User talk:Alanl/Archive 1

Possible vandalism
Hi Allan Somebody from exxom Mobil IP adr 158.35.225.230 is changing your commets at Talk:Traffic Collision Avoidance System wit this [] Regards Angelbo 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo is coming to Sydney
Sorry to spam you if you aren't interested. See Meetup/Sydney for more info if you are interested. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Huggle conflict
I think we both hit the trigger on a blanking of Articles for deletion/Eproctophilia -- unfortunately, this ended up dropping a vandalism notice on my talk page when you reverted my reversion of the blanking. Would you mind making a note on my talk page that the notice was in error? I have a spotless record, and wish to keep it, thanks! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Hi Alan. I got a message about disruptive editing, while I didn't do anything wrong. I just changed the name St Martin's Cathedral into Church because this is the current name of the building... I know it may still be used by mistake, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so should use the correct current name of things. Kind regards, --Speha702 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Speha, be careful: as you will notice here, according to the city's website this building is a cathedral, although its name sometimes refers to "church". Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm sorry to tell you, but this is not true. A cathedral is the church that contains the seat of a bishop. Since this church resorts under the diocese Brugge/Bruges, nowadays, it's a 'church' (kerk in dutch) and not a cathedral. Regards, --Speha702 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. So perhaps it would be a good idea to find a reference for the fact that this particular church has no sitting bisshop. Cheers. DVdm (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * This book (in dutch however) gives a good summary of all the 'churches' within the diocese Brugge and also describes the St Martin's Church in Ieper: "Jeroen Cornilly en Luc Verpoest, Monumentaal West-Vlaanderen. Beschermde monumenten en landschappen in de provincie West-Vlaanderen. Deel 1. Arrondissementen Ieper, Kortrijk, Roeselare, Tielt, Brugge, 2001." Yours sincerely, --Speha702 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Albert Newton MS
Hello Alanl. I am just letting you know that I deleted Albert Newton MS, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. &mdash; Joseph Fox 01:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly
for watching my back! Geoff Who, me?  01:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Laser
See here. Your script seems to have a flaw: it closed an image tag that wasn't open, converting the caption into a body-text paragraph. Worse, it removed the leading colon from an image tag in that caption, which converted it from a link to the image page to a displayed image within the article. --Srleffler (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm too much of a AWB newbie to be using a script, I was confused because there was a newline where the caption started; in the future I will take more pains to preview any changes I make. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Alanl (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Robert Pogue Harrison merger
On the talk page of Robert Pogue Harrison, you keep making additions to the talk page and then deleting all contents on it using Twinkle. Is something the matter? Ratibgreat (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I'm writing a script that will help Automate article mergers. I was using my script to generate the message and then I use TW to undo it. I can't use the Sandbox because that is a different namespace. I will use some articles so it doesn't clog up your watchlist. Sorry for the confusion. Alanl (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Zika fever merge into Zika virus
Second your proposal.FeatherPluma (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Survey for new page patrollers
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

The Presets Pacifica Album Feedback
Thanks for the feedback on my first wikipedia article. I added the citations as suggested. I found the most permanent links I could, and indeed found a factual error which I only caught as a result of finding citations (half the point I guess). I got up to 10 edits finally and was able to put the cover art up. -TomWardrop 10:58, 02 September 2012 (UTC)

Your message
That was not appropriate. I am well aware that the article is overly-reliant on his parliamentary biography, strangely enough, since I wrote the article. I suggest that it might be a more helpful endeavour in future to actually do some research rather than leaving incredibly patronising messages on strangers' talk pages. (Editing help? Seriously?) The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The comment that on your user page was made automatically by the new curation tool, which is used by New Page patrollers to review new articles on wikipedia to ensure they meet editorial guidelines, especially in regards to conflict of interest and copyright issues. Pages are tagged with templates like stub so others editors can search for articles that require attention, and is not intended to be a critique of your efforts.

Alanl (talk)


 * In that case, perhaps you may want to limit yourself to dealing with conflict of interest and copyright issues in future, rather than leaving insulting messages for editors taking the time to do actual research. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand you feel insulted because the message did not take into account that you may be still be working on the article, and that was not my intention. Again, the message was placed automatically when I tagged your article and currently I have no means of changing what message is placed using the tool. I have left a message on the talk page of the person responsible for the tool about this issue. Perhaps you can contact him about what message should be left in a user's talk page in this circumstance? Sorry about the misunderstanding. Alanl (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly! There is nothing insulting unless someone makes multiple mistakes in his review (like tagging uncategorised when categories are already added, tagging unreferenced when each sentence is referenced). You should thank Alanl for his friendly behaviour here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for raising it in the appropriate place. I do find it very odd that this tool feels the need to send rude messages alerting one if an article they wrote is short. It might seem that this would be obvious to an article's author. I may be new but I do get the feeling some people around here aren't big on social niceties. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

To explain further, the undesirable user experience you faced is a side effect of the eternal tradeoff between vetting users vs productivity.

Past experience in other failed projects (such as Citizendium) have shown that 'high commitment' policies such as verifying contributor qualifications, 'expert editors', forcing contributors to reveal their real name and soforth leads to very low article creation rates (~25000 articles vs wikipedia's 4100000). In other words, in a project where contributors receive no financial renumeration to succeed, there has to be very few barriers to entry.

But to allow anybody, including unregistered users to edit and create articles means there are thousands of new articles created every day, and because wikipedia has a very high page rank, meaning that wikipedia usually shows up as the first search result in google, there is great temptation for self promoters and advertisers to use wikipedia as a platform for their message, which must be stopped of course. But unfortunately it sometimes can be hard at a glance for someone on new page/vandalism patrol to tell who is an innocent contributor, and who is not, and because there are thousands and thousands of edits made to wikipedia made every day, it is possible to unduly chastise an innocent contributor for not following editorial guidelines. Specifically in your case, it is hard to tell when I am checking a new page whether or not it is still being worked on or not.

Your other concern is another difficult tradeoff: biting the newcomer vs chastising the regulars, and in a free project such as wikipedia, it is very difficult to police users who are impatient when they are technically in the right. I am not in any way excusing for some of the intimidating aspects of wikipedia, but like democracy, it is the least worse choice compared to the other alternatives. Alanl (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * not quite, Alanl. When you use automated processes, you are responsible for their appropriateness. Most notices placed by a gadget can be modified once they have been placed, and even those that cannot, like the one in question, are removable when not appropriate.   It is therefore wise to check, and modify notices as needed. I customarily do that especially when it appears to be a unless it's clear to me that it will not be necessary.  The messages placed by the curation tool, and other automated tools  do need fixing, & there are projects to do so. At the present pace, it may take years, so in the meantime, there's all the more reason to check after using them. I know it makes the work slower, but it helps people more and avoids problems later.  Certainly the regulars make mistakes, sometimes serious mistakes, but when I see something apparently unsatisfactory done by someone usually very competent, I leave a personal note--probably it was just a slip, but if there is in fact something they do not understand, it needs to be discussed.
 * But similarly, when someone leaves me a notice that I dod not really need, I do not get concerned about it, unless it appears the individual is doing so because they do not understand the rules, in which case I teach them.


 * In this specific case, the notice that there was only one source was wholly appropriate., and perfectly routine, and i would certainly not have gotten the least upset if someone had added this to one of my articles. The reminder might not have been necessary, but why should I mind being reminded.  Nonetheless, I do not add such notices to pages written by experienced editors, though I do remind them if they leave something unsourced altogether.


 * Interesting about Citizendium. I was one of the original expert editors when that project started. There were many reasons it failed--the difficulty in getting writers was one of them, but I don't think real names were the key problem in that. Nor were academic qualifications necessary for those writing, just those approving. Rather, it was the complexity of the editing process, and the difficulty in getting articles approved due to the rather low quality and commitment of some of the experts.  Other reasons for failure were  the idiosyncratic policies of the director, especially his deliberate decision to make the copyright incompatible with Wikipedia, and his frequent over-interference in the details.  But one problem was unavoidable:   Wikipedia was by far the larger and more exciting project.  Even then, and certainly now, there's a very high barrier to entry for a new free open content encyclopedia.


 * What I came here about, however, is some other much more important problems in your patrolling.


 * 1) Speedy deletion for lack of importance does not apply to films. It applies only to those specific classes of articles listed in WP:CSD. For something other than these with no indications of importance, use prod or AfD.
 * 2) That an author has written a book, other than a self published book, is an indication of possible importance, and enough to prevent speedy. It's not necessarily enough to show enough  notability to keep an article at AfD -- far from it -- the criteria are at WP:AUTHOR. But the standard at speedy is deliberately less than notability: much less--speedy is intended for the obviously hopeless, of which we see plenty.
 * 3) A article can only be listed for speedy on a particular criterion once. If you disagree with a tag removal (other than by the original author) you must use AfD.
 * 4) There's a special standard for academic faculty, WP:PROF. Full professors at major universities normally meet it, though it has to be shown.
 * 5) The criteria for no context is that you can quite literally not tell what the article is about. However bad it may be otherwise, the criterion does not apply. To say something is a village in India is context enough--unquestionably so when it says in what province the village is located.
 * 6) Similarly for no content: Nippon Seinen-kan Hall had content. It wasn't enough content, but there was a long article in the Japanese WP, already indicated and marked for expansion, which is all that is needed.
 * 7) The most important problems are the ones that need tagging. For Tree of Science (Ramon Llull) the major  problem is the lack of references. That it has no lead section is comparatively trivial. (And it's wrong, also--for such a short stub, there is no way of doing a lede section.)
 * I don't want to overemphasize errors. I know you'll learn from experience, & therefore  I list all I noticed.  You are doing one of the most important things right that most people are not careful enough to do, which is leaving specific help addressing the actual problems in the article when it is clearly needed.   You are doing another thing that;'s important, when someone complains to you, you explain further, in a calm manner. You'd think everyone would do that, but many people don't--they either don't bother responding, or they respond inappropiately. Keep up the good work.  DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rhina Toruño Haensly
Hello Alanl. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rhina Toruño Haensly, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: (a) a university professor certainly passes A7, and (b) speedy has already been declined by DGG who said he considers this probably meets WP:PROF. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
I note that you have been tagging many pages for speedy deletion when they clearly don't meet the criteria listed at WP:CSD. Please familiarise yourself with the criteria before tagging any more. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is good advice for speedy taggers at WP:10CSD and WP:A7M. JohnCD (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where can I see which of my CSD calls were incorrect?Alanl (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've specified some above. But you can tell by looking at your contributions page & see which ones were not deleted.  DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Stub tags
Please take care not to add stub to an article like Capitol Theatre, Aberdeen which already has a specific stub template. It just wastes the time of other editors. Thanks. Pam D  07:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Electoral divisions in Ireland
Thanks for your message. I asked two questions on TeaHouse (which I had never heard of before). See Two questions. If you can help, that would be great. Thanks. MartinCollin 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)MartinCollin

Here I am trying to force hotlinks back to myself, although I suspect this can be automated: MartinCollin (talk)

Revert at BitTorrent
Your revert was correct, but it was not of a "good faith edit", it was of straight-up vandalism. Feel free to be bold when reverting such. --Lexein (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK genitalia terms are the only one word edits that deserve a vandal revert. Also it is my understanding that I should err on the side of AGF if I have doubts about the edit. Alanl (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

New Articles
Currently I have 5 more in process - still in user not in talk. Currently awaiting more reference material as I cannot quote from a book that is not in my hand.

In some of my reserch on the V and W Class I have found some minor problems but until I have complete info on the class will refrain from editing it.

I have been using the first group of articles to learn how your system works.

Looking forward to providing more input.

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgdem999 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me know when you think you're ready. They look good for your first attempt! Alanl (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Article HMS Valorous
This article was accepted however, does not appear in the V and W Class Destroyer listing.

Rgdem999 (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the box on the bottom of the article? The problem was that the article was titled HMS Valorous (1917 Destroyer), which is not in line with the naming convention on ships. That list assumes article titles to following that convention for it to work. I saw that someone has renamed your article so you should be able to see it now, but if you still can't, bypass your browser's cache. I believe you should be able to move articles yourself in a week, let me know if you need any help in the meantime. You're doing really good work!  Alanl (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Talkback
There is also an explanation now, and another minor task for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

MetaTexis article
Hi Alanl! Thanks for your comments. If the MetaTexis article is advertising, all other articles on software products would be advertising, as well. Please explain in more detail why exactly the MetaTexis article that I created based on another existing articles (Wordfast, SDL Trados) is advertising while the other articles that I took as models are not viewed as advertising. And another, basic remark: If you allow software products to have articles, all software products in the same market should be allowed to have articles. Otherwise you make Wikipedia an advertising instrument that can be used by market leaders, just by suppressing information on competing software products!--Hcbruns (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 14:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Hey Alan — I'd love to work hand in hand with you to keep the Objective-Cologne page online, if you tell me what's inapropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuffmc (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013
Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 08:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Sydney)

Wikipedia trainers requested in New South Wales
Wikimedia Australia is looking for experienced Wikipedians to help out at training sessions across New South Wales, in particular in Newcastle, Wollongong, Port Macquarie and in Parkes. If you're interested, the details are at the following link:


 * http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaau-l/2013-July/003677.html

We'd love to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite
Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 08:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

Invitation
There is a backstage pass coming up to be followed by an editathon in the State Library of New South Wales on 23 November. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a special opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you can participate either online or in person with other Wikipedians. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This message has been delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Sydney.

CMDPortal
You unreviewed CMDportal after my review and what does this mean ,please explain: " The username who created this article strongly suggests a CoI problem." UBS talk  12:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * the username FilipeCMD suggests that this user is an employee of said company, and hence a conflict of interest. The article strongly reads like a press release and needs a strong rewrite if not deleted all together. Alanl (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh so that COL UBS  talk  12:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * COI. Wikipedia has a big problem with PR folks trying to pass thinly disguised press releases as articles. Essentially, there is a very high standard for articles concerning any for-profit corporation. Alanl (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Information.svg Hello Alanl and UBS, after reviewing the article for citations, I found the article to be thinly advertised and non-notable according to our WP:ORG guidelines. I have marked the page for deletion. Please give your review and suggestion here.    Mr RD    14:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: NedPower Mount Storm, LLC
Hello Alanl. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, what is the difference between this and The_Watch_Fund? I've been away from WP for a while and need to get back in touch with the limits of acceptability with corporate articles. Alanl (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Watch Fund was promotional because it looked like a solicitation for investments ("Investors are told to expect a minimum return of 20% at the end of three years daily, while Yahoo! Finance quoted the possibility of a 400% return."). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion?
Hi Alan, I didnt know if I had to send you a message explaining the issue or to the person who deleted it. Hence I am sending it to both. Your link to contest a speedy deletion didnt have any contest button.

-- I am not sure why my page Koroli page seemed like unambiguous promotion. Koroli is a hillstation that is coming up near Mumbai, MH, India. It is just like many other hillstations who have pages on wiki (Nearest and a popular one is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonavla)

This hillstation is a much anticipated one in this geography and they have started putting advertisements for it.

I am not associated with the location promoters in any way. I read about it in newspapers and saw their banners somewhere in the city. In my point of view, it would definitely help people to know that something like this is coming up in their state which they would visit in the future.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gradtamu (talk • contribs) 14:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will assume good faith and take your story as true. The problem is that when I read the article, it felt to me like a press release, something wikipedia certainly does not allow. Since it has been deleted, an admin concurred. If you want to edit the article comply with wikipedia's guidelines, you can ask an admin to move it into your userspace so you can edit it at your leisure. Keep in mind I have the article name on my watchlist and will keep a lookout for inappropriate external links. Alanl (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, drafts have less aggressive deletion criteria; however, I suspect that drafts are currently preferably created using the article creation wizard, where the contributor receives feedback on his or her work while the submission goes through the articles for creation queue. Gryllida (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Jacqueline Quinn
Hi: You accepted this page at AfC, so I thought you should know it's been nominated for deletion: WP:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Quinn. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access
An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to  comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivity
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)