User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 7

Christopher Taylor (musician)
I realize that, but Chris Taylor links to it. There really wasn't a rationale for db-bio, but the article didn't meet WP:MUSIC either; redirecting is a pretty standard compromise. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:The Hollow Men film promotional image.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:The Hollow Men film promotional image.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree it would be useful in an infobox about the film, but I don't think it's really needed when there's barely a line about the film. Non-free images should only be used if they're absolutely needed, and I just don't think this is. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lady Joan Boyle
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Lady Joan Boyle, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Joan_Boyle. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Link is a mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lady Joan Boyle
A tag has been placed on Lady Joan Boyle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It needed refs and expanding not deletion. Did you notice that I split it from Joan Boyle? I may not have transferred the references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Categories
Hi! I notice you removed the category "Science" from history of science. Please note the topic article rule, which indicates that articles that are the main article for a category should also be in appropriate supercategories.--ragesoss (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * History of science is a sub cat of science. If the main topic of all the science subcats were placed in the science cat it would lead to an excess number of articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only 9 articles in the "Science" category. Even if all the subcategories had the main articles in "Science", it wouldn't be an excessive number (and if it was, that would be more of a sign that "Science" had too many subcategories).  In any case, articles related to science in the broadest sense should be in the "Science" category.--ragesoss (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Environmental issues with" categories
Hi, Alan. I've been running into these categories you created, and I'm fairly confused about why they were chosen as I find them confusing and difficult to understand. Were there any past discussions about these names that I can review? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Environmental issues is a phrase that myself and other editors started using, possibly independently of each other. It covers the anthropogenic effects of humans on the biophysical environment.  The list of environmental issues gives a feel for what it is all about. There was a bit of a discussion at Category talk:Environmental issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links, Alan. Please allow me a few days to catch up. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Briefly glancing at the discussion, my position on this topic mirrors that of Otto4711 who has nailed the problem. Unfortunately, he was not able to persuade anyone.  This is why I rarely participate in Xfd discussions.  In any case, I have invited Otto4711‎ to your talk page to revisit this topic if he so desires. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should take any discussion to Category talk:Environmental issues and notify WikiProject Environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have thought of that. Please move this discussion there. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to open a discussion but I don't see any, arhh, issue with the pages in question and I am not sure how to enunciate your thoughts on it. Can you outline your concerns? It would probably be best at Talk:List of environmental issues. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My exact concerns were raised by Kbdank71 and Otto4711 in the CfD for Category:Environmental threats. I would be happy to expand upon my concerns in the next day or so when I finish up a number of other tasks.  Why should the discussion take place on the list page?  The use of "topics" and "issues" makes this even more confusing.  I understand the arbitrary difference, but naming conventions are supposed to be clear and unambiguous.  These aren't.  Try to look at this as an outsider.  This is a real mess. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion should involve a wider set of editors. Perhaps take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment if you don't think list of environmental issues is the best place for such a discussion. I see no problem with having "topics" and "issues". "Topics" is the entirety of the articles (or at least a manageable and important set of them) whereas "issues" is a subset of these topics.  Issues are things that are controversial, problematic, of concern, notable - in short, an issue. A similar arrangement to the one here exists at List of economics topics, Category:Economic problems and Category:Economics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One way of getting editors to sit up and take notice it to put Category:Environmental issues up for a CFD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -
 * That would solve the problem of a centralized discussion, however, a "wider set of editors" is not necessarily a good thing. I would prefer to have editors who have knowledge about environmental articles and categories.  Frankly, the last place I will ever look for an informed opinion is on Xfd. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but that's how I see things, and I'm certainly not alone.  Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. I can see where you're coming from. It would be best to keep the discussion at WikiProject Environment. There are some pretty bad rationales given in XFD discussions. One of my pet peeves is the lack of differentiation between ecology, environment and conservation by some editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How about this clanger!!! Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 27. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Devils Punchbowl Waterfall, New Zealand.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Devils Punchbowl Waterfall, New Zealand.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Catsuits in popular culture
I have nominated Catsuits in popular culture, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Catsuits in popular culture. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hut 8.5 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Service as worship
I shall assume it was just a temporary lapse that caused you to omit any reason when you prodded service as worship. I cannot say I would be too concerned to see the article deleted but on the other hand I feel that there is something that can be built on. Is there a fancy Greek term for the idea with an article already here?

My mind leapt instantly to people like Elizabeth Fry, William Wilberforce or Albert Schweitzer. And as to that naïve "a developing thought": in my youth I was taken to see this plaque on Firbank Fell recording the stirring words of George Fox in 1652: let your lives speak. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could not find a Greek expression but laborare est orare seemed to fit the bill very well. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental impact of oil shale industry
Hi, Alan. You have done a great work with environmental articles. I wonder if you may be also interested to edit the Environmental impact of oil shale industry. This is an one of the oil shale series articles. The purpose is to bring all this series articles to the FA level (currently only the main article Oil shale has FA status and the Oil shale extraction is under FAC review). As you see, the Environmental impact of oil shale industry is still far away from the FA and even GA status. I think that the first target should be the GA status and the FA after that. I feel that "fresh" editors with fresh look and ideas could be great help for developing this article, so your input is appreciated. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

need circuit
I need design of powerfull atx power supply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.243.40 (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

upload an image, thanks!
hey, could you make me a favour, okay im in Ashley Leggat's wikipedia page, i want to upload a picture, but can't cause im not an autoconfirmed user, could you please upload this picture to Wikipedia, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelruiz (talk • contribs) 10:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I cannot upload images unless they are in the public domain, are my own images or can be used under a fair use agreement. I am unsure what the status of the image that you sent comes under. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

SAFE (organisation)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of SAFE (organisation), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.choosecrueltyfree.org.nz/aboutSafe.php. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary trap
Hey Alan,

I did some work on the evolutionary trap page. I still suck at editing and formatting these pages, but I think I added some good content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceALRobertson (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have copyedited it and added a category. I have a preference for inline citations but as it currently stands the reference style is quite acceptable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Forest parks
Sorry, I confused myself by ending up in a re-direct page for Regional parks "in" New Zealand.

What I intended to do was change "Parks" to "parks". I tried to fix it as you can see in my contributions list, but the first change seems to have taken precedence. What's the best way of fixing it? I didn't want to create more re-directs if I could avoid it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Countryside Council for Wales colour logo.jpg}
Thank you for uploading Image:Countryside Council for Wales colour logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:
 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Greeting O All Seeing STBotI. I am not worthy. I am a mere flawed human not a rational and flawless bot. I will endeavor to complete the image contributions in a thorough and correct manner in future........ -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Environmental impact of biofuels
The text of the article switches sometimes between "biodiesel" and "biofuels", so, unless the authors were accidentally confusing the two terms, the article seems to cover biofuels in general. If you want to take the stuff out of the article that doesn't deal specifically with biodiesel, and (if necessary) incorporate the stuff that deals generally with biofuels into the Issues relating to biofuels article, then I would support renaming this article to include "biodiesel" again. (I did see your talk page message, but after I had moved it.) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why the directions at WP:RM are:
 * Step 1 — Add move template to talk page
 * Step 2 — Create a place for discussion
 * Step 3 — Add the request to the "Other proposals" list on this page


 * Unfortunately Alan Liefting did step 3 first, but it is always good to look at the talk page before a move is made. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to Alan Liefting: I am confused about your nominating a move and than opposing that same move only a few minutes later. Did you simply wish to withdraw your nomination for the move? If so, just delete it from WP:RM. Since the page has just been moved to a third name it has created confusion over what is preferred. It is even more confusing, because you as a nominator did not fill out the reason section at WP:RM. However, the easiest thing to do is withdraw the RM and sort out with Twas Now whatever you two want to name it and just move it to that location. If you need an admin you can put it into the uncontroversial section of WP:RM. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, I just told 199.125.109.124 that you didn't initially propose this, but… well… you did (you added it to RM). Then you opposed the move? Please explain. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not request the page move. User:Mac placed a page move tag on Talk:Environmental impacts of biofuels but did not complete the process at WP:RM. I completed the process for that user but did not agree with the move. I was simply doing the admin thing to let editors know of the request. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I checked that edit but somehow overlooked what he had done. Also, that red message at the bottom of your talk page is annoying! :( It blocks part of the last two lines. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your new articles
Hi Alan - good to see you're still on WP - though I presume you'll be taking time off with campaigning work in the next couple of months?

The new articles look good, though all of them can do with expansion, of course. I'm impressed by the extensive referencing - something rare on new articles. I moved the Forest parks one to "of", which I'm pretty sure is the correct convention to use. Other than that, I'm not sure what I could do as far as suggestions for improvements, though perhaps the history sections are ones where there's a lot more that can be written quite easily, especially on the hydroelectricity one - it would be a useful addition to the forest parks one, too, which is currently little more than a list. Other than that, they look like fine starts.

BTW, on the subject of these articles, you may be interested in one of the main cover stories on today's Otago Daily Times - looks like there's another long-distance rail-corridor walking track being mooted in the Otago Goldfields area between Roxburgh and Lawrence. Grutness...wha?  01:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that James. Am trying to find stuff relating to Forest parks in general but not much is forthcoming. Time is limited for me at present of course. Will get into it after the election!. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)



Photo?
Hi again Alan - just a thought, given the current weather. IIRC you're in Canterbury, and the article on the Nor'west arch could do with a photo. Is there any chance you might be able to snap one sometime? Grutness...wha?  23:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep. Can do. Will put it on my list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Zalul article's information
Hi Alan,

I wanted to know why have you delited a lot of text from the Zalul article. tnx. omer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omerler (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article had been tagged as a copyright violation. Deleting the text and bringing it up to the Manual of Style standard solved the copyright issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

3rr at DDT
Looks like you've been here a while and you probably know all about it, so please excuse my drawing your attention to the three-revert rule. Tom Harrison Talk 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of it and I have never been guilty of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Trend in New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions for different sectors from 1990 to 2005.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trend in New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions for different sectors from 1990 to 2005.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

DDT (molecule)
Sorry if I was harsh or curt in my edit summaries and talk page posts earlier. But what do you think about this page? It might even be possible to merge it with Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane and Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene, since the only material in these articles not already covered in DDT is the chemistry. The merged article could be called Chemistry of DDT or something like that, and could also have schemes showing the degradation pathway of DDT. Anyways, if you like this idea and no one else objects strongly, then we could go ahead remove §1.0-1.3 from DDT, and most of the chembox. It think it would be nice to leave the images though, mainly for aesthetic reasons. I think this would probably get reduce page size by about ~5kb. What do you think? Yilloslime (t) 00:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will give an answer over at Talk:DDT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Project Hayes
Hi Alan

Looks like we've both written an article on Project Hayes, I used Project Hayes Wind Farm which I now see isn't right, my mistake. Should I delete my article and maybe put some of the info into yours? SmokeySteve (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your article is more comprehensive. I will copy your stuff over my stuff at Project Hayes and then redir Project Hayes Wind Farm to it. That is probably the best solution. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I leave Te Uku Wind Farm to you? I am rather busy at the moment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Righto. Thanks for the fixes. -SmokeySteve (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No sweat. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaiwera Downs Wind Farm‎
Thanks for the fix-ups, looks like my proof reading is a bit lacking! Just wondering why you removed the co-ordinates, is it to do with referencing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeySteve (talk • contribs) 09:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I moved the coords to the bottom. I think that is editing convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahh right... cheers -SmokeySteve (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Censorship by country
I have nominated Censorship by country, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Censorship by country. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 00:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiking article getting killed
Alan:
 * I see you've been active editing the Tramping article.


 * Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in trying to save an article of potential interest to hikers in North America and elsewhere.


 * Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests and a narrow, clinical orientation toward medicine.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.


 * After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.


 * I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the rather vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

Calamitybrook (talk) 05:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, I will give it a go. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Dunno about how this topic is viewed by backcountry users outside of North America. Do New Zealand hikers worry about it?

In the U.S., backpackers are generally obsessed with it, I think much too much so, depending on location.


 * In Canada, people seem a bit more rational, but it's not something that's ignored.


 * Apparently these merger guys only think in terms of guys in white coats and microscopes. Even at that, TD and WD (in North America anyway) are generally (or popularly thought to be) caused by different microbes (i.e. Giardia vs everything else).


 * But regardless of that question, the relevant factors faced by a tourist in Brazilian or Thailand hotel vs a hiker in British Columbia are completely different.

Calamitybrook (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Valures Party logo.gif
A tag has been placed on Image:Valures Party logo.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - Icewedge (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

NEW Inquiry to Alan Liefting
Are you the Editor that supervises the posting new information in Wikipedia articles about the Environment, Nature Reserve issues and information? If so, don't you think that it will enhance Wikipedia to have reference of the efforts to create Nature Reserves and Refuges among independent non-profit organizations and the private sector ? I feel we need more exposure to support all non-governmental organizations efforts to create Nature Reserves and Wildlife Refuges in any country, were governments are not dedicating a great amount of efforts to support environmental care and protection; such as in Mexico, where most of the major environmental issues are created or the result of government institutions lack of good practices to preserve the environment, although some effort has been made in resent years, still private and civil non-profit groups are doing a major effort. If adding a small post to an existing Wiki-article indicating such efforts was not of your approval, will you consider a totally individual article to be included in Wikipedia about the efforts of such non-governmental groups; personally I think it would help create awareness and support to do so, but I rather ask what will be of your approval (and other editors) before further action on my part. I am truly interested in spreading good comments and support to places I have visited that are doing such great job to protect the environment and create Nature Reserves and Wildlife Refuges without governmental support, sometimes with the total lack of understanding of officials which continue “looking the other way” when they allow their own institutes’ staffs to continue bad environmental habits in cities and many rural areas of their countries…. Please let me know your thoughts and YES, I did read the Wikipedia guidelines to contributors, but found that each editor has its own “personal agenda of what may or may not be posted” and it is best to have a friendly understanding of what you prefer and will let be posted than not, so please let me know your point of view and comments here or send them to my own talk page. Thanks a lot, from User --Dvknovak (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Dvknovak 6:55 PM October 1st, 2008


 * I do not supervise any postings - I merely keep a watch on environment related articles and edit as I see fit. Environmental information is of increasing interest and importance and it is the area of my interest. New postings can be made by anyone and the whole Wikipedia community determines whether an article should remain or should be deleted. As an editor you are most welcome to add information that Wikipedia currently lacks. There is a systemic bias in articles towards "developed counties" which does need addressing. See WP:CSB for more information.


 * I will give you full support on articles that you create on the topics you mention unless they are not verifiable, notable and neutral point. See also Five pillars.


 * My personal agenda is to get all verifiable, notable and neutral point of view information onto Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not paper I have no problems with anyone creating stub articles and information that is of use to a limited readership. Note that I have no say in what I consider what "may" be posted but I do have my say in what "should" be posted via WP:AFD discussions, talk tages and with the various tags that can be placed on an article. You could also consider joining  WikiProject Environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nanocrystal solar cell illustration
Hi Alan,

I was looking thorough the Wiki images that need to be re-illustrated and ran across this nanocrystal solar cell illustration. I'd like to redraw it to improve the article, but it isn't clear exactly what each of the elements in the illustration are.

I think it's important that we are as clear as possible on this image, because if you google(images) "nanocrystal solar cell" this is one of the first and only diagrams that comes up. If you could send me a slightly more descriptive version of the illustration, I could redraw it in illustrator and make it more attractive and concise.

You post to my wikitalk page. Thanks!

Randywehrs (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Randy Wehrs

Thanks for your help
Thanks Alan for your help - please excuse me if I am taking a while figuring this out. Not sure what you mean about the references - do you mean adding titles to each of the links. Obviously I am a newbie.

--Polakl (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Alan - I figured out how to add Cite to the toolbar... Now I am just working through how to use it. Just need to do some reading and experiment. Thanks again.

--Polakl (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:Weka.jpg
Image:Weka.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Weka Bird.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

List of chess terms
Why did you move List of chess terms? I haven't seen any discussion of this move. Quale (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:United Future new logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:United Future new logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sean Dempsey
I have nominated Sean Dempsey, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Sean Dempsey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. AngelOfSadness talk  00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)   AngelOfSadness  talk  00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not create it. I merely added a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DDT in the United States
Alan, unless I'm missing something, DDT in the United States is an exact copy of DDT, so there's no need to include a link to it from DDT. Furthermore, I see no reason why wikipedia should host the exact same content in two different places, which it why I redirected DDT in the United States to DDT. Am I missing something? Yilloslime (t) 22:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You will notice that I placed the globalize tag on the DDT article. There is information in that section that belongs in a DDT in the United States to avoid systemic bias.  It will also help with size and readability of the DDT article. The two articles need to be edited to prevent the repetition, systemic bias and help address the DDT article length. I will leave that to you since it is your area of expertise. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * One thing at time: do you at least agree that at with DDT in the United States in its current state, there is no reason to include a link to from DDT? Yilloslime (t) 22:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The DDT article should have the information that is specific to the US moved to the DDT in the United States and the See also link should then remain. There is stuff about the EPA etc that does not belong in the DDT article.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are free to expand DDT in the United States, and once it contains significant content not already covered in DDT I would support a See also link. My point is simply that as long as the article is merely a recapitulation of DDT, there's no point in such a See also link (and there's probably no point in the article even existing). Where has my logic gone astray? Yilloslime (t) 23:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat: there is info in the DDT article that should be in the DDT in the United States. I will leave it up to yourself and other editors to do. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, the creator of the article and the editor who wants to link to it, to justify it, not me. Yilloslime (t) 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is utter rubbish! You are taking ownership of the DDT article and you are stifling all the edits of it. I refuse to waste my time doing any complex edits to get the balance right between the DDT article and any spin off article because I know that you will revert them. Please stop your ploy of keeping the DDT article to what you want. WP is dynamic and growing in size. The DDT article cannot remain static. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alan, you've made several attempts at Talk:DDT and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals to split DDT. I have my opinion on the proposal, but I'll abide by consensus, and so far consensus has not been on your side. This isn't an ownership issue, it's consensus. If were you I'd consider moving away from the horse carcass at this point. Yilloslime (t) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you have begun another split proposal at DDT. Given that this is your third attempt and you rejected my split proposal, I wonder if we could come to some sort of truce after this. I'm to willing to abide by consensus, and if consensus is different this time, then I'll live with it, and go along with the split. But if, after a reasonable amount of time, (say 1 month?), there's no consensus to split, I would appreciate if you'd hang it up, and not propose splitting a forth time. Does this seem reasonable? Yilloslime (t) 00:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DDT in the United States
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article DDT in the United States, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hope this makes sense. Yilloslime (t) 00:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, and just to be clear:
 * 1) I think that the material in DDT needs to be in the article, since, as I've previously discussed, understanding what happened in the U.S. around that time is critical to understanding the global DDT story.
 * 2) As long as DDT in the United States is merely an exact copy of DDT I don't see any purpose in the article existing, and certainly no point in linking to it from DDT.
 * 3) I don't, however, have anything against a sub-article on DDT in the U.S., if it's substantially different from and presents material in addition to what's already covered in DDT.
 * But I could be wrong/in the minority, so:
 * 1) If someone other than you comes along and removes the PROD I won't pursue this any further.
 * 2) If you or someone else comes along a substantially improves the article and removes the PROD, I won't pursue this any further.
 * 3) If you remove the PROD and the article remains a duplicate of the material in DDT, then I will likely take it to AfD.

FYI
Maybe it's just my browser, but your "If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere" banner at the bottom of this page obscures that last line of text. For example, once I press "save changes" this sentence won't be readable. Yilloslime (t) 23:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the template fixed to your satisfaction?
If so, you can withdraw your nomination, like this:


 * Withdraw nomination - and your sig.

If not, then please let me know what concerns you, so we can find the best solution.

Next time, before going for deletion of a page I'm the author of, please contact me so we can seek a solution together. I may also be of help in showing how components fit into the overall navigation system.

Keep up your excellent work on Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you in the future.

Cheers.

The Transhumanist 21:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The template is now redundant and its use on other pages can be confusing . See Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 21 for further discussion. I am not sure how much buy in other editors have of the templates at Index templates. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the templates have been in place since last December or earlier (Health was created in Feb 2007, Philosophy in Aug 2007, etc.) and have generated no complaints. The templates are obviously navigation menues.  Any potential confusion is cleared up by a single click on a link on a template.  Did they confuse you, and if so, how long were you confused?  Or are you just worried about them creating confusion?  The Transhumanist  23:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Focus on the Family New Zealand logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Focus on the Family New Zealand logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

David Henderson (Christchurch, New Zealand)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of David Henderson (Christchurch, New Zealand), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: David Henderson (New Zealand). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * False positive. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

Copyright violation in List of Travel the Road episodes
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on List of Travel the Road episodes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because List of Travel the Road episodes is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting List of Travel the Road episodes, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that the bot posted you a warning. I realise you just split the article. I have posted a warning on the talk page of the editor who posted the copyrighted text. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Copied Data
You have not provided much citations and if i am not incorrect this data is stolen from some website. you cannot guarentee its trueness and just place it on an encyclopedia. Thanks-- Burhan Ahmed (talk • contribs) 03:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See Talk:List of countries by ecological footprint. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Resplit Bertrand Russell
10-Nov-2008: Hello. User:Wikid77 here. I have re-split the article "Bertrand Russell" but also left reduced text in the main article, with plans for further condensing. I noticed you split the text on 8 May 2008 (but the split was rejected), and if you have time to rejoin the discussion, see:
 * Talk:Bertrand_Russell.

I will check back here for a reply (when you have time). -Wikid77 (talk) 11:51, 10 Nov 2008

Adam Foulds - marked for deletion
Hi. I noticed that you marked this article, which I created, for deletion. I'm not sure why. The subject is a noted young British author who has already won two significant prizes and has been nominated for several others. The page I created contained proper citations. It was not created at Adam Foulds's request; I have never met him, and was motivated to create the page by the fact that he was one of two authors nominated for this year's John Llewellyn Rhys Prize not to have his own WP entry. Could you please reply on my talk page, should you choose to reply? Thanks. Macphysto (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Farming_and_forestry_in_New_Zealand.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Farming_and_forestry_in_New_Zealand.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Project Aqua - Proposed?
Project Aqua has been reinstated in the List of power stations in New Zealand. My understanding is that Project Aqua has been cancelled, and Meridian Energy has stated it has no intention of reviving it. Surely on this basis, is it not misleading or incorrect to include Project Aqua as a proposed power project? --Pakaraki (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is a bit of an odd one out compared to the rest. But is WAS proposed and as noted in the table entry it was canceled.  The alternative to having it listed in the table is to create an "other"section and put it in that. Project Aqua was a pretty notable scheme so it should be incorporated somewhere on the page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a very large number of NZ power projects that got partly developed and then got stopped or shelved. (Examples include TCC2, Marsden B coal, Huntly coal supercriticals, OTC2, OTG repowering, Buller hydro, Mokau coal, Beaumont hydro, ...)  Some of these have consents but unlikely to proceed in the short term, some didn't even get that far, and some are pretty much dead (like Project Aqua and Marsden B coal).  Still, IMO it is incorrect to list Project Aqua as "proposed".  It has a wiki article, so that project is not forgotten.  I'm not sure if it is feasible to run a list of "also ran" power projects as well.  Perhaps it should be higher priority for wikipedia to get the real projects well documented.  --Pakaraki (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about throwing a link to it in the "See also" section? I am not so much worried about it getting "forgotten" - I just feel that such a large and notable scheme should be on that page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or even a table of inactive projects? Looking back at those examples, there are probably quite a few, and together make an important part of the NZ energy story.  --Pakaraki (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be good to get it all documented. Such a long list of inactive projects don't belong on List of power stations in New Zealand I guess. How about a new page entitled List of defunct power station projects in New Zealand? Need to have a History of power generation in New Zealand article to accompany it.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that new page would be appropriate. However, "defunct" isn't quite the right word, as it implies dead and buried.  Perhaps "dormant" or "inactive" would be more accurate.  These projects are just not active at present, they may revive or may not.  --Pakaraki (talk) 03:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis in New Zealand
Hmm, as far as I have seen links to main articles and important see also links (not those in the "See Also Section", but those in a separate informational section) usually go on right after a section is introduced. What articles are you referencing? TheXenocide (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right - Layout spells it out. I have also had a look at these articles, which are probably a good indication of WP style: Earth, God and Politics. I have been placing the See also at the end of a section because it is of lesser importance to the reader than the Main article link. See Environmental issues in the United States as an example of what I have done (although this article needs to be fleshed out more). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed. There still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 06:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was actually nominated by BorgQueen. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't even notice this message from you earlier.... anyway, yes, I noticed that BorgQueen nominated it, but I figured since you were the article creator then you would probably be the best person to talk to. You're the expert! :) &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 05:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cannabis in New Zealand
Alan Liefting, thanks for responding to the concerns at the dyk nomination. I trust you about the plagiarism thing&mdash;in fact, I'm in the same boat as you, as far as my background from university. It's just that I, and I think other DYK reviewers as well, take a very hard line against even the slightest plagiarism, so out of fairness we have to subject every article with previous plagiarism concerns to equal scrutiny. But, since you know what you're doing, no one needs to look over your shoulder or anything, and no one is going to second-guess you; we just need to have your word that you've taken a look and made sure the rest of the article is clean. I hope my earlier remarks at the DYK page didn't offend you; like I said, it was a totally honest mistake and the particular sentence was actually a pretty difficult one to reword anyway (I had to twist my brain in knots for a few minutes trying to think of another way to put it, since it was so straightforward to begin with). Anyway, I presume the reviewers there now will hold onto your article until you've had a chance to look through it, so I imagine it'll be passed once that is done. Thank you for contributing to DYK, &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 05:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to move article Template:Environment incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page Template:Environment to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.

Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:


 * 1) Added    at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article.  This creates the required template for you there.
 * 2) Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding  NewName  to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
 * 3) Added  PageName  to the top of today's section here.

If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: WPNZ
Hi Alan - I'd like to help, but the coding of the energy template is completely different to that of the WPNZ one, and my knowledge of markup is very limited - I'd almost certainly end up stuffing something up. User:Gadfium might be able to help, or failing that, leave a note on Template talk:WPNZ - someone's bound to be able to help there. Grutness...wha?  00:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's probably beyond my competence either. It appears the WikiProject templates are being migrated to a new format, so rather than hack the existing template to include the portal, we should move to the WPBannerMeta format. I suggest you ask Happy-melon who converted the Australian equivalent template to the new format and seems to have a lot of experience with WikiProject templates.- gadfium 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)