Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
Alan Liefting (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 437: | Line 437: | ||
==Here's an idea== |
==Here's an idea== |
||
...when another editor asks you to explain an unexplained deletion on the article talk page, why not go to the article talk page and explain your deletions, as if you were working with a colleague, instead of edit warring to make your deletion again? Sounds like a good idea to me.<p>Now, I'm going to restore "Phosphate mining" as a category to an article about a man who operated a phosphate mining company, and if you disagree with that, you bring it to the talkpage and say '''''why''''' you disagree witht it, because if you delete it without discussion again, I '''''will''''' bring this to the attention of admins. Thanks, [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
...when another editor asks you to explain an unexplained deletion on the article talk page, why not go to the article talk page and explain your deletions, as if you were working with a colleague, instead of edit warring to make your deletion again? Sounds like a good idea to me.<p>Now, I'm going to restore "Phosphate mining" as a category to an article about a man who operated a phosphate mining company, and if you disagree with that, you bring it to the talkpage and say '''''why''''' you disagree witht it, because if you delete it without discussion again, I '''''will''''' bring this to the attention of admins. Thanks, [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 05:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Firstly, I don't take kindly to threats such as calling in the admins. You are most welcome to bring my edits to the attention of the admins but I think you would be wasting everyone's time. I chose not to discuss it on the talk page since I gave a suggestion to you to become familiar with the categorisation system in my edit summary. Note that on on my first edit I used [[WP:HC|HotCat]] which does not always give the option to add an edit summary. |
|||
:If you are keen to discuss things (and I would if it is controversial or something with which I lack experience) why didn't you initiate a discussion on the talk page? I see that you have now added more suitable categories - apart from the phosphate category, which I will remove. -- [[User:Alan Liefting|Alan Liefting]] ([[User_talk:Alan_Liefting|talk]]) - 07:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:32, 6 September 2011
This page was last edited by Alan Liefting (talk | contribs) 12 years ago. (Update timer)
I didn't put this here. Hmmm, should I get rid of it? It is reminding me that I spend far too much time here on Wikipedia. |
List of compositions by Josef Tal
Dear Alan Liefting, what were the reasons for your recent deletions? - no explanation was given in summary. thanks - Etan J. Tal 23:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing is deleted. I was using AWB to recategorise the article and it automatically consolidated the references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- Understood. Thanks! Etan J. Tal 06:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hubertine Heijermans
Hello Alain Liefting, Maybe you are willing to give advice on the article. i know personally Paldopaldino, who edited this article. He does not master english very well. He wrote first in french, that is the language spoken where we live. But it was taken off the fr.wikipedia. Now i already tried to shorten the article, i want it to be much shorter, without irrelevant things. And i also prefer other more suitable and recent images, that only Paldopaldino can send and include. The problem is that I have no experience and included a few remarks in wikipedia starting this year. Hope you read this, and thanks for advice or help to make the article acceptable.Analdo--Analdo (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am only interested in the categorisation of the article. There are sufficient tags on the article to alert other editors of the work required. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Hubertine Heijermans
Yes. I understand, thank you. i asked because since 21 of april by SmackBot there was no réaction to tags. And categories are hard to find. Greetings, Analdo--Analdo (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Individual income tax in Singapore
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Individual income tax in Singapore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. Thank you. Courcelles 10:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Brett Bailey Speedy Deletion
Dear Alan Thank you for warning me of the Speedy Deletion. I cannot find out where I should place my statement that pleads against deletion - and so I am going to make my case here. Please let me know where else to argue against speedy deletion if this is not a suitable place. I have made multiple changes to the Brett Bailey article and have expanded the information, including adding 25 references to verify the statements I have made in the text. You might not have heard of Brett Bailey in New Zealand, but in South Africa, and increasingly in African and Europe, he is one of the most awarded, and most interesting, contemporary playwright and director. His work has shaken up the theatre establishment in South Africa, and has revolutionized how Africans and other people see Africa. He definitely is a notable person. I look forward to your response. Islahaddow (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I notice that another editor has since removed the speedy deletion tag and the you have removed the PROD tag. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Warning
I strongly urge you to read WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. Your speedy deletion tags have been so far off its worrying we have somebody running about so clueless about guidelines. You do NOT place start class articles with ten sources up for deletion. Continue this disruptive behaviour and its only a matter of time before you are reported at ANI and your actions discussed. So please STOP.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- When there is so much patent trash on Wikipedia crying out to be culled, it does amaze me that experienced editors can get quite so aereated about an apparent widening of the scope of a process. I am sure that Dr. Blofeld is both correct in process and sincere in his/her intentions, but investing this concern into developing better processes to raise the quality of Wikipedia would surely make more sense and be a better use of time. Ho hum - let's let anything with the merest smidge of notability take its place in Wikipedia. (Bang goes any hope of me ever becoming an Admin!) Velella Velella Talk 15:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff that should be culled from Wikipedia as well as a lot of stuff that needs improvement. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I did not realise that article assessment and number of sources were of importance to the deletion process. Sources vary in quality and do not determine the notability of an article. Also, please do not make threats about ANI - either report me if there is a problem or keep you perceived concerns to yourself. And please don't shout at me... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
CSD A7 on Steve Bandoma
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Steve Bandoma. In my opinion, the awards section represents claims of importance sufficient to satisfy criteria A7. If you still want to delete the article, please use an alternative deletion process. Monty845 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
CSD A7 on Mbongeni Buthelezi
I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Mbongeni Buthelezi. In my opinion, the large number of exhibitions, the artists presence in major collections, and some of the external links all represent claims of importance sufficient to satisfy criteria A7. Further it appears that if some of the external links were converted to references, this article may well pass the much higher notability standards. Monty845 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Harrington's Breweries logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Harrington's Breweries logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Rename?
- see my proposal re Category:Industries in India Hugo999 (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
About the WP:PROD of Herman F. Becker
Hi Alan!
Yup. No hits as a taxon authority at IPNI. I'll ask about this at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for that correct WP:PROD. Gone now. Now lets see if we can get rid of that foreign country's flag in our respective countries' flags... :-) --Shirt58 (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Novara (bicycles)
What is non-notable about Novara (bicycles)? REI seels more Novaras than any other brand and REI is a US and Canada-wide co-op? It would be similar to stating that Kenmore Appliances is a non-notable brand of Sears--Degen Earthfast (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
article on Hydraulic Fracturing
Hi there! I had some concern about your well-motivated page move, which I've spelled out on the talk page. It would be great if you could weigh in there, and tell us a little more about the whys, hows, and all that. Sindinero (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is work in progress. Replied over there as asked. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Giday back Alan Liefting!
Things are good, although I am concerned about the recent licence granted to Shell to embark upon Fracking in the Karoo of South Africa. My homeland, and a place of natural beauty with many rare plants and a unique but fragile ecosystem. I would very much appreciate if you could add this to your list for inclusion in this topic. Also, am I allowed to ask you to link to to a Facebook page in protest of this practice? Its called BOYCOTT SHELL SA! Even if privately as I'm sure you must have an extensive network of sympathetic voices.
p.s. apologies, I posted this all over other topics until I worked out what I was doing. This is my first ever dip of the toe.
--Sevencents (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- The granting of a licence to Shell allowing them to carry out fracking may not be notable in itself but I will investigate the issue. As for your request for linking to a Facebook campaign page, this would not be done since it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As an environmentalist I would like to carry out your request but I cannot as a Wikipedia editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Editor review
Sorry I missed contributing to your editor review, but I didn't really want to mix it with the pompous and self-righteous indignation these reviews seem to produce. My two cents worth is that I have rarely found myself at odds with your contributions and have suffered the same frustrations at Speedy deletions and AfD failings mostly because those involved haven't read or haven't chosen to read WP policy and guidance. Including everything relevant is fine, including everything that's junk is not so fine. Anyway - keep motoring and keep warm in the snow! Velella Velella Talk 09:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
CSD G11 on Actiontec Electronics
I removed the G11 CSD tag on Actiontec Electronics as the page and the editing history doesn't look at all like unambiguous advertising. It's been edited by a wide variety of editors, and is a pretty well-established company. None of the editors in the editing history look like they are promotional. Yours, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion converted to PROD: ASR9000
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on ASR9000 to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Two articles for the price of one?
I'm wondering about the separation you made between Cat and Domestic Cat. It's a reasonable distinction in principle, the problem is that it doesn't exist in the resulting articles. For example, the Cat article contains the word "domestic" 108 times, and every cat picture there shows specifically a domestic cat. Either the articles should be reunified, or the information about domestic cats should be consolidated under Domestic Cat, leaving Cat to contain only information about cat species generally. However, that article would duplicate the existing article Felidae, and exchanging one duplication for another would not be progress. What would you think of unifying all Domestic Cat information into the article of that name, moving any generic Cat information into Felidae, and turning Cat into a disambiguation page, which would reference Felidae, Big Cat, Lion, Tiger, and all the other cat pages. Ornithikos (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I will have another look at them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Technical problem with this Discussion page
I noticed an oddity on this page. When I'm editing a section, the Page Notice at the top mentions me rather than you:
"Giday!" said Ornithikos to the editor that arrived at his talk page.
This can't be what you wanted. I would guess it has escaped notice because when you edit the page your own name appears. Ornithikos (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oops! I have sorted it out. For some inexplicable reason I used Alan Liefting instead oy my name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- The bug has replicated into its own description. Oy!
- I've rarely gotten through a day without remembering:
- I really hate this darn machine, I wish that they would sell it.
- It never does the things I want, it just does what I tell it!
- Ornithikos (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Don't understand PROD on ASR9000
Can you take a look at ASR9000 and see if what happened there makes sense to you? It seems your SPEEDY was turned into a PROD by a 3rd party, and I don't understand the explanation. The ASR seems to have some level of 3rd party coverage, so basic NOTE seems to be met. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Avaya Secure Router 2330
Please stop listing the Avaya Secure Router 2330 page for deletion. If you want to request deletion for product pages, first request that the pages be repaired, or content added or wikified. Then only after you have waited for months and the repair is not accomplished could you ask to delete. Look at this page [[1]] It has little to no content and has been tagged for years to get resolved or someone should delete it. Other pages - [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. If you want to clean up products how about consolidating all theses [[5]] phones into a few pages. Geek2003 (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The 2330 page is just like hundreds of other product pages.
Geek2003 (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Domestic cat article
Hello Alan Liefting! I have seen your edits to the Domestic cat page changing it from a redirect page to the start of a new article. There has been a discussion on Talk:Cat as to whether there should be 2 separate articles for Cat and Domestic cat or whether they should be merged. The comments in thus far are in favor of a merger. Please comment on that talk page as to why you created the second article and whether you think the two articles should be separate or merged. Thank you! --Tea with toast (話) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- For the record, I should point out that, although I advocated rolling back the Cat division as preferable to duplication or complication, I personally think you were on the right track. I wish we had gone farther in that direction, until Cat became a redirect with all its contents absorbed into Domestic Cat or Felidae. Oh well. May the Great Ouija Board live long and prosper! Ornithikos (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the lead Naayar (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
2005 NZ Elections
Hi Alan Liefting, thought you might be interested to see that I've added a graph to the 2005 New Zealand opinion polls page. Would love to hear your comments and similar plans on this theme--Trevva (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Why are you removing it from the individual future years? Even if you think it redundant for the years 2020 and later, 2010s is not in the future, so 2012-2019 need to be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
(Copyedit) Oh, you think it's unnecessary for 2013 because 2013 is in Category:2013, which is in Category:Years in the future. I disagree with that analysis. Perhaps it should be discussed in WT:YEARS? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)I was going to say - The years that I removed already had a category in Category:Years in the future. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Lets start to delete all the product pages
OK what is wrong? Geek2003 (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, I am not deleting "all" the product pages (I cannot in fact delete anything since I am not an admin) but I am putting up a lot of articles about people and products up for deletion that I found in Category:Avaya. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It seems like over the last two weeks you have focus on deleting Avaya products except for a few others just to keep it looking like you do not have a ax to grind against Avaya. Geek2003 (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- It may "seem" that way to you. That is a perception of yours and an accusation that I do not like having made against me. Let me explain how this flurry of deletion requests came about. After your edits in the previous set of deletion requests of Avaya products I thought to myself "hmmm, do I detect an editor who is using Wikipedia from product promotion?" and then thought nothing of it. Then tonight, after coming across Category:Avaya (I usually do a lot of work on categorisation), I found quite a number of article that were incorrectly categorised and others that did not meet WP notability standards. You are an editor of many of them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing so I do focus most of my edits on all these pages and other computer/IT pages along with the other users of these projects. We are trying to create good pages and most of these Avaya pages are stubs that we are working on. Constructive feedback or assistance, in helping us add to the pages is better than just requesting that they be deleted. Geek2003 (talk) 13:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- And I am trying to make sure WP sticks to a core of good article that meet the policies and guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Then help all of us learn by teaching us what is wrong with the pages and assisting us in correcting the incorrect content to make the pages better, instead of just deleting them. If you would join the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel and leave constructive feedback on what needs changing I am sure that we would be glad to work on it. Geek2003 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I will correct or tidy up articles if they need correcting or tidying, but if it does not meet WP notability standards I will not hesitate to request a deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- The deletion requests that you accomplished today 15 on specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel related pages in less than an hour seem to indicate that you did not accomplish any investigation or research into page before you you elected to delete the the page. Geek2003 (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am comfortable with the level of investigation that I carried out before putting the articles up for deletion. Lets see how the deletion process pans out rather than making assumptions about my ability as an editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Status and Advice
I have declined the speedies on some of the articles you tagged ; they do not meet the speedy criterion, being informative, not primarily promotional. — Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. They do describe the subject from a NPOV, after the minor rewriting I gave it to remove a few words that seemed promotional , and they do need third party references. I've advised the editor further. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
More generally, why not try merges into broader product lines. None of the arguments you give in your AfD requests involve an argument why merges are not suitable, and , according to WP:Deletion policy, they are preferred over deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Ohito Declaration
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
A tag has been placed on Ohito Declaration requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it 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.
If you can assert the notability of the subject, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. Brianhe (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted as copyvio since this appears to be cut & paste copy of http://www.xiao-en.org/cultural/life.asp?cat=54&loc=zh-cn&id=1021. Brianhe (talk) 06:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion was a good option. BTW, it wasn't my article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Template primarysources on Dell PowerConnect
Hi, I added a note for discussion on the Talk page of the article as I think that -because of the nature of the lemma and the references used- it is more then logical to use them. If you only meant that besides the own references also external references would be welcome: yeah, that would be nice; but if you placed the template because you think that the use of the own references should always be avoided I have a different point of view; but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise (or at least discuss it). So if you have anything to say on the subject - please do so on the Talk page above. Tonkie (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. I have replied over there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Dashboard on my page
Alan, I see that you removed the dashboard from my page. I haven't replaced it yet, as I wanted to see what your reason was. So, why was that removed ? @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 21:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was trying to stop the page from showing in content or project categories. I could not find which template was causing it to do that so I ended up deleted lots of stuff. When you reinstate it make sure the page does not show in categories in which it does not belong. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. I'm linking directly to {{dashboard}} , so it's adding my page into other categeory pages (like administrators ). Since that's on the dasboard itself, there's no way to remove that without editing the dashboard. I'll keep it out of my page. Thanks for the heads up. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 23:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... {{Dashboard}} does not seem to add categories. Maybe it was another template that was on the page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- It's not template:Dashboard , it's Wikipedia:Dashboard </nowki> :) It adds in a category (administrators). I didn't have anything else on my page except the <nowiki>{{Wikipedia:Dashboard)). When I re-added it in on a test sandbox made just for that test I checked and saw that page listed in Category:Administrators.
It's on the Dashboard itself, I'll keep it off my page. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 01:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of '1995 in' articles
I think it's a move to avoid red links in various articles and templates rather than to aid searching. @pple complain 09:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Avaya Auto Unit Replacement
Please see my comment on the talk page. I closed the AfD as delete, although there was an !vote for redirection. I noted in the AfD closure that there was a case for a redirect if a suitable target could be found. After I deleted the article, when I was cleaning up the links to the page, I found one that seemed suitable as a redirect target, so I created it. If you think this is an unsuitable redirect target, that is fine. But, otherwise, I am not sure there is an issue with this redirect. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose redirects are cheap but there were two !votes to one for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing in the delete !votes to indicate a problem with a redirect (assuming there was an appropriate target, although an appropriate target was not identified in the discussion). Hence my closing comment. However, I am not familiar with these switchers and such, so the target I thought was appropriate may not be. If it is not, then I would be happy to G7 it. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it is your call as an admin. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was nothing in the delete !votes to indicate a problem with a redirect (assuming there was an appropriate target, although an appropriate target was not identified in the discussion). Hence my closing comment. However, I am not familiar with these switchers and such, so the target I thought was appropriate may not be. If it is not, then I would be happy to G7 it. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your assessment of Planetary boundaries
Thank you for your assessment of Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
OR Books
Message added 06:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Greetings, Alan Liefting. I'm writing to question your questioning of "the general notability" of this page, which includes a variety of sources respected in the publishing industry (Publishers Weekly, Shelf Awareness, Publishing Perspectives, etc.); OR has more than its share of notable authors and is one of the most interesting new publishers around. Giachen (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
From the guide to deletion: "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." It only takes a few extra seconds when nominating to link actual words to all those shortcuts, and it makes the nomination much more coherent to newer users. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I should follow community consensus but in this case I choose to ignore it. If a newcomer is not familiar with the acronym an explanation is a simple click away. A newcomer should make themselves familiar with WP policy and guidelines as well as the "spirit" of WP before they participate in AfDs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
New Wikipedia user - user page edited
Hi Alan, I am a new Wikipedia user and have a message you edited my user page, what was wrong there? Thanks. YZaid (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2011 (GMT)
- Yzaid, I removed a category from your talk page since it was a content category, ie. one that should only include articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Random survey
Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.
- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit, you are making me think. I don't like it and it hurts!! Looks like there is huge debate already going on but here is my take on it.
- Wikipedia has all sorts of stuff on things that are not true - God and other deities, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Harry Potter, ghosts etc. None of these are true. I will ignore the philosophical use of the term truth and use it in a vernacular sense. But we have articles on all of these topics because there is verifiable sources on information about them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am not very satisfied with my explanation. I might wade into the foray at Wikipedia talk:V/First sentence at some stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
PN Bowling Club
Hi Alan - sory about that - the redlink fooled me. Normally I'd have expected the general bowls article to have ben started before the merge proposal, but it does make sense. As to "Hows things" :) not too bad here - hope things are fine with you... I suppose you'll be getting into campaigning mode soon? Grutness...wha? 02:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
- I should probably request a Bowls in New Zealand article at WPNZ. We are coping well enough with the last vestiges of the quake and the snow. For a wide variety of reasons I have decided not to be a candidate for this election but I will be heavily involved with the billboards. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Notification
Hello Alan. I'm dropping a note here to let you know that I've created the account User:*alan* due to a request from the ACC interface. The account was requested through that form because the name was too similar to a number of existing accounts, including your doppelganger, User:Alan. Had that been your main account rather than this one, we probably would have declined the request; as it is, I don't think this should create too much confusion (at a guess, about 80% of requested accounts never edit anyway). If you should feel that this may cause problems, though, please let me know and I can talk with the new user about getting a name change done. Thanks! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification. I don't know what WP policy is for having a username redirect is but it seems that you have fulfilled the request for a username in a suitable manner. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Rose Doudou Guei biography speedy delete
Not so quick with the trigger there, ed.... There are numerous articles on Wikipedia for First Ladies of many other countries. What's wrong with Cote d'Ivoire First Ladies? Are they not as notable as the First Ladies of the State of Kentucky? (There are five biographies on Wikipedia for First Ladies from Kentucky. I don't know if any of them were assassinated or not, though...). Rose Doudou Geui was married to the President of Cote d'Ivoire and assassinated with her husband, the President of Cote d'Ivoire (a country in Africa), likely by the current President of the country. She may not have been Carla Bruni, but I'd like to find out how to appeal the delete/redirect decision. Thanks! OttawaAC (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Re: A couple of pointers to help other editors
Giday Alan. thanks for the feedback. Noted! I'm very new to Wiki editing, sorry! Cheers Ertvarkie (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"Exclusively promotional"
When G11 says "exclusively promotional", it actually means exclusively, not "mostly" or "somewhat". I'm sure you will agree with me that there is nothing promotional about the sentence, "Direct Care Group was started in 2009 and is currently headquartered in Bonita Springs in Southwest Florida." That's a plain, absolutely non-promotional, objective statement of fact.
Promotional material can and should be removed by stubbifying, but the existence of some promotional material does not justify tagging the entire article for deletion as pure spam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Curious about archiving talk page
Hi Alan.. Thanks for taking care of archiving the 2011 Virginia earthquake discussion. I had planned to do it but got busy at work and you beat me to it. I'm also far too slow and deliberate. :) Since you did, I'll pose a question to you that I was curious about. With the earthquake discussion, or any article's discussion page, is it ever appropriate to manually select sections/topics and add them to an existing archive or is it preferred to wait for the next archive. Example: you created Archive 1 for the earthquake page. If one of the remaining topics comes to a close, is settled, or inactive, is it proper to copy and paste just that section into your Archive 1? Or would it wait until another archive is created? Low importance question but I was just curious. Thanks! Wikipelli Talk 13:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Have a look at Help:Archiving a talk page. I think that may answer your questions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain the conversation on Talk:Climate_change_mitigation? Graph okay?
Could you explain the conversation on Talk:Climate_change_mitigation#Why_is_an_image_from_Skeptical_Science_included_references_from_The_Guardian_and_International_Energy_Agency.3F? Is the graph (File:Global Warming Observed CO2 Emissions from fossil fuel burning vs IPCC scenarios.jpg) okay from Skeptical Science? I ask you because I have seen what appears to be disruptive behavior from Special:Contributions/NewsAndEventsGuy. Thank you. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The only problem I have with the graph is that the abbreviations in the legend are not spelt out. I don't think the editing by NewsAndEventsGuy can be called disruptive. It is more a difference of opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Alan, and regarding the IP's concern about article content, I might agree with the IP. The problem is, every time I have looked at the page (so far) improper grammar obscured the IP's opinion. I'll go look at it again to see if they have clarified their concern. Meanwhile, hopefully the IP will review WP:DISRUPT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- UPDATE: Nope. Still just as grammatically unclear to me as before. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Alan, how did you display the "I'll answer here" box at the bottom of your talk page? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Use {{UserTalkReplyhere}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Just what I needed.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleting categories
Could you explain why you have deleted 10 categories on the Peace symbols page? Your reference to WP:CAT does not explain. Thanks. Marshall46 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Every article in WP is part of a hierarchy. As an example consider the article series History - History of the world - History of the United States - History of New York. Obviously History of New York does not belong in Category:History since it is the wrong level in the hierarchy. Articles should generally be placed in the lowest level possible and only the most relevant categories should be added to an article. Overuse of categories clutters up the article page as well as the category page. And since categories are used as a navigational aid this clutter makes them less useful. Another reason why I removed the ten categories was that some of them were only of a minuscule relevance. Categories are black and white. Articles are in it or they are not. Therefore, only categories that have a high degree of relevance to the article should be added. The articles themselves are used to link wide ranging topics. Categories on the other hand collect closely related topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your clear explanation. Marshall46 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Question of image usability from Skeptical Science website ...
Per discussion I saw on Talk:Climate change mitigation ... The graphs on http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php are cool (I was struck by http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12 where 93.4% of global warming is currently going to the Oceans).
- Are these free for public use (on wikipedia), if you know?
- Where on Wikipedia are its rules for image usage?
Thank you for your time. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- The images at Skeptical Science are free to use under the Creative Commons so it seems they are ok to use on Wikipedia. The images may already be at Wikimedia Commons. Image info can be found at WP:Images. Essentially, any image not covered by copyright can be used on Wikipedia, and those that are covered by copyright can be used but with certain conditions (which depends on the type of image. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of New Zealand Young Farmers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Zealand Young Farmers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand Young Farmers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Geek2003 (talk) 20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- This looks like retaliation to me! Geek2003, you managed to find a stub article that I created that looks like it may not be notable and you put it up for deletion. Well even after a few hours there were three keep !votes. It looks you made a poor judgement call on putting it up for deletion. I hope the fact that I have put numerous articles created by you up for deletion has not clouded your judgement! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
National Report on Sustainable Forests
I understand you picked the article I wrote for immediate deletion. This is my first article so I would appreciate a little of your guidance.
I understand you thought the article was very biased. Will you please tell me specifically how it is? I used links next to every statement I made (in fact worried that had too many). My reading of Wiki instructions made it clear to me articles should be presented in a “compelling” style although I wondered if such a style might come over with a biased. I spent 40 years in government writing milk-toast documents that said nothing because a thousand interests did not want them to say anything. I assumed Wikipedians were trying to get away from that style—with the caveat that articles are factual, on a worthy topic and unbiased. I think the article meets those criteria.
I also understand that it was felt an article about a report may be of little value to Wikipedia and that inserting some key points from the Report was too much. The key points tried to inform the reader why the topic is worthy of their attention. The report is 600 pages long and the article is perhaps 2 pages. More importantly, the article has information about sustainable forest management almost no other Wiki forestry article has. I tried to politely point this out at the end of the article. Although I am now retired, I worked in international forest policy for 15 years and feel there needs to be more information on sustainability and forestry. Some of my former colleagues in Rotorua will agree with me.
Thank you for your advice,
Rob Hendricks ForestSFM (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
- Rob, I did request a speedy deletion of the article even though as an environmentalist I found it interesting. BTW, the article was named National Report on Sustainable Forests - 2010. I asked for deletion because "it is an essay with a POV from which a cogent WP article would be difficult to retrieve, and it is about a report of doubtful notability". The report may have sufficient notability to deserve a mention in a Forestry in the United States article, but at present one does not even exist. Little ol' NZ has a Forestry in New Zealand article!! Any chance that you could start on for the US of A?? Note that there is a Sustainable forestry article. Would like to give you a more extensive reply but it is well past my bedtime. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your response. In the past I worked with and am in current communication with the guy who wrote the Sustainable Forest Management article. He is in Ottawa. I'm in South Carolina. We've both been pondering what "it is an essay with a POV from which a cogent WP article would be difficult to retrieve, and it is about a report of doubtful notability" is actually saying. Here is my translation -- this is an article talking about something about which a compelling WP article would be difficult to find (or any where else) and the 2010--National Report on Sustainable Forest is also of questionable interest as there are few reference point to it. Do I have that correct?
The SFM article lists many of the country forest sustainability reports, of which the report I am writing about is one. Current Wiki forestry articles appear to have been written by people in academia and the environmental community. Practitioners in high levels of government are not writing articles. You can see this in the article on Wilderness. If I remember correctly, it does not even mention the legal classification of land called Wilderness established in many countries. Another is the biodiversity article that implies biodiversity is only found in national parks. We need more articles from people working in the forest management world so I am trying to add one.
I could write a generic one on the new kind of forest sustainability reporting a few advocates in some governments are trying to keep alive. Wellington has done one although the lack of collaboration between the Forestry and Conservation departments and NZ’s lack of a national forest inventory shows up in the NZ report. Regardless people need to know such reports exist, where to find them or demand they be done. People looking under forestry, forests, country or provinces etc. should find links to them. Getting countries to do this kind of reporting results in Australia's first national forest report, the initiation of national inventories in Japan, Chile (among others) so reports could be also produced in those countries,
I will pass on your comment about a "Forestry in the USA" article. I think someone in an existing institution should write to get them more into the new world of communication. I am writing this article out of frustration that people currently responsible for the US Sustainability Report is apparently afraid of doing it.
Please advise
Rob Hendricks 76.6.127.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC).
Please
Could you PLEASE in the future tag the pages first?Geek2003 (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that I only had one ref and that it was sourced the subject in the New Zealand Young Farmers article? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- If we tag the page first then we should have time to resolve issues before wasting others time taking pages to deletion requests. I thought this is what was the recommended actions, not just jump to the deletion request, or have I misunderstood the policy?Geek2003 (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- So you did not find any refs on Donald Shepperd??? The order of the Sword was on the page before you tagged it for deletion.Geek2003 (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You don't want to merge them?
I don't understand??Geek2003 (talk) 06:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please give some context to your messages. I cannot mind read and there is too much happening at present to make assumptions about what you mean. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
You want to delete the 1120E, 1120AS, and the 1140E. I was putting together a page to move everything to but now you want to delete it?Geek2003 (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) I am of the opinion that such a page would be non-notable, but other editors may disagree. You can use the {{underconstruction}} tag or build the article in user namespace to avoid deletion. However, there is no guarantee that it is not deleted once transferred into article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I was searching for several hours for citations and found that I might not find enough to satisfy the requirements for most 1100 phones so I was creating a new page.Geek2003 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'll get back to you. It is dinner time and I am getting too many edit conflicts. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm nowhere near qualified to be writing about biology at all, but as a result of a bet with a biologist I ended up creating User:Sonia/Biological control of gorse in New Zealand. Not sure what I'll end up doing with it- perhaps merge? Either way, any advice you could give would be much appreciated. sonia♫ 10:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- It would be great to add it to the Gorse in New Zealand article. Mind if I do some tweaks on it before it goes over to article namespace? There is also a discrepancy between the current article and your user namespace work. I have the first biological control listed as being the 1920s and your ref is giving the 1930s. The ref I use is coming up as a dead link. It is from a reputable organisation but a less formal publication. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I hope you won the bet! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your ref is technically right; the first agent was, as far as I can see, imported in the late 20s. I cited '31 as it's when the first systematic release was carried out. Re tweaks-- feel free! It is a wiki after all, and I'm sure that I've got some of the technical wording wrong. I have until Friday next week to get the content into mainspace in order to win the bet, and I do intend on doing so :) Thanks! sonia♫ 21:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's an idea
...when another editor asks you to explain an unexplained deletion on the article talk page, why not go to the article talk page and explain your deletions, as if you were working with a colleague, instead of edit warring to make your deletion again? Sounds like a good idea to me.
Now, I'm going to restore "Phosphate mining" as a category to an article about a man who operated a phosphate mining company, and if you disagree with that, you bring it to the talkpage and say why you disagree witht it, because if you delete it without discussion again, I will bring this to the attention of admins. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, I don't take kindly to threats such as calling in the admins. You are most welcome to bring my edits to the attention of the admins but I think you would be wasting everyone's time. I chose not to discuss it on the talk page since I gave a suggestion to you to become familiar with the categorisation system in my edit summary. Note that on on my first edit I used HotCat which does not always give the option to add an edit summary.
- If you are keen to discuss things (and I would if it is controversial or something with which I lack experience) why didn't you initiate a discussion on the talk page? I see that you have now added more suitable categories - apart from the phosphate category, which I will remove. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)