User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 2

Maps
Hi Alan - not sure what the problem is with the maps, but you're the second person to mention it. Simon Lyall mentioned this bug, which would explain why I don't see the problem since it's a PC thing and I'm a mac user. But it's a Win XP bug and you're using 98.... I don't know - I'll take it to the Village Pump. Grutness...  wha?  8 July 2005 08:26 (UTC)
 * Do you also get the problem with the ones I've done without the frame line, like Orewa? If not it might be simplest just to remove the frames. Grutness...  wha?  8 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
 * I don't think a scale's really necessary - it would clutter things up a bit, and people can always look up the main Geography of New zealand article if they want to know details like that. In any case, I'd rather not redo 90-odd maps! Grutness...  wha?  9 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Kevin Smith
When you make an article into a disambig, could you please fix articles that link to it? While I agree that the filmmaker doesn't deserve to be at the root page, there are over 100 links to Kevin Smith that should now link to Kevin Smith (filmmaker). I'm going to fix some of them, but for future reference, it's probably a good idea to see what links to a page before you move it. Thanks. --Myles Long/cDc 15:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Podocarpaceae
Hi Alan - I've moved them back to the scientific names. There's three problems with the Maori names, one is that they give no indication whatsoever of alliance (unlike English names, which [usually] group species of a genus together: Pine = Pinus, etc) - this leaves the index pages Category:Podocarpaceae and Category:Araucariaceae with no indication whatsoever of what is related to what (and if all the species were shifted to vernacular names, compounded by Mapuche names for the South American species in the same genera). Second, 80% of the species in these genera have no vernacular names at all in English, and are always going to be listed under their scientific names; then anyone looking for Podocarpus totara and failing to find it in the long list of Podocarpus species is going to be very baffled and think the page does not exist. Finally, outside of NZ, the Maori names are not well known; elsewhere, the species are overwhelmingly referred to by their scientific names - MPF 11:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it the same Alan Liefting?
Hi Alan - I was just looking down some political party lists and I saw a name I recognised. Am I right in thinking that if the Greens had romped into government we'd have needed to write an article on you? Grutness...  wha?  05:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Environment
I note that the Category:Environment has been moved to Category:Environmentalism as a request at WP:CFD. I do not argree with this move since it ignores the distinction between the two words. Environmentalism is a ideology and the environment is the physical world around us but most often used in the context of the anthropogenic effects on the natural environment. Naturally, (excuse the pun!) all the subcategories are also adversely affected. I would like to see the move reversed. Can you please move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment. Alan Liefting 06:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The discussion on merging Category:Environment in to Category:Environmentalism is archived at Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_27. If you wish to rename the merged category to Category:Environment, you should post a nomination on WP:CFD and add the text  to the description page of Category:Environmentalism.  People will discuss it on WP:CFD for seven days, after which, if necessary, a bot will implement the decision. -- Beland 07:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Alan, The discussion at cfd has ended. You seem to be more knowledgeable about which articles need to be separated out.  Could you take care of this when you are able?  Thanks.  --Kbdank71 16:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Environment
Thanks for the invite. I joined WikiProject Environment and put in my $0.02-worth on the category discussion. CQ 04:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * hello alan, ive joined the environment project. i just wrote a new article called Soil contamination. please see my discussion under "hierarchy".  i think we need a crisper, more accurate third tier in this Environmental science tree. (well really the tier under Environmental science. let me know your reaction to my posting under "hierarchy" cheers, michael Anlace 04:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Alan, Greetings. I'm interested in helping to clean up the environmentalism pages. I guess that means I'm offering to join "project environment." I'd like to work on merging the Ecology Movement page into the Environmental Movement page. Also, I'd like to move some material from the History of Ecology page onto the Environmental Movement page. Don't know how much time I can really spend on this, but I'll try to make some changes here and there. Best, -Scott D. White 05:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good day Alan, I see I was too quick with my keyboard and have, in error, assumed you were unaware of the Deep Ecology movement, I agree that the envionmental movement and ecolgy movement are different names for the same thing. I have done a little editing to Envionmental Movement but had I known that there was a seperate article on the Envionmental Movement in The United States I would have spent my time there instead. I will focus there unless there is plan to merge or other major changes? Best regards. KAM 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rod Donald
I can't find mention of his death on any news source. Can you give a source please, and then I'll update the Current events in Australia and New Zealand and Recent deaths.-gadfium 00:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Category vote request
Hi, thanks for supporting me on the eccentric category. I would really appreciate your comment or vote at Categories_for_deletion. There is a real problem with this category and similar ones as mixing ethnicity-nationality-profession in categories is in my opinion extremely bad for the category structure. The main reason for this is many people are being added to these xxx American categories for having one grandparent of that ethnicity, therefore they can be in four xxx American categories. If we allow the ethnicity-nationality-profession mix in categories, for example, for someone who has grandparents of four different ethnicities and two professions i.e. actor and director, they could end up in four xxx American actor categories and four xxx American director categories which in my opinion would make Wikipedia look ridiculous. In my opinion this category should be merged with Category:American actors. Thanks Arniep 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A question
Hi Alan - a question for you. Have you considered standing for admin? I'd willingly nominate you if you're interested! Grutness...wha?  05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to second the nomination (not that seconding is needed).-gadfium 08:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the thought but I am happy with my current level of involvement (and lots of other stuff outside of Wikispace!). Alan Liefting 10:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * a shame... ah well, if you change your mind, let me know! Grutness...wha?  10:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh - more work...
I see you're writing stubs on people I know personally now. I suppose I should expand that... Grutness...wha?  05:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"Nanostubs""
Hi! I have no way of knowing when someone is planning on expanding an article. Single sentences are usually "shot on sight" for lack of content. Might I suggest quickly adding at least two more sentences about your subject before another admin comes along and deletes it again? - Lucky 6.9 08:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

We have a keeper! :) Your article is safe from us roving admins who are up way too late! - Lucky 6.9 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry
Greetings, editor! Your name appears on List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct: Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
 * 2) If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
 * 3) Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Environmental science hierarchy discussion
please see this discussion (item 6 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Environment#Wikipedia_articles_on_Environment and let us know your thoughts. there seems to be consensus so far in removing certain sub-cats and we need your direction.  also could you explain how the editing is done on these subcats? i have just written a new article called soil contamination and plan on writing more environmental science articles, but it would help if the hierarchy is more we developed and correct.  best regards, Anlace 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Soil contamination. Alan Liefting 02:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * hello alan, thanks for your prompt feedback to my query. i accept what youve stated on the subordinance of Soil contamination to Environmental chemistry. please see my new comments on the environmental template...and shouldnt the template for environmental science be consistent if not identical with the subcats of env science...look forward to hearing your thoughts, cheers, an environmental scientist Anlace 03:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * hello again, im not sure i heard a response on the above query. thank you Anlace 03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Environmental science
theres a lively dialog shaping up here. i favor keeping the template with mods. let me know what you think after reading the updates there...thnks Anlace 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:River stewards
I created Category:River stewards because it was an orphan (as in, an article linked to the category but the category page didn't exist). No other reason. anthony 16:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of amending the comment above to link to the category instead of making this talk page a page of it.-gadfium 19:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd Love to but Here's the Rub
Hi! Something needs adjusted: Conjecture email disconnected in your preferences while your sig is telling people to email? You're generating this "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Alan_Liefting" with your signature but that gives Deadend. My version of that reads "No send address From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search You must be logged in and have a valid e-mail address in your preferences to send e-mail to other users. Return to Main Page. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser" "

i.e. ] and my reaction to it. So checking Sources...
 * My Subject: Commons Photo at Kennywood Park The Racer: 
 * which generated this reaction User:Fabartus/KWR Query, an aborted notation in the Virgin talk page.


 * So, I infer that the use of this photo for both the racer and the thunderbolt is wrong (links at bottom). But which is wrong? Thanks, and yes, it's okay if I'm wrong. I'm really just 30+ yrs overdrawn on memory.Fra nkB
 * I have had no involvement with this image. Alan Liefting 03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Strange thing then. Were you ever at Kennywood? Or upload stuff from others?
 * (Ans. Here, I'll watch) Fra nkB 03:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I was never at Kennywood (or the US for that matter) and I very rarely upload stuff. See. I also do not have any sockpuppet accounts. Alan Liefting 03:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Devil's Lake
If you would like to give a stern talking-to for placing the Devil's Lake article in the top-level Environmental Law category, please message Dhartung, who is responsible for the offending edit. I myself have done much to tone down US-centric POV in this article, as it is a controversial cross-border subject. -- AlexWCovington  (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were toning it down, but I reverted Alan Liefting. The U.S. may not be the world, but Manitoba is not in the U.S.  Gene Nygaard 03:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Cellulose plant conflict...
Categories such as Category:Pollution by country are, as I understand it, not meant to be used in articles, but only as part of the category hierarchy (sort of abstract classes). Logically, the article should be under Category:Pollution in Argentina and Category:Pollution in Uruguay, which themselves wuld be under Category:Pollution by country, but I doubt those two would be very populated right now. What you're looking for is a category that covers specific events or incidents related to pollution, in the manner of Category:Oil spills. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Cellulose plant conflict between Argentina and Uruguay. Alan Liefting 23:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant, redundant and inappropriate category
Your removal of the Enviroment category from the Atmospheric dispersion modeling and the Standard conditions of temperature and pressure articles doesn't particularly disturb me. However, stating your reason as being that the category was irrelevant, redundant and inappropriate was laying it on a bit thick, don't you think? Are you perhaps frightened that some of the environmentalists reading those article might get infected with a yearning to learn some environmental science and/or environmental engineering? Those articles are not infectious, you know. mbeychok 06:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No I do not think it was laying it on a bit thick. I was merely stating the reasons for the change. It is polite to give a reason for an edit  I did not do it to prevent environmentalist from learning about environmental science.  Environmentalists after all base the reasons for their principles on environmental science.  I am trying to prevent redundancy in the category system.  Can you imagine what Category:Environment would look like if every single article in List of environment topics was in it? It would be a huge category list. Having articles placed in categories that are narrowly defined plevents the clutter and redundancy.  The Standard conditions for temperature and pressure article I feel has too many categories. It should perhaps have Category:Science and Category:Engineering whch would make some of the sub-disciplines redundant. Alan Liefting 09:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Pollutant category (see Talk:Flue gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion)
I had removed the Category:Pollutants since I placed the article in the more specific category of Category:Air pollution. Alan Liefting 22:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comment. Alan, the Category:Pollutants only has about a dozen articles.  Seven of them (namely Nitrogen Oxide, Nitrogen Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Peroxyacyl Nitrates (PANs), Ozone, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and SO2) are air pollutants. If we transferred all of them to the "more specific" Category:Air pollution, the Category:Pollutants would be sadly depleted.


 * But that isn't my main point. My main point is that readers coming  to Wikipedia to search for information about a pollutant will  probably look for the specific pollutant's name (like Nitrogen dioxide) ... or they might look for "pollutants" ... or they might look for "air pollutants" ... or they might look for "smog" or "haze" or "greenhouse gas" ... or for many other keywords. I don't think we should limit them to the point that if they don't happen to search for the "more specific" keywords of "air pollutants", they will leave empty-handed. Quite the contrary, we should try to think of all the possible relevant category keywords they might use and make sure that we list in those categories.  In other words, make it easier for them to find what they are looking for ... not harder.mbeychok 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a valid point. Most of the aticle in the category are air pollutants.  Is a Category: Air pollutants reguired as a sub cat of Category:Air pollution? Alan Liefting 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Alan, I think everything is okay just as it is now. I really don't think another sub-category is needed. - mbeychok 03:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Environmental chemistry
Hi again! I ran into an edit of yours at this category, and I'm not sure why there's a category hierarchy here, as I've never seen one in a category before. Is there a policy or other reasoning behind this? Regards, Ziggurat 21:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In hindsight I guess it is simply a repeat of the category heirarchy system but it does serve as a good navigation aid for those not familiar with the topics. There is no policy on it as far as I know. It would be difficult to implement on some of the articles that have multiple categories.  I might redo the edit. Alan Liefting 21:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, cheers. I guess a manual hierarchy would be overkill given that automatically generating multiple hierarchy paths is what the category system is designed to do. Plus I wouldn't relish trying to add this to all x-thousand categories! Ziggurat 21:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah I did realise it would be a big ask (and task!). I was really only going to use it on a number of selected environmental topics since some editors are confuced about the approp category for articles.  The table I created here at WikiProject Environment is hopefully an aid as to where articles should be placed. Alan Liefting 00:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Auckland meetup
Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist category
Thanks for catching that. Unfortunately, there actually isn't any category on my watchlist page. See for yourself (But I understand what you mean). Of course, this was supposed to be temporary, until List of environment topics on one page was created on List of environment topics. As it stands, that article is completely useless as a watchlist, since related changes only works for all the articles on a page. I'll create the aforementioned article by exporting my watchlist, but I hope you'll find a more suitable name. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Environmental science timelines
Hi, again. Could you explain why you removed environmental timelines from List of timelines? If the science section isn't appropriate, could you find a place on that list that fits? Thanks. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the three timelines that where listed two were about environmental issues and the other was about metrology. Meterology is a science and a small part of it is environmental science but this does not make it an environmental science. The two environmental timelines, on the whole, documented anthropogenic effects on the natural environment.  Environmental science generally studies anthropogenic effects as a science but very few of the entries on the timelines were about the science itself. The timelines had political and social dates as well as  some of the actual science. See also Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_25.  Environmental science and environmental issues are difficult to categorise since they cross so many different fields of knowledge. Alan Liefting 04:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, so you have no general objection to including the articles on List of timelines, just to their specific placement on the page? Would a more appropriate heading satsify you?  If so, what would you recommend?  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to having them on the List of timelines. I guess I was a little hasty in deleting them outright rather than reassigning them to the right section. I guess a seperate Environmental issues heading could be created for the environmental timelines. Alan Liefting 05:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alan, I forgot to thank you for taking the time to get back to me. Thanks.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wood
It seems I have misunderstood what the category consists of. My apologies. Give me a day or so & I will reverse the inappropriate entries. In the meantime could you please give me the definition of what should be in this category. Thanks GrahamBould 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed "Wood" from all NZ trees, except a very small number of trees notable for their timber (Kauri, Rimu, etc). More than that I cannot do.  I'm still not 100% sure of where you draw the line... but thanks for pointing this out GrahamBould 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NZ Flag change
Hello Alan, you might like to add to your userpage, instead of the raw html. That way you'll be added to our category! Thanks, Lewis --Lholden 03:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)