedia. The important thing is that information is referenced, so if somebody really wants to go to the source, they can (even if they have to go to a library in order to do so).  Schwede 66  10:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Clique problem/Alternative draft


Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Clique problem/Alternative draft. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Clique problem. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Clique problem - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved the page to Talk:Clique problem/Alternative draft to avoid the above A10, and refactored the link in the discussion. In the future please create such pages in the talk namespace or your user space : because subpages are disabled in the mainspace, the page was in effect a duplicate of an existing article (thus falling under the A10 criterion as tagged above). Regards, CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ekso Bionics
Hi Alan, could you consider suspending the AfD process for this article for a few hours? The user is new and has told me that he will be adding more content in sometime which may help assert notability. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It may be too late for that. Not sure if an AfD can be put on hold. Besides, my reason for deletion remains regardless of the amount of content. Notability it not related to article size. The AfD is a seven day process so the editor has ample time to edit the article and partake in the AfD. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Bean (character)
Hi you nominated Mr. Bean (character) for deletion due to copyright violation. However the text shown in the duplicate detector from Zimbio was itself copied from Wikipedia article Mr. Bean. Zimbio is dated 25 November last year, and the Wikipedia article had this text before. You should check this out yourself before nominating. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should have realised. I have had false positives from CorenBot myself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Sleeping Gypsy page
It was my first time creating an album page, forgot (album) was supposed to be in lowercase. Thank you for fixing it for me :)

--Ruben(nerd) (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

AFD Ekso Bionics
Hi, you nominated the article Ekso Bionics for deletion, and notified too but you didn't tell me the reason for deletion. Please Specify. --Kondicherry (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Alan, it now appears that the article clearly meets the general notability guideline for inclusion on the English Wikipedia. Can you please withdraw the AfD? In the future, please allow new editors more time to develop their work before nominating for deletion. A casual google search also gives a good idea as to whether an article on the subject should exist or not. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sheets Brand
On 1/20 I received an email from Wiki that a page I created (Sheets Brand) was taken down for speedy deletion. It contained your name, and I wanted to see how I can "userfy" the page so that it is informative about the company. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamihud (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Contact the admin who deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Invalid references
See template:Invalid references. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In what context? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Church of St Cadoc, Llangattock Lingoed
Thanks for the helpful additions. Re. the bare URLs, are you able to fix them? Re. the unclear citations, can you explain what is unclear about them? Regards KJP1 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a number of citation templates that can be used. See WP:Citation templates. The book that is used as a reference does not have its full set of bibliographical details, eg author, date etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But can you actually do any of this?  That would improve the article in a way that just flinging your tags on does not.  KJP1 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would need the ISBN of the book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your sorting the links. I've added full details of the Newman book, and its ISBN.  Along the faultline between those editors who think the tags are useful, and those who do not, it's a pleasure to meet one of the former who will actually work on the article rather than just tagging it.  Best regards.  KJP1 (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And your removing the ref. tag now we have the ISBN. Have a good day in New Zealand. KJP1 (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicolas van Caesbroeck
I do not understand why you have removed the category squash from the article Nicolas van Caesbroeck. He even played in the Belgian national team. Can you explain that, please? Night of the Big Wind talk  12:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Squash should not have any biographical articles due its position in the article heirarchy. Since there are thousands of squash players we should not let one, let alone thousands of articles added to Category:Squash. It would clutter it up making the category useless for navigation. Since there is no Category:Squash in Belgium I have added Nicolas van Caesbroeck to Category:Belgian sportspeople. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clear! Thank you. Night of the Big Wind  talk  19:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ingredients by country
Category:Ingredients by country, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Hi Alan Liefting. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Gajendra Ahire, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. ''If you read the actual criterion, it is very specific on this point :"this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox" Additionally it was an extremely simple matter to use the content of the infobox to make the article into a one-line stub. Many of our articles started out in a similarly poor state, perfection is not expected at the instant an article is created.'' Beeblebrox (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cat removal
Why did you removed Category:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes from File:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Animated Series.png‎?Smallman12q (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Files belong in categories reserved for files only (in general). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Filinvest
Hi Alan, say you are right in deleting my post because of violation of G11. But what difference does this post have? - Ayala Land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayala_Land.

I will rewrite the article but can you send a copy of the deleted article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuelc (talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I am not an admin I cannot retrieve the article. Contact the admin who deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Shops at Park Lane
Take a look at the article. I've added some sources and notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I guess the AfD has to run its course. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the other editor changes to a keep, you can just withdraw it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would still like the AfD to run its course. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Cognitive Science and Mind
I might be missing something, and apologize if so. Why are you removing Cognitive Science as a category from Mind? Please reply on my talk page.

Thanks Jj1236 (talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Mind is not a subcategory of cognitive science, and cognitive science is not a subcategory of mind**. They have a great deal of overlap, so it makes sense to cross reference.  As you've changed the structure, it is currently asymmetric.  Someone in the mind category will not be able to link directly to cognitive science.  These two broad categories are so intimately related that it really makes sense to have links in both directions.  I don't know if the justification you provide ("removing clutter") is appropriate or not.  It doesn't seem cluttered to me, but that is a subjective matter.  If "removing clutter" is a pressing concern, please consider removing less important links instead.


 * An argument can be made that mind is the superordinate category and cognitive science is subordinate. The reverse argument can also be made.  The upshot is that there is not a clear categorical subsumption relationship between them: instead, they are separate but largely overlapping categories.

Speedy deletion nomination of Environment by year project


A tag has been placed on Environment by year project, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

WikiProject page in article namespace

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A minor error in forgetting to add the namespace prefix! It is now sorted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 02:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in the environment
User:ThaddeusB might be willing to program a bot that will add information to our years in the environment article series from the IUCN red list database. This could be a big breakthrough for the series, see User_talk:ThaddeusB. If you have any ideas for another database source that would be useful to draw from, please chime in on his talk page! :) Abyssal (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. That might be an idea. I am a little wary but a small test might convince me. Lets take it to Wikipedia talk:Environment by year project as a centralised place to discuss it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Salina, Colorado edited
Alan - I am new to Wikipedia. I am not very computer knowledgeable. I wrote an article on Salina, Colorado where I've lived for forty years. I went into edited an incorrect date, (1959 error should read 1859), and I received a message from Wiki that my article was not verified. I tried to reference my two sources: The Switzerland Trail/Forest Crossen/Robinson Pess 1978/ISBN 978091370249 and The Mining Camps Salina & Summerville/M.M. Anderson/Junction House 2005/ISBN 0977223000. I spent more than an hour reading about referencing for beginners, reliable sources, verification, etc....but I just don't get it. I am 66 years old and I don't know how to footnote/reference my article so that when a reader accesses it, it doesn't have a Unverified Warning. Please help! Mr. Larry Rasmussen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzman45 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It needed Reflist in order to have them displayed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge of List of animal identification methods
In the merge, you deleted the gallery of photos. Why did you do this, please? DrChrissy (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I felt that there were too many images. Note that I have added an image and to the animal identification  article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where are the WP guidelines on how many images should be included in a gallery? Why would there be too many?  I spent many hours selecting the photos to ensure they were illustrative, good quality, and not repetitive for either species or method of identification.  I would hate to see this work wasted.  DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I know thare is no guideline on number of images. It was more an issue of aesthetics. The plain gallery tag makes for an "ugly" layout. Things can be improved if images are part of a table. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could help me to do that, rather than unilaterally deleting the gallery based on your own opinion of what is aesthetically pleasing and what is not. DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * SO you want me to do something that I don't agree with??? Hmmm.... Oh, ok... Here are some ideas:


 * There are others. See Picture tutorial etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)



If you do not like the aesthetics of the gallery tag and you believe this makes for an 'ugly' layout, perhaps you should take this up with those responsible for creation of the tag. As a user of Wikipedia, I try to stay within the guidelines and principles of the site. One of those would be to use the gallery tag where appropriate. I would also argue that aesthetics is highly subjective. I did not like the layout of the photos you suggested....so who is correct? I am re-instating the gallery on the page. DrChrissy (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the gallery tag itself. It is useful and ok in many cases but it dues not lend itself to a very nice article layout. I am curious to know how many featured articles use it. Very few, if any I suspect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Green vehicles cat
Hi Alan,

I saw that you removed the "Green vehicles" cat from Hybrid electric vehicle. I'm sure you had a very good reason for doing so and am curious what that reason is. Please respond if you have a moment. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because it is in Category:Hybrid electric vehicles which is in Category:Electric vehicles which is in Category:Green vehicles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'm still figuring out this whole category thing. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Seattle Cartoonists' Club
I am sure you have good intentions and I am trying to believe that. But you placed my article up for deletion only a few minutes after I had started it. I am having a hard time understanding that.Jacqke (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to be non-notable based on a google search. Longevity on WP will not change that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Glossaries on the military
Category:Glossaries on the military, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Syringammina fragilissima
You clearly have a reason for doing this but I am not at all sure what it is and I'm afraid I find this edit summary incomprehensible. Ben  Mac  Dui  08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having Syringammina fragilissima in Category:Natural history of Scotland makes it an "odd one out" in terms of the hierarchical nature of categories. Since it is an interesting organism I added it to the Natural history of Scotland article. I note that it is in the Natural history of Scotland article which is a better place for it. By "odd one out" I mean that categories are for things that are black and white with all of the member aricle having a close relationship to the topic of the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood - but Category:Biota of Scotland might fit the bill, or better still Category:Fauna of Scotland if I am right in thinking that Xenophyophores are a kind of zooplankton. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Category:Biota of Scotland might be safer for these wee beasties. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Category edit Foraminiferal Colouration Index
I asked about the purpose of this edit to the category on the article's talk page. Pseudofusulina (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding some of your AfD nominations...
There were a plentiful of nominations you made which are closed as keep, mainly because you did not read WP:BEFORE before nominating them. Your nominations are becoming WP:BITEy to the creators of these articles. For example, Articles for deletion/The Mirage (novel), in which I closed today. you redirected the article only minutes after it was created, which seemingly upset the page creator, and then what was your next action? Nominating it for AfD. You alienated this new user, who tried to make quality contributions to Wikipedia. So, in a nutshell, please read WP:BEFORE before making any further AfD nominations, as this is not the first AfD of yours I NAC'ed as a clear "keep". Just google the topic - and there's the answer whether or not it's appropriate to nominate it for AfD. Thanks. -- B  music  ian  01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Did I upset someone? Where is your proof? And after all this we have an article of dubious notability on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am upset... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand. Since you had some involvement with the List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Twinkle for notifying me, you mindless lump of software. But I do love you! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI). Since you had some involvement with the Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I know... And it seems there is an admin who cannot see reason and blindly follows the letter of Wikirules. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Credit Managers' Index (CMI) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Credit Managers&. Since you had some involvement with the Credit Managers' Index (CMI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

National Association of Credit Management (NACM) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Association of Credit Management (NACM). Since you had some involvement with the National Association of Credit Management (NACM) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably. Since you had some involvement with the CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Coe
In this edit you removed the "Category:2012 Summer Olympics"  Coe is the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. Why would this not be a relevant category for article? You can reply on my page. Trackinfo (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply was on my talk page. "Sort of out of place"?  Is that an articulation of policy?  In this case, this man is in charge of the event--the Olympics being somewhat of a major event on the global scale.  On general principle, categories are on Wikipeda to aid users in cross referencing related information.  By depending on mentions in one main article to suffice, you are effectively proposing to self defeat the entire category system.  I only see the huge volume of your activity.  Perhaps you should rethink your position on what a category is, before you do the wholesale deletion of so many category entries that will limit readers from being able to easily navigate wikipedia.  At your edit rate, it would be a lot of effort to meticulously analyze and undo the damage you are potentially doing. Trackinfo (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith and go off and read WP:CAT. I won't say any more - my anger is rising because of your attack on my abilities. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your initial inarticulate response to a specific question invites accusation. When challenged, you should not cite something resembling "because I think so."  A generic citation to the Categorization description still does not give a basis for why an obvious category, not superseded by a sub-category deserves to be removed.  And from the sample of other edits I see, you are making the same kind of judgement on other articles--removing key people from categories indicating they were involved in the organizational level of a specific Olympics.  No reason, lots of edits.  You are not the first high volume editor I have met who (trying to assume with good faith that you are not being malicious) has lost sight of quality to their edits in the process of quantity. Trackinfo (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Adolf Benda
Hi Alan, I wonder if you might consider withdrawing the nomination, given the great improvement the article has undergone in the past few days. Lady of  Shalott  19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * May as well let it run its course. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey
You haven't responded to my last comment at Wikipedia talk:Environment by year project. Abyssal (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been mulling over a reply but I am also busy with 500000 other things. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

cats for Birth control movement in the United States
Hi. The two cats you removed from Birth control movement in the United States look valid topically, .. were they redundant somehow? --Noleander (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed the wrong one in error. Censorship and freedom of expression are only a very small party of the Birth control movement in the United States. Categories are black and white.  The member articles (forgive the pun) should have a close connection with the category topic. I am in the process of cleaning out Category:Censorship. It is cluttered with a lot of stuff that does not belong there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources indicate that censorship and freedom of speech played a very large role in the movement ... what makes you say they did not? --Noleander (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Then put it in the Censorship in the United States article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Put what in the Censorship in the United States article?  A category?  --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. The fact that birth control information and materials were controlled will need a mention in the Censorship in the United States article. BTW there is room for the wider topic of Birth control in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a good point. Anyway: back to my question:  in light of the strong connection the sources make, what makes you say that the movement was not strongly related to censorship and freedom of speech? --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a connection but the strength of the connection is subjective. Categories are not and should not be subjective. They are black and white. An article is either in a category or it is not. If too many disparate articles are placed in a category it dilutes the topic and makes it a less useful navigational aid for reader. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay ... how about Category:Censorship in the United States ... that seems like a suitable category, one well supported by the sources. I'll add that if you have no objection. --Noleander (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I have objections but I can't stop you doing that of course. The article is about the birth control movement but it includes info on human rights, sexuality, freedom of expression and censorship. An article on Birth control censorship in the United States would belong in the Category:Censorship in the United States but not the article on the Birth control movement in the United States. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

PP cat
Hi there - I notice you've removed Category:Planned Parenthood from several organizations. They were in this category because they are or were the national affiliate of the Int'l Planned Parenthood Federation. Please consider restoring the category. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...And from the IPPF cat too I see. Would you care to explain these edits? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The organisations were affiliates of the Int'l Planned Parenthood Federation. So why were they in Category:Planned Parenthood which is itself an affiliate of Int'l Planned Parenthood Federation. That does not make sense and smacks of UScentrism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The category wasn't in US orgs until you put it there, since it's always been for articles related to PP activities worldwide; wouldn't it be better to create another category if you feel that the current one is not enough, rather than undoing the hard work people did to organize this information and leaving everything free-floating? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Planned Parenthood is solely a US org and is an affiliate to the international org. Since Planned Parenthood is US-based it follows that Category:Planned Parenthood should have all the related US and Planned Parenthood articles. The article I removed from the category should be in one for the international org and would include Planned Parenthood. Essentially the other way around to how it was. I actually see no need for Category:Planned Parenthood and I don't think a category for the international org should be created. Articles themselves suffice in both cases. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, and will consider either restoring the categories or creating a supercategory for international stuff. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Roscelese. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On restoring the categories or creating a supercategory? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Either one: Roscelese is an experienced editor with good familiarity of categories and reproductive rights material. --Noleander (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Restoring the categories that I removed would be putting the cart before the horse. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Having considered the issue, I do think that creating a separate category for international activities would be unhelpful for navigation. A note on the category could clarify that non-American orgs and people are also in its scope. So this would entail restoring the category to the articles, yes. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF). Since you had some involvement with the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Another compound redir
Rossami (no ami of mine) has actually re-created TGen Drug Development (TD2)! Please express your opinion at the RfD. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recategorization of Pseudoscience topics.
I have reverted a bunch of your removals of Category:PseudoScience from articles that are clearly about pseudosciences. (Although I agree with your removal of articles about people who commonly practice pseudoscience.)

Please see Talk:Homeopathy for an ongoing discussion of this. Please reply there - I don't monitor this talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please go to talk pages before making such changes. I will revert the remainder of your changes later. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Using rollback
Hi, I noticed that you were making a number of reverts recently using the rollback tool.

This is just a reminder that the rollback tool shouldn't be used undo good-faith edits made by another Wikipedia contributor, even if you believe their edits were incorrect. The use of rollback should particularly be avoided when there is an ongoing discussion and when you have already reverted the same content before (as appears to be the case at Talk:Homeopathy). For a guide to when rollback should or should not be used, see Rollback feature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep. Understood. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO). Since you had some involvement with the Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You seem to be engaging in one of Wikipedia's periodic crusades to remove the term pseudoscience from large numbers of articles. Please don't do this in this way, it is not WP:BOLD because there is already so much discussion around it. Better to start a discussion at the relevant WikiProject and come to some consensus view on what, if anything, needs to change. Otherwise we'll just have yet another lame edit war over exactly bogus things have to be before we place them in Category:Bullshit, which doesn't really help anyone. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * These large scale removals of categories seem more like reckless than being bold. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a careful reread of policy wp:PSCI and content guideline wp:FRINGE/PS would help clarify matters. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have trouble hiding my anger here but I will try. I can across Category:Pseudoscience and it had the big ugly banner across the top of it saying move articles to subcats. So I did. Because it was a mess. A real mish-mash of about 250 articles spread over two pages. But it seems there are editors out the who want to link every article to every other article via the categories. That is not what should be done. How the hell is WP going to improve for our readers if this sort of poor editing is going to be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please discuss rather than edit-warring. You've found that numerous editors disagree with your assessment. Get some consensus for your viewpoint. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very getting angry. I will go away and calm down! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan, sorry if I contributed to you getting angry, I certainly did not intend it. Would you mind starting a centralized discussion on this topic, perhaps at the village pump, so that a clear consensus can emerge? Once that's taken care of you can easily point to that discussion, or even have a bot do the work for you. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to do, but it seems as though there are conflicting guidelines and so it's probably a good idea to get some input before undertaking a large task like this. Thanks. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation <sup style="color:black;">Talk  03:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It wasn't your timely reminder of edit warring that annoyed me, it was the the fact that my blindingly obvious improvements (opinion - I know) to articles and categories was being undone. Time is precious, WP editing time doubly so. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can completely understand that an I'm sorry that it came down to a stressful situation for you. Almost anytime you undertake a large task on WP you're run into problems, it's just the curl of the burl I suppose and it applies even when you're improving the place, so please don't feel like your opinion is wrong in any way.  If you start a centralized discussion about this then you can simply make the changes to the article and put the discussion diff in the edit summary and things will likely go much smoothly after that.  I don't have a strong opinion on the matter so I will likely not get too involved with the discussion, but it was suggested on my talk page that WP:DRN would be an appropriate venue.  I also think the village pump would be a decent option.  Worst comes to worst and you post it in the wrong place and it's redirected elsewhere.   N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  10:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have moved on from that lot. There is plenty of other stuff that I can do, and that needs doing, on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sports events by country
Please refer to my proposal to upmerge Category:Sports events by country to Category:Lists of sport events Hugo999 (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Category change
Alan I'd like to ask the reason for this change, no edit summary was provided. XLerate (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Minister of Agriculture (New Zealand) is an article that contains a list. Category:Lists of government ministers of New Zealand should by rights be for pages that are actual lists ie. no prose (the page name is generally preceded by "List of"). At present Category:Lists of government ministers is a mix of lists and article pages, but given the category title it should be lists only. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Great idea
Great idea you had creating the page Film censorship. Thanks very much, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It is not much more than a cut and paste job. I am no expert so I have left a note at WikiProject Film. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time
Hello, Alan Liefting. I agree with your removal of the pseudoscience category from Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. I have started a discussion about it on the talk page; it would be helpful if you could comment. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:New York Society for the Suppression of Vice
Hi Alan. FYI, you mixed up the category and the article when you made the CfD nomination. I've just fixed it. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Orno
Hi Alan!

If you read the article, Peter Orno was named precisely because of an interest in pornography. I don't see why you removed the category "American pornography".

This is of course a life or death issue.

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that I am endangering your life.... The connection is too tenuous for the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 22:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving glossaries
Thanks for your enthusiasm in making mass move of glossaries, but I just wanted to let you know I've moved the Glossary of association football terms back as there is no consensus to move it the way you did. "Glossary of terms" is very commonplace, your move in this case is entirely unnecessary. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am moving the glossies to meet the WP:ARTICLENAME guideline. I see no discussion on retaining Glossary of association football terms and it will be an odd one out in the glossaries department of WP with its current name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I moved one back because it had clear consensus for its original name. Good luck with the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Where is that discussion? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion, just an edit history of hundreds where nobody deemed it necessary to remove the word "terms". If you wish to move the page, I suggest you take it to WP:RM and notify WT:FOOTBALL of your intent.  Especially now my revert has made it non-non-controversial.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not a consensus. The fact that nobody has moved it does not imply a consensus on the current name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And your consensus to move all those pages is where? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a consensus per se since I have not discussed it. The page moves that I am doing would get wide support since I am changing the name in accordance with the guideline. I hope you don't want me to start a discussion on all of the page moves that I have already done! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the various projects. I work heavily at WP:CRICKET and WP:FOOTBALL so have reverted your changes there, which means if you insist on your change, you'll need to discuss it. As for other projects, well it's up to them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And your reversions go against the article naming guideline, which is applicable throughout WP. WikiProjects should abide by the global guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Local consensus overrules "guidelines".  As I said before, take it to the projects and WP:RM if you wish to pursue it.  I have nothing more to add here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know of instances where a WikiProject overrules global WP guidelines, but that is not to say it does not happen. If that is the case for such important guidelines such as article names then it is extreme wiki-arrogance on the part of the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. A guideline is not a policy. Talk to the projects rather than arrogantly imposing your version of reality across the encyclopaedia. Cheers!  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm. My version of reality? Maybe my version of wiki-reality? I take your point of policy vs guidelines. Anyway, I see little to gain and a lot of time that would be wasted if I were to talk to all of the different WikiProjects on something as minor as changing an article name to something that improves WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

At least be decent enough to quote your guideline in your odd edit summary so the world can understand what you're trying to achieve. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair comment and easily done, but I doubt that my pages move are particularly controversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well since I object and have it clear to you, then yes, you need to explain your edits. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But I did explain my edit. What I did not do, and in retrospect I perhaps could have done, is to include a link to the WP guideline. However, it is obvious from the edit summary I gave that there is a good reason for the move and editors should be aware of the page naming guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all, it's utterly unclear which "guideline" you're "claiming" gives you the right to unilaterally move pages. At least be decent enough to link our readers to the policy-based justification you claim you're using to move these pages.  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is WP:ARTICLENAME of course, as previously stated.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, so you continue to unilaterally move pages and still offer no explanation as to why? Interesting approach. And an really interesting read, looking at all the posts on your talk page.  You must be used to this kind of complaint to your edits by now! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no need to explain an edit that is done for a blindingly apparent reason. And given the high number of edits that I do, and the low number of valid complains it appears that I read the desires of the WP community about right. Please assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. If you have an issue with my edits take it to WP:ANI. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, having been here for nearly seven years, it's still unclear to me what you're trying to do. No personal attacks, I just read your talk page and realised the number of other editors who have questioned your editing behaviour.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am trying to improve WP of course! From your reading of my talk page you will see that I explained any edits that were not clear to those who queried them. My talk page indicates that there is nothing wrong with my editing behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and for once and for all, I've objected to your move of two glossaries, the cricket and football ones. You have provided nothing substantive to tell me why these moves are of use to anyone, and therefore until you gain consensus to move them both at the respective projects, I see those particular moves as nothing more than an enthusiastic mistake.  I look forward to seeing how all the other moves pan out.  For your information, I won't be discussing this with you here any further, there seems little point.  I'll continue to work with the various projects, and should I decide to make unilateral move decisions, I'll endeavour to explain my edits rather than avoid answering simple questions.The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Read WP:CRITERIA (part of WP:ARTICLENAME) which is a policy, and so the reversions that you did contravene policy. So I did not make any enthusiastic mistakes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like we both were unaware that we are dealing with a policy rather than a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving articles
If moving an article is disputed, you should know by now to take it to WP:RM and stop move-warring. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of WP:RM but that should not be necessary if there is a clear case to move an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which there isn't. So take it to RM or leave it.  Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * But there is a clear case to move the articles to the title that I chose. It is a clear, concise title that does not contain the redundant word of "terms". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And the "policy" outlawing the term term is where exactly? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Once again, you are using words that don't fit in with wiki-activity. Nothing is "outlawed" since there are no rules and we can be bold. Having said that there is clear policy at WP:CRITERIA, as I have already stated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alan, we do outlaw edit-warring, and move-warring even more so. The principle is summed up at WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss.

You made the move in good faith, being WP:BOLD. The move was reverted, so now you need a WP:RM discussion to seek wider input and reach a consenus. I am sure you will make a good case for your own preferred title. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Outlaw" is a strong word in our wiki-world isn't it? I moved the pages, The Rambling Man moved them back, and I then explained my actions and moved them again. Is that move-warring? Anyway, I am not interested in pursuing it further, and I am not interested in wasting my time requesting a page move for something that is quite clearly needed and will be contested. It is not a biggie. Plenty of other stuff to do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Likewise I have reverted your move of Glossary of equestrian terms. Same basic reason, I see nothing in the naming criteria you site (either page) that mandates such a move.  In this case, our title may be clunky, but "equestrianism" is not the solution, as our project is WP:EQUINE and encompasses far more than riding or sport.  But "Glossary of equine" would sound really silly!  If there is some sort of wiki-wide consensus policy saying our glossary titles can't include the word "terms" (though I see dozens this way, at least prior to all your moves) that is one thing, but until then, please allow the people who work on the page to discuss its name.   Montanabw (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that glossary did not appear to be a clear cut case but it did seem to be related to equestrianism alone. I agree that "Glossary of equine" is not a goer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move from "Glossary of music terminology" to "Glossary of music"
Are you sure that this move was a good idea? I personally think that it should be reverted, as "Glossary of music" could also refer to either a glossary of musical works, or a glossary of musical styles. While this page was as "Glossary of music terminology," it was far less ambiguous than the place that it is now. Should we look for a consensus for one way or the other?14jbella (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I take it you mean Glossary of music and not Category:Glossary of musical terminology. I don't know what a glossary of "musical works" would be by that sounds like (ooooh - a pun) it would be a "List of musical works". A glossary is about terms not individual works. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose that makes sense. Should all glossaries in this format be moved then for consistency? This seems rather tedious as there are quite a few.14jbella (talk) 03:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having "term" or "terminology" in a glossary title is redundant per WP:ARTICLENAME. I have just finished a big session in renaming glossaries. I cannot see any others lurking around that need to be sorted out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Won't this cause many double redirects? Also, there seems to be a consensus on "Glossary of Music" to revert it to "Glossary of musical terms". Shouldn't it be returned, if the consensus remains after several days?14jbella (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Double redirects ar fixed by a bot or can be done manually or by a semi-automated bot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, but what about the consensus problem? 14jbella (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is a consensus to change it back then it should be changed back. I will carry on this discussion at Talk:Glossary_of_music. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere I Have Never Traveled
Did I do something wrong by placing Film Category? <span style="color:rgb(60, 200,200);font-weight:bold;">:- ) DCS 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What is wrong and what is right???? The film is already in six other film related categories and if Somewhere I Have Never Traveled is placeD in Category:Film what is stopping other editors adding the 1000's of other film articles to it. Have a read of WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing censorship categories
It seems you've been removing categories about censorship from a large number of pages; what is your rationale for doing so? I almost reverted the first of these edits that I noticed until I realized it wasn't an isolated edit. —danhash (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I am censoring Wikipedia. Naarh. Kidding. I am re-categorising per WP:CAT or removing categories if they have only a tenuous cnnection with the subject. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This edit was in error. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You removed Category:Internet censorship from Stop Online Piracy Act. Internet censorship is exactly the point of SOPA; not a "tenuous connection" at all. —danhash (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did consider adding it to Category:Internet censorship in the United States but the proposed Act is more to do with piracy than censorship. Preventing piracy could be seen as a form of censorship but for the yes/no, included/excluded category system it is best not to have it categorised as it was, especially in a global category (the US is not the World). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The explicit purpose of SOPA is censorship, and it's an issue with global implications. It's not just about preventing "piracy", it's about stifling innovation, artwork, and fair use. Internet censorship seems like a perfect category. —danhash (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, the explicit purpose is protection of intellectual property. Censorship is the deliberate prevention of access to material for reasons such as obsenity, morality, public safety and national security. Preventing wide dissemination of material to protect intellectual property has the same effect as censorship but it cannot be called censorship. Best to take this discussion to Talk:Stop Online Piracy Act. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but
 * "Censorship is the deliberate prevention of access to material for reasons such as obsenity, morality, public safety and national security. Preventing wide dissemination of material to protect intellectual property has the same effect as censorship but it cannot be called censorship"

is just about the most flagrantly POV assertion I have ever found here at Wikipedia. The stated purpose - not the "explicit" purpose, which is quite another thing - of SOPA was indeed supposedly "protection of intellectual property". But the explicit purpose of the recent 24-hour blackout participated in by Wikipedia was to protest censorship. US congressional bills are routinely titled to obscure their true intent, in Orwellian fashion. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia (hmm, do I like that phrase?) censorship "is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the general body of people as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body" which is quite similar to my wording. I then said that protecting intellectual property is not an explicit form of censorship but it can have the same effect ie restricting access to material. I don't see how that is "most flagrantly POV assertion" on WP. I am afraid you will have to explain how you arrive at that opinion.


 * As for the WP blackout I agree that it was a protest against possible censorship but I fail to see what that has to do with the discussion above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Inconvenient to the general body of people" would probably do, if Wikipedia were forced to monitor every edit for possible copyright violation, and be held liable for anything that might slip through. Perhaps the censorship article could benefit by some rephrasing; I'm disinclined to think that any article here meets a gold standard. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Alan, I think you are missing the point that censorship is not always forthright and clearly labelled. Particularly in "free" societies censorship comes cloaked and floating.  The unstated effect of legislation and court rulings to suppress dissemination of unwanted ideas or culture, is still censorship.  Selective enforcement of laws is a favoured means of censorship.  A category should err on the side of inclusion, giving a broad perspective and allowing individual readers to select what is relevant to their interest. Bcharles (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Glossary moves
You should really discuss things like that before doing potentially disruptive things. See MOS:GLOSS; there can easily be glossaries that are not of terms. The "terms" names were used for a reason. Unless you can point me to a broad consensus discussion about this, I'm going to move them back per WP:BRD. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I moved them per WP:CRITERIA and to move them back would be a retrograde step. MOS:GLOSS is only a proposal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You must be hallucinating, since I didn't move them yet. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A quick check of my local university library shows that there is no common naming convention for the titles of glossaries. I think WP:CRITERIA is the safest bet for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It has proposal tag on it, but is in actual use, and its reasoning is sound. The fact of the matter is that you did not seek consensus for a massive site-wide change, and a lot of people are disagreeing with you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  11:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with SMcCandlish. Your continual preaching of WP:CRITERIA is very unhelpful and I fully support a move to revert the moves until such a time we have a consensus in agreement with your approach.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Liefting, your citing WP:CRITERIA like a mantra doesn't mean you've properly applied it. Your moves violate both the Recognizability and Naturalness principles, and the one on Precision. If "Glossary of foo" were more natural and recognizable than "Glossary of foo terms" then obviously the vast majority of articles on the system would not have naturally and recognizably been at the latter type of name. A worse problem is that it's an imprecise usage; as MOS:GLOSS makes clear glossaries can be of more than terms, e.g. of all Ford automobiles and summaries of the specifications, or whatever. You engaged in a massive fait accompli POV-pushing excerise on a personal [mis]interpretation of policy, that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and with no consensus discussion. You are now meeting a tsunami of resistance and criticism and are just shrugging and saying "no, no, I'm right, everyone else is crazy or stupid". Please naming policy before citing it to disrupt hundreds of articles. — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You will HAVE to go through proper process, because your disruption is easy to prevent
All anyone has to do is revert your no-consensus moves back to the longer original page names, and add R from short name to the shorter pages left behind, immediately after the REDIRECT code. This is correct usage of the templates, so it's not even WP:POINTy, and really all of these redirects should certainly exist - there are surely some people who would look for Glossary of cue sports instead of Glossary of cue sports terms. But it also has the side effect of preventing you from reverting the restoration of the original article title without going through WP:RM or some other process. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the polite thing for you to do ...
... would be for you to go back and revert all of your own glossary page moves, and category deletions yourself, and for each one, post a query on its talk page for discussion by all interested editors. Some might well agree with your suggestions. This would save the hassle of someone else having to find and undo each of your unilateral moves and deletions. Might you consider doing this? It will of course be considerably easier for you to do it yourself. Thanks for your consideration. Milkunderwood (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've already done the restorations. Starting a rename discussion on each would-be-affected glossary's talk page would splinter discussion. This needs to be an RfC so discussion is centralized. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Re your "Ooooh! Last name basis am I??", posted on a different editor's talkpage in response to my post there: No, I was referring to you as "Liefting" in the third person, to someone else. If I had been addressing you directly I would have used "Alan". I am curious, though, Alan, about your snooping around following my posts to other people. Is this a frequent activity of yours? Milkunderwood (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

sigh...
So much discussion and so little achieved for such a minor issue.

I will give some explanations soon. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure we're all waiting with baited breath, but so much of your disruption has already been undone, it would now be useful for you to do what was asked initially, i.e. discuss your moves. I'm not sure we need "explanations", we just need modified behaviour. By the way, unilaterally changing the title of dozens of well-established articles is hardly "such a minor issue".  You should be able to see that from the number of posts throughout Wikipedia regarding your approach.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I said I will give some explanations but I am in the middle of some page moves (humour...) recategorising. "Dispruption" is a strong word. I moved some glossaries to an alternative name. So what? It is hardly disruptive since redirects get left behind, and if my edits are contentious (and I fail to see why) the page moves can be reverted. The wiki-conservatives would not like it, but then wiki-conservatives are like other conservatives in that they do not allow progress to a better state (be it cyber- or real society). It was bold but don't use the term "unilateral". That shows a lake of understanding of how a wiki works. As for the "number of posts throughout Wikipedia regarding your approach" I only know of the ones that I stumble across or are linked to my talk page. Please let me know of any others so editors don't talk about me behind my wiki-back. I would like a chance to defend myself against any criticism. It is only fair wouldn't you agree? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, you should be made aware of the discussions over the various disruptions you've caused so you could start by looking at the talk pages of every single glossary you moved, just in case you miss something. I am staggered in your self-belief, that you believe you have moved Wikipedia "to a better state", despite being told by numerous other editors that they disagree with your approach.  The use of "unilateral" is entirely justified, (it's by no means a "lake of understanding") because, despite others disagreeing with you, despite others reverting your edits, you went ahead and re-reverted and pushed your opinion wholesale.  You acted as if you were a unilateral authority.  It was unbecoming of a wiki editor, it went against the principles of communal editing and lacked consensual agreement.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did the edits in good faith and I had absolutely no inkling that the removal of the redundant words of "terms" or "terminology" would be of such a concern to yourself and two other editors. Now let me twist my words: You are saying three editors out of the 14,000,000 editors is numerous? Now can we all stop wasting time here and get back to some real work? If you have an issue with my edits take it to WP:ANI and stop using WP as social media. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not using it as social media, not sure where you got that idea, but just letting you know where to find all the various discussions about your behaviour. Every talk page of every glossary you moved is worth a revisit.  However, please, feel free to get back to your AWB and Hotcat "real work".  Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that some of the work I am doing is not "real work"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure you believe it to be "real work" but clearly, since hundreds of your edits in the last day or so have been reverted, it's caused more heat than light. You must be able to see that?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you know what the total number of edits that I have done over the past day? Have you actually counted the number that have been revered? Do you think I ignore the longevity of my edits? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Had a look at a few of the talk page. Nothing happening on some of them and there is not a peep about all this from WikiProject Glossaries. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in WikiProject Glossaries; I'm one of the main developers of the code and [proposed] guideline. So, yes, you have heard from WikiProject Glossaries. Several other respondents here are also participants in the project. Surely you don't mean that you're drawing any kind of conclusion from the fact that you are not personally a topic of either alarmed or fawning interest on the project talk page? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The number of edits you make, courtesy of AWB "press OK" is not of any interest to me at all. Your semi-automated approach is your business. But I'm not sure anyone has "revered" your edits. Every glossary move you've made has been reverted. Think before moving. And if reverted, discuss before re-moving. It's simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, here are some places to look: User talk:SMcCandlish and Talk:Glossary of musical terminology.  I'm sure there are others but I'm too demoralised and have better things to do than go searching for people complaining about the mess you made. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. And how do you think I feel by having this completely unwarranted vendetta and having fallacious arguments thrown at me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Vendetta? Fallacious?  I'd ask for an explanation but you'd probably quote something like WP:5P at me which would do no good in any rational discussion.  Your moves were unwelcome, your rationale was too obfuscated, your inability to see all that is a pity.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, responses like yours immediately above and in many other places on this page make me think there needs to be an RFA-like (though considerably lower) barrier to entry to AWB, not the pretend vetting that goes no now. If you are reflexively dismissive of every disagreement with what yo do with a tool, that makes you a dangerous tool wielder. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  14:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well lets not try and pre-emt what I am going to say. I am no expert on rhetoric but I would say that that is not how it is done. Anyway, you say that my pages moves were unwelcome. Yes, that is true, but they are unwelcome by a vocal minority. As for my obfuscated rational I could argue that you refused to see my side of the argument?


 * Oops! I don't want anybody to "revere" my edits. Besides I am an atheist! Don't know what AWB has got to do with all this but never mind. Same for the "semi-automated approach" approach. Every edit requires thought but some are easier to make than others. If my edits are reverted I take a look at what the editor had to say, and if their grounds for reversion are (in my opinion) unwarranted I will will revert back. If I don't have a strong argument I leave it as is or discuss it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, so with the mass page moves, even if you believe your interpretation of WP:CRITERIA to be correct (and you really have failed to express exactly what your interpretation of that is in all of your moves), you must understand making mass moves without any discussion or due warning is liable to debate, disgust (where applicable) and reversion (as shown). Do yourself (and the community) a favour (and save us, and you, some time) by discussing these major wiki-wide moves before implementing them. You have been presented with strong arguments against your unilateral decision to move these pages, the moves have been reversed, if you wish to pursue your approach, you must now discuss it, as you said you should, or desist. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will reiterate, I had no inkling that the "simple" page moves would cause so much discussion. This is completely unprecedented in my seven years or so on WP. And I am yet to get strong arguments against my page moves. In a few cases there is an argument to revet but not in all of the 70 odd pages I moved. And another thing, moving 70 pages out of is hardly wiki-wide. Please keep things in perspective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You still have not justified the attack that you made on my editing ability. And I don't know why you bring up AWB. It has absolutely no bearing on this issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-vandalism reverted as vandalism
Hey, what's up with this edit of yours ? The edit you reverted seemed to me to clearly be removing nonsense, but you reverted it as vandalism. I removed the nonsense again (politicians are not directly environmental issues), but just figured I'd flag it with you as a false positive. Cheers, {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits&#124;⚡}&#125; 04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it was obviously in error on my part. An anon editor had previously added the stuff which I then removed. Got myself confused when it turned up again when an editor with a redlinked userpage removed the new vandalism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Category India
What is wrong with category India? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you insist on leaving articles completely uncategorised with your mass semi-automated edits, please at least tag them as such, or even better, add more appropriate categories.  This edit (amongst some of the others demonstrated by the state of your talk page) shows that you make many mistakes while editing with Twinkle, HotCat, AWB etc.  I note you have made these kind of errors on many occasions during your HotCat spree...    .   You should not expect the community to follow each and every one of your clumsy edits to fix the mess you're making. Please be more careful or you may find your editing ability seriously restricted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not take kindly to threats, I do not like this unjustified hounding, and I am happy with those edits. If you take issue with my editing take to the appropriate forum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If your edits are disruptive then I will take whatever action necessary to stop them from taking place. Your talk page is the appropriate forum to advise you of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Glossary moves (again)
Hi Alan, I see you've been getting a lot of grief above over those glossary moves. I'm really sorry to pile on, but I have to agree with them. Your policy justification of WP:CRITERIA has multiple factors, part of which is that "titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English". Many of your new article titles are are creating phrases that you may feel are "proper English", but are just not the common term in English. When you claim sanction under WP:CRITERIA, which exact phrase or portion of this policy are you actually referring to? Because of (what I percieve as) misuse of automated editing systems, I propose you should not rename ANY more articles without consensus (real and specific consensus, not the fake "would get wide support since I am changing the name in accordance with the guideline" type). --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released
Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox -.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Categorization
Thanks for your help! Student7 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thanks, but we all try and do our bit. What particular aspect of my editing do you appreciate? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on occupation categories
I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

American Leak Detection
Hi Alan- I manage media relations for the American Leak Detection corporate office. Since we are an international franchise service organization, I'm wondering why you would think we're a "non-notable" company? We created the leak detection industry, which I believe is quite notable. The vast majority of info on our page is incorrect and/or outdated. Roto Rooter, our major competitor has a lovely page built out, and I'll proceed to edit ours to correct any mistakes.

Thanks! DuaneDepoole (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It did not appear to meet the extensive and convoluted notability guidelines. As a interested party please have a read of the Wikipedia confict of interest policy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Read it over. How do I request an edit since I obviously have a COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneDepoole (talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is various ways. Best to start a discussion at Talk:American Leak Detection. You can also add the various template messages to the actual article. It is commendable that you have "outed" yourself with a COI. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Arsenic
Both cite journal and cite doi have their pros and cons, and I would not waste time on swapping them because such edits can always be reverted per WP:Preserve, WP:Notbroken, etc. A practical note is that the refs in arsenic are crippled (I think the citation bot will not autoexpand them, maybe because I blocked its automatic part :-). Would you consider reverting yourself or expanding refs individually? Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The edit I did was an experiment and I see more advantages with cite doi than with cite. I have now expanded the refs since the bot is a bit solw on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many cosmetic differences, just be aware that cite doi/pmid/etc templates are also vandalized, and a very simple change in the template content (even adding a random text) can erase the output of the main article without giving an easy clue where to fix it. (just saw your post and thus continue) The main cosmetic disadvantages are (i) inability to apply uniform formatting to the article (requires re-editing every individual template, which may easily be a hundred in some medical article), (ii) no easy way to monitor them for vandalism and reformatting by a friendly editor of another article, where the same doi template might be used. Materialscientist (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nod, nod. Hmmm. There are solutions to some if the things you point out. I am trying to get a similar system to cite doi up and running for ISBNs. There needs to be a really big discussion on how referencing is done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, after lots of trying and wandering around (I still daily fix refs in articles), I believe that it is important to have accurate text and proper link in a ref, the rest is just formatting games and waste of time. Wikipedia officially embraces many citation styles, and I do not believe this will change. Actually, cite doi/pmid/etc templates might be eradicated at some point for maintenance reasons (reduce cleanup of unused/redundant templates - we normally don't bother with that). I would not launch cite isbn, but try first to make the bot expand . Surely this was tried before (it works, but to a very limited degree) and surely there are problems with it (I vaguely recall there is some issue with the access of isbn databases and information retrieval). I feel that the developers of the expansion tools became less active over time, and this is also a limiting factor. For example, this tool should be possible to integrate within citation bot and reflinks, and this alone would be of great help. Materialscientist (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that. Saves me having to reinvent the wheel. I have to mull over all this. I know what you mean about trying to get things changed. Sometimes I think Wikipedians are more conservative than Conservapedia!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have had the ISBN database issue mentioned to me. WorldCat allows 1000 accesses per day. That might be enough for us if we store a local version of all the data we pull down. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Happened to see this thread. The problem with and all other such templates is that they rely on a bot which runs outside Wikipedia. When Martin (User:Smith609), who owns the bot, didn't renew his registration at toolserver.org, the bot stopped working. A template which depends on one editor is, in my view, thoroughly undesirable. If used, I think it should always be subst'ed. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP should not rely on one editor and on unreliable outside sources but the more I mull over it the more I am of the opinion that there is a need for a collection of ref templates for sources. Almost a reference namespace for them in fact. Sure, there are some disadvantages but they can generally be addressed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It certainly needs to be made as easy as possible for editors to create proper citations for use in references; the quality of citations in many Wikipedia articles is often poor and an astonishing number (well, astonishing to me!) don't have inline references. The problem I have is with citations being left as e.g. Cite doi instead of expanding to a proper citation, which is what I would like to see happen. (This is my preferred way of dealing with your request elsewhere for the "edit" facility not to be the default.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you like having references as the Cite doi format? I can see a lot of advantages in using that method. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have discovered one disadvantage - COinS biblio metadata cannot be pulled out of an article if it is the Cite doi format. I like this feature and other researchers would also find it useful. I am warming to your idea of substituting but it does not seem to work from within the tags. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If references are left in the source as Cite doi you have no idea when later editing the article what is actually going to appear either immediately when you save or in future. This has several consequences: you can't check that the format of the created citation is consistent with others you are adding to the article; you can't tweak the created citation so that its format is consistent; if it is ok then you don't know that someone won't in future edit the stored expansion so that it becomes either incorrect or inconsistently formatted; you can't copy the citation and put it in a different style (I prefer citation; it's easy to copy a cite journal citation from one article to another and change the template used). It's just too opaque to editors.
 * The opaqueness to editors extends, as you've noted above, to various tools for extracting bibliographic information.
 * Yes, subst: doesn't work inside ref tags; some kind of inbuilt tool is needed, I think, but I don't entirely understand the technical details. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have had a complete change in stance. I am now completely in favour of full ref biblio data actually being within the article. I may even make a recommendation to develop a guideline on ref template transclusion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on this. The cite doi template is never sufficient--perhaps it should be listed for deletion. Of course the doi should always be given when available, but it's not by itself a reference.  DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am thinking about it but I am having trouble plucking up the courage. A lot of work has been put into it so there will be opposition from some editors. I am working on making refs more robust and to this end I am looking into a bot to compare the data in WP template ref fields with what is in reliable, robust external databases. eg WorldCat and http:http://dx.doi.org/ . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Eutectic bonding
This edit didn't quite work out. You might want to try that one again. :) -- WikHead (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And another one at Iceland spar. -- WikHead (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. All sorted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad to have been of assistange. Happy editing! :) -- WikHead (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

LOUD Technologies
Hi. I agree the article isn't great (I posted the original short stub six years ago when times were very different but haven't touched the article since, other than to add an infobox two years ago). However, I'd say that being the parent company of seven individually notable musical instrument / professional audio companies is an implicit assertion of notability. Anyway, I don't have the time to fix the article, so go ahead and delete if you think it helps the encyclopedia. --KFP (contact - edits) 20:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems that some of the companied it owns are not notable themselves. I think deleting it does "help" WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

4e Grenadiers
I've declined your speedy as it does have some context (sort of...) I've prodded it, as I'm sure it doesn't belong. May be a hoax or something that's out of a game. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. Sigh... It is real easy to get all sorts of rubbish on to WP but damn hard to get rid of it! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Souplantation
I declined the speedy deletion of this article because it didn't seem necessary. The promotional content of the article should be dealt with through normal editing, rather than leaving Wikipedia without an article about this well-known chain of restaurants. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The Limited
I've added a few sources to assert further notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletions
Ørnulf Seippel probably meets WP:PROF, but very certainly passes speedy. The A7  criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. Saying someone is a professor at a major university is a credible claim of importance, at the very least.  DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I notice that in the last day or two you have nominated well over a dozen articles for speedy deletion, most of which have been declined by a wide spectrum of other admins and editors. I remind you about the use of A7, not just for faculty, but for busineses and other topics: a claim to significance is sufficient. general.

I notice also a large number of AfD requests of restaurant chains and other articles at AfD, most of which are headed for SNOW keep. You certainly have the right to your own standards for what should be in Wikipedia, but since it appears that the consensus is very sharply different for these articles, continuing to nominate such articles for deletion would seem rather POINTY. there is such a large amount of promotional junk submitted that really does need deletion, and a good deal of equally promotional near-junk that has been here for a while, that perhaps you should rather concentrate of finding those where your nomination will be supported by consensus and actually have a reasonable chance of getting the article deleted. (for example, there's a large number of wrestling articles & articles on some other forms of entertainment that I think do not belong here, but I know they will not be deleted no matter what I say because there are too many people who hold otherwise, and so I leave them alone. There's enough else to get rid of.)  DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am continually surprised by what is kept on WP. The deletion process, in conjunction with WP:GNG is tuning WP into a business directory, a restaurant guide, and a database of everybody who has ever had the merest mention somewhere. WP will never be a respected encyclopaedia until WP:GNG no longer trumps the specific notability guidelines, and we have some sort of flagged revisions. I hope these changes happen in my lifetime. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not saying all of the articles where speedy is declined are notable, just that they pass speedy. Speedy is deliberately narrow. As for the restaurant chains, as such chains are almost never deleted at AfD, I do not see why you're surprised.
 * But I am sometimes just as amazed as you about both what the consensus is, and what individual things get erratically kept or deleted. And there is one thing where we both agree, that we should use specific notability guidelines, not rely so much on the GNG. Even if the specific guidelines are other than I'd set them, they still are preferable--for example, many articles on athletes are there because they pass the SNG, but not the GNG. I accept this, rather than having to fight about every one of them. Better a consistent procedure that I do not particularly like than a near-random AfD process. or a speedy process depending so much on the idiosyncrasies of individual administrators.   DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you don't seem to be doing WP:BEFORE very often. "The Limited" is a tough name to Google due to it also being a common word, but I still found several sources with ease. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism)
Template:MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Exopack Advanced Coatings
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Exopack Advanced Coatings, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Article was nominated at AfD in the past, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion or PROD. Try another AfD,.''' Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not worth the effort. To many inclusionists hovering around the AfD's. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

another wrong use of a7
Martin Loudspeaker Company. They might be notable, it would depend on the product reviews But they pass speedy.  DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ocaasi
Thanks for cleaning up my userpage. Sorry about the CATs! Cheers, Ocaasit 20:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a way I can have those on my userpage but exclude it from categories? Ocaasit 20:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly. I think it might depend on the page coding. I struggled to find which transcluded page was adding the categories, which is why I ended up deleting quite a few. Best solution may be to copy the code from the pages that you want rather than trancluding them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Help:Help desk
I invite you to comment at Wikipedia talk:Help desk. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mobile phones by country
Category:Mobile phones by country, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Limited
I closed this debate early as noted. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Collecting
Hi, I was just curious about this removal of a collecting category from the article, can you enlighten me? Thanks! Dreadstar ☥   19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two reasons:
 * History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) is about the history of Boy scout merit badges in America and not about collecting Boy scout merit badges in America
 * Category:Collecting was getting "cluttered"
 * Hope that helps. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a fine line, start an RFC on it if you like, but I don't accept your judgment on the issue. Dreadstar  ☥   19:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a fine line. I have no interest in doing on RFC on it. Plenty of other stuff to do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Dreadstar  ☥   20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Why is that good? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because RFC's can be a huge pain in the butt... :) Dreadstar  ☥   20:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And it is a minor issue. If you have look at Category:Collecting, which I am in the process of cleaning out, History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) is sticking out like a sore thumb. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you might be right, I just think the subject is clearly associated with collecting - the sources it's based on are for and by collectors. Then again Wikipedia considerations don't always align with real-life buckets, so "collecting" may actually be a WP-only device for articles that say "collecting X" insead of clearly related collector information.  One cannot say this subject it so unrelated to collecting that it can't be categorized as such..unless we're talking about the unreal world of Wikipedia definitions.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked through the collectors cat and if your defintion is right, you do indeed have a lot of work to do to remove "unrelated" articles. A large number are clearly in the same category as this one.  Let me know when you're done clearing it and I'll be happy to remove this one too. With the definition you describe for the collector's cat, I see a lot of sore thumbs.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You do need to start an RFC, it looks like your definition of 'collectable" articles is way too narrow. Dreadstar  ☥   21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not interested in doing an RFC and I no longer have an appetite for cleaning up Category:Collecting now that my edits have been undon. Note that I have not defined "collectable". I am basing what I believe should be in Category:Collecting on the Collecting article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you will need to clearly explain how an article that contains an entire section on how it is 'collectable' doesn't belong in the collectables category; amongst many others.  If you persist, you risk being blocked.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You have forced my hand. There is now an RFC at Category_talk:Collecting. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will carry on this conversation later to avoid continual edit conflicts. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I call bullshit. Dreadstar  ☥   22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Post-ani
Hello. Leaving aside all else, this was not an issue for the administrator's notice board. And, if it had been an issue for the notice board, your post really did not give enough information. Administrator's have notoriously short attention spans, you need to do something more like "Following my removal of items from a category (diffs maybe) I've had an unpleasnt exhange [link to talk page], please see Dreadstar's comments [diff] [diff], etc etc". If you give information up front (which should be easier for you), it saves having to chase it up on the adminstrator's part (since they don't know where to look). - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I realise that now but the edits and bad behaviour was flying my way thick and fast. Heat of the moment and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

reunited discussions
 * Maybe AMaybe ANI was not the right place for it but we still have a rogue admin that has really put me off editing WP and may do so to others. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Understandable, I think, on both counts.
 * One of the parts of editing here that many people struggle with is the highly variable levels of civility. Dreadstar (perhaps) doesn't feel his language was out of line.  Sometimes it's maturity, sometimes it's cultural.  I once (accidentally) provoked an editor into a full-blown flip out by using the colloquialism "you kiss your mother with that mouth?"
 * So, without prejudice to Dreadstar, try to let the episode slide off you.
 * More specifically, on the issue of Hog Oilers et alia: You could have explained your rational a fractionally small bit better. But in the normal course of events it would have been a non-event, you are correct.
 * Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan, I've warned Dreadstar that I think his editing was disruptive and for what it's worth if it continues I'll block him. If I promise to keep an eye on his/her contributions will you now drop this and let things cool off? Pushing for action against Dreadstar now is not going to be productive; s/he has had a warning and needs to be allowed to heed it (or not). For what it's worth I agree with Dreadstar that the removal of the category was unwarranted and when you realised it was being objected to you should have stopped and discussed more fully. It takes two to let a lame issue like this escalate in the way it did. Please don't remove any more categories while the RfC is ongoing. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I placed the RFD after I had done the recategorisation and after Dreadstar reverted my edits, and there was only one of Dreadstars edits that I reverted after placing the RfD (AFAIK). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was out of line in the way I responded to you and in the way I handled this entire situation. I allowed some personal issues to color my comments and editing style.  I can be humorous and sometimes sarcastic, but I overstepped my bounds here and I'm sorry for that.   Dreadstar  ☥   07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Violence cat
Hi Alan, I restored this cat because I couldn't see a reason to remove it. Are templates not categorized anymore, or was there duplication? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * By convention templates are not placed in content (article) categories. Templates have their own hierarchy starting at the top one of Category:Wikipedia templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Alan, but I believe that you are incorrect about that. There's even a sort type just for it. Use: τ - jc37 21:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The existence of a sortkey recommendation is not Even a quick browse of categories will show that templates are not place in amongst articles (content). If we see it from the viewpoint of a reader - Those Who We Are Here To Serve - having template scattered through content would be confusing and limit the usefulness of categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that that's your opinion, but that doesn't make it convention. no matter how often you assert that it is. - jc37 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion that template are not generally added to content cats can be verified by inspecting a range of categories for the presence of templates. It is my opinion that there is such a convention. I am asserting my opinion that it is a convention but of course my assertions bo not have an an effect on what is convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "incorrect"? That is a statement of fact. Can you verify it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, this doesn't have to become adversarial. I'm merely trying to help. Second, policies and guidelines are (mostly) based upon common practice, not the other way round.
 * Anyway, I'll go find you some examples if you'll be patient. though i would guess that you would be able to find some just as easily. (And incidentally, your user contribs probably have more than a few examples, where you've removed them...) - jc37 21:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not intend the comment to be adversarial. I am asking for some more feedback from you. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here are my template namespace edits . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And what was meant about the comment "And incidentally, your user contribs probably have more than a few examples, where you've removed them...".?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably referring to where you remove categories from pages with your semi-automated tools without paying too much attention, e.g. removing reasonable (but unrefined) categories from pages, leaving them entirely uncategorised instead of spending a little time selecting a more suitable, more refined category. More haste, less speed, less semi-automated tool usage.  Your talk page tells its own story.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify - I meant that examples of where templates were categorised in article-topic categories, but where you have removed the category from the template. (And at least one example of a template's talk page being categorised. Though in that case, the cat should probably just have been moved to the template page from it's talk page.)
 * And TRM may have a good point that several of these templates appear to now be uncategorised. (I only did a quick look over them though.) - jc37 22:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it you that has a problem with automated tools? If you are going to make claims about my editing behaviour please bake it up with facts. This conversation is about templates categorisation and I can states that I will never leave a template uncategorised. I will always add it to an appropriate e category or the very least to Category:Wikipedia templates. Also, I don't think I have used automated tools or have rarely used automated tools on templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he's talking about WP:HOTCAT.
 * But in the interest of keeping things WP:COOL, let's table this discussion til the RfC. - jc37 22:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

And incidentally, by their nature, categories are part of the project. Though we don't categorise project pages in categories intended for holding articles by convention, but we do include such information on the page itself. We often add project related information in the form of hatnotes and banners, and other explanatory information. And templates and redirects are often categorised in article-space categories. Some of your edits lately to remove this sort of information would seem to me to be unhelpful to those using categories rather than the other way round. I understand you may disagree, but that doesn't make it any more "convention" or "common practice". - jc37 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course categories are part of the project. That comment and the following ones are red herrings. If we stick to the issue we are discussing here, namely the presence of templates in content (article) categories there is clear convention that is easily verified that shows that templates are not generally added to content categories. My edits are to help the reader and to help other editors, and part of this is to have consistency, and separation of content and maintenance/editing pages. This spelled out at WP:PROJCATS to some degree. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy is at Categorization. It's pretty clear not only that we do, but also how such pages should be categorised. - jc37 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The mention of that sort key is not a recommendation that templates should be placed in content cats. That sortkey can be used for proj/maint cats. Besides it may be a hangover from a earlier times and has never been updated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you feel that Consensus has changed on this, please point me to the RFC or other community discussion showing this. - jc37 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that consensus has changed on the sortkey. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The goal here is our readers. And such pages are categorised specifically to help navigation. But to reduce confusion and maintain some clarity, we clarify what they are by the use of sort keys. This has been a rather long standing convention going back many years (as long as I recall, and I've had an account for over 6 years, and was a reader for several years before that). - jc37 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will do an RfC on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll keep an eye out for it. If you would like any help, please let me know. - jc37 22:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You are most welcome to instigate it. In fact I would prefer that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I'll leave that to you, since the goal is to ascertain that Consensus has changed on this in light of current situations (templates are in article-topic-related categories - though you have been removing them).
 * Part of the reason I'm demurring to start it, is that I'm already working on one regarding hotcat (and other semi-automated gadgets) since open use of this tool appears to be starting to cause well-meaning editors to cause disruption. (I'm not only speaking of this situation.)
 * But to be clear, you should not be removing such content any more, unless or until the RfC or other such evidence, per BRD, etc. If you do, it's likely that this will start WP:DR. And honestly, I think this is a simple thing to be clarified that should be easily resolved through discussion. I don't want to see this escalated. - jc37 22:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * HotCat is certainly a powerful tool which makes it both attractive and dangerous. And so why should I no longer be removing any more "content"? I assume you mean removing content cats from templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I said "such content". And yes. As to why not, you now have people (myself, and in a specific case, User:SlimVirgin) asking you to stop. So per WP:BRD, it's time to stop and discuss, and not continue til there is a consensus on this. There isn't, so you should stop, else the next step is to start DR actions related to your behavior. As I said, I don't want that, as I really just see this as something that should be easily resolved through discussion. I believe that you're a well-meaning editor. And I think I understand how this confusion happened. So I think it's in everyone's best interests that this is resolved through discussion, and without further disruption. - jc37 23:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no explict statement in policy or guidelines saying the templates should be in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The burden's on you to prove they shouldn't be. - jc37 22:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see how that is so. There is no explicit guideline on it, therefore anything goes. And this ends up in a situation where we need to get consensus on a case by case basis, ie. edit by edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, even with WP:IAR, once WP:BRD kicks in, it's time to discuss and attempt to gain consensus. - jc37 23:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So a couple of editors who have no policy or guidelines to fall back on can tell me how edit? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are, you've been shown them, you apparently disagree in interpretation. Time for discussion. You said you would start an RfC, so I believe at this point everyone is waiting for you to do that. It's a proper way on Wikipedia to move things forward. And (speaking for myself at least) I'm happy to help contribute to such a discussion to help make things better for our readers (and editors). whatever the results of the discussion. - jc37 23:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am working on the RfC as we speak! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * In the meantime you could undo all the edits here ! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Ghettosocks
Hi Alan Liefting. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Trumeau
Hallo. I understand the reason for the redirect, but I don't think the tympanum article explains this feature. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The trumeau article was a one line article so I thought that in the interim it is best redirected to the tympanum article. That article should contain the definition. It should have been merged but I am not familiar with the topic to do that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Diego Poyet
I have added a reference Atban3000 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Frank Gatliff
I believe the imdb source I have added is adequate enough information on above actor;however,I will look for more biographical details JFBridge (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Birkenhead Library, building controversy listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Birkenhead Library, building controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Birkenhead Library, building controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

AdSteam
Why are you edit-warring? Pdfpdf (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Am I? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You betcha.
 * AdSteam was in Mergers and acquisitions up to its eyeballs
 * (Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say AdSteam drowned in Mergers and acquisitions !)
 * Adsteam caused Australia's corporate accounting mechanisims to be completely revised
 * Adsteam was the major entity in a case which caused changes to the Australian Constitution.
 * Etc., etc. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets talk at Talk:Adelaide Steamship Company me old salt. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. See you there. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Communications satellite
Just curious why you removed the two history categories from this article. The don't seem to be sub-categories of something else that is already there, and it seems like this article is relevant to a least the history of telecommunication (history of TV might be a stretch). Don Lammers (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Follow me over to Talk:Communications satellite. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI). Since you had some involvement with the The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

International Telecoms Week (ITW) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect International Telecoms Week (ITW). Since you had some involvement with the International Telecoms Week (ITW) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion
Hi, I'm writing to inquire about the deletion that you proposed for the article on María Eugenia Casar. I wrote the article and it is factually based on the United Nations official press release (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sga1309.doc.htm). I referenced the source at the bottom of the article under external links. In fact, I work for the UN, which owns the content of the Press Release. Would you please let me know what I can do exactly to improve the article and prevent the deletion? Thank you. Asdfjklo (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
Questioning your use of Speedy Deletion, particularly on VPS Convenience. If you live or visit the region where this chain is located, you could see the importance of it as it is a large regional chain. It was also part of Marsh Supermarkets, which was the first supermarket to utilize scanning technology. They continued to introduce new items and ideas through the Village Pantry chain.

Per Wikipedia notability guidelines, this article has "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject" and "Presumed". Also, per the guidelines "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."

From looking at your Talk page, it appears that the rules for Speedy Deletion are not being followed, and there is a mis-understanding of the rules of Notability. Thanks for your understandingScoty6776 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * So is this an encyclopaedia or a business directory? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you need to start yet another centralised discussion or RFC (that you should return to after starting) about your issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Free holiday
Listen Alan, I've been here a few years and I'm not getting too many kickbacks, so I was wondering if I could persuade you to let me pop over and see you? I know the Green Party of NZ wouldn't be too keen on me flying the many miles from the UK to NZ, but I figure we could do some kind of UK-NZ collaboration? I bloody love NZ, and I'm proud to say that I think I'm one of a few white visitors to actually go to see the original Treaty of Waitangi document in Auckland before going to Waitangi itself. It rained there. A lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you can come over and see me. Check out earthquake ravaged Christchurch while you are here. It has been a veritable United Nations here at our house in recent months. We have had American and Dutch visitors so I guess we could handle British as well. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw the cathedral before it was destroyed, was hoping to see the wizard too no luck. Had a happy few hours by the river and very much feel for the happy-go-lucky folks who were devastated by the bloody earthquake (God, indeed, moves mysteriously).  I'm not a tourist arsehole, but since you've mentioned that Yanks have made it down South, forget it.  I'll take my chances with the Hobbits, and grab some fush-and-chups with the whales, dolphins and seals in Kaikoura.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mona Lisa edit request
Thanks. I'm inclined to delete it, it looks like copyvio, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is a copyvio as well but I wanted to use one of the tools rather than Google to do a check. I agree that we should delete it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Google didn't help me anyway. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)