User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 15

 

The article Help desk (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is a tiny dab page with a total of three possible meanings. Easily replaced with a hatnote in Help desk (which I have done).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Kimelea (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Fashion 5.0, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals or newspapers. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You have deleted category "Philippines" from USC&GS ships that operated entirely in the Philippines with all but one actually owned by the insular government of the Philippines. These ships surveyed the Philippines and are integral to the mapping history of the islands. They also had Filipino crews. Please do not remove again. Palmeira (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles about individual ships do not belong in a category about a country. If we allow ships into such country category what is there stopping editors adding similar, or more important articles into the category? Please read WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Each of those ships played an important role in the development of the Philippines. They not only surveyed the waters but transported field parties for triangulation and mapping of the islands. All but one were owned and mostly funded by the insular government. All were crewed, excepting the C&GS officers, by Filipinos and that crewing and the cadets that served on the ships became the core of the Coast and Geodetic Survey of the Philippines. Aside from surveying the ships delivered mail and performed other functions for the government of the Philippines. I am reverting you again. These ships played an important role in the islands and its communities. Palmeira (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But there there are literally 1000s of things that played an important role in the development of the Philippines and I can easily name some which are of far greater importance to the Philippines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CAT? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Philippine category helps readers locate subjects that pertain to the islands, including history and development. I will continue to put that category into those articles, partly in hopes people now living in the country will add background on those crews and the ship's role in local development. I think that is justification and explanation enough. Palmeira (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But that goes completely against the guideline at WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines. Since you had some involvement with the Putat, Tuburan, Cebu, Philippines redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This article, which I wrote, has been on the English Wikipedia some time. What disturbs me is it was tagged for speedy deletion and apparently removed immediately. I really think any article tagged for deletion should be left for a discussion on its merits, providing it is not inflammatory or could potentially have libel issues, etc. If possible, could you please resurrect this article and provide a few days, at least, for persons to weigh its merits? All most of us want is for Wikipedia to be a meaningful repository of knowledge and sometimes people need to discuss disagreements about what should be in Wikipedia.Bill Pollard (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I a not an administrator so I cannot reinstate it. Probably best to talk to the admin who deleted it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Your edit to Yellowstone National Park asserts that it is mentioned on the List of World Heritage in Danger webpage. I don't see it there and I am have reverted your edit. If you can show you are correct, then I apologize. –droll [chat] 00:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That particular edit should have been on the Everglades article. Yellowstone was on the List of Heritage in Danger from 1995 to 2003. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Good work. –droll [chat] 20:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Redirects are costly and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Redirects are costly during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

i have reverted your edit here due to the fact there is adequate text in the article that identifies the location as being in the IUCN category as a wilderness area - SatuSuro 05:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

And I reverted it back because it is categorised as a IUCN Category 1b. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please don't remove stub tags from short articles, even if they contain long lists (e.g. Niphargus, Munidopsis). The prose content in such cases is still very short, and the articles are therefore stubs. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I see that it's not just those two cases. You have removed lots of stub tags which should still be there. Please could you go through your recent edits, and replace any stub tags that you shouldn't have removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

AWB removes stub tags automatically if there is more that 500 words. Also, the articles were listed at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs. Therefore, stub removal will always reoccur for these types of articles. It will be a WP wide issue so it may be best to take it up with the folks who look after AWB. They may be able have exceptions made for stub removal if most of the words are in a list. I don't see stub removal of the two articles that you mention as a big issue. I get the impression that stub status is ignored by most editors. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You may not think of it as a big issue, but it was the sole purpose of your edits (apart from removing the necessary italics from a title in one case). Do you not check your edits before clicking the "Save page" button? You must take responsibility for your edits; AWB is just a tool for suggesting possibilities. Other authors have not made this mistake on the articles involved, so it evidently can be avoided. Please do go back over your edits and undo those which should not have been made, rather than expecting other people to clear up after you. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I see yet more misuse of semi-automated tools. Alan, the more you do this, the more likely you are to lose the privilege of using them. Your apologies would be welcome (I note, as a Kiwi politician) you won't say sorry, but seriously, despite blanking your own talk page, your record of mistakes is bad news for Wikipedia. Stop waiting for others to correct your mistakes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it misuse, or is it merely a difference in opinion? And I don't blank my talk page - I archive discussions that no longer attract comments after a week, or a month, or six months. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Misuse. And you removed the mass of comments that asked you to stop doing what you were doing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you thought you were doing what you thought was right, but I had hoped the number of different editors (very few of them admins) who asked you to stop should have alerted you that you should have re-appraised. Your valedictory of "Sort out the fucking rubbish yourselves. I am sick of the hounding, and the bullshit, and dealing with editors who are as thick as two short planks" is hardly endearing to the community, one who has been here for a decade and one who will flourish despite your "retirement". Perhaps in your political dealings, you can help the "fucking rubbish" and those who are "thick as two short planks". If you could, especially in NZ, you'd get my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Very sorry to hear that you have retired and I hope you will reconsider and resume editing in the future. I also find myself frequently feeling frustrated on here so know exactly how you feel, but the project needs talented editors like you. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Need your help with this article, mate. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

After meeting some ecologists collecting them, I read your article about Mosquitofish in Australia. Much appreciated, thanks. 99of9 (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that but I am afraid I cannot really accept the award since I did not write the article as such. I had split it from the main Mosquitofish article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem. I see I failed to read the edit summary... oops. Anyway, it's good to have the neat separate article. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I notice you have removed several articles with significant sections on Land Drainage from the Drainage category. Please can you explain the logic for this, as it makes it really difficult to find the Land Drainage articles? Bob1960evens (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

They were articles about locations in the UK that only had a mention of drainage. Category:Drainage should be reserved for articles that are predominately about drainage and reserved for generic articles rather than country specific articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Sub-categorize by all means. Create new categories if you have to. What you're doing instead, to remove all mention of relevant (if over-broad) categorization entirely is harmful. Additionally, the rate at which you're doing it makes it impractical for reasonable efforts by other editors to keep up. I note too that you're continuing to remove this same category even whilst this is under discussion, an act that (yet again) shows what little regard you have for consensus with other editors.

You've carried out much the same at Heidenhain, where you pretty much de-categorized an article on a multi-million Germany instrumentation company. You removed several categories about the market sectors that the company operates in, because it was categorized into the sector categories, not some sub-category for "companies in <sector>" instead. You even began to edit-war when these were restored. As you also prod-ed the article (multi-million companies are rarely non-notable, because anything that big leaves footprints), I can only assume you have little or no real knowledge of them. Yet it's hardly a complex edit to fix categorization to move a company into the relevant sub-categories, rather than merely stripping categories blindly.

Bulk-stripping of categories is a regular behaviour for you, despite protests from others. Please be a little more constructive in future, and less quick to see a destructive removal as a necessary and the only possible action. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Liefting doesn't "fix" anything, he just strips away categories etc (sometimes so articles are entirely uncategorised) using his semi-automated tools, with no real regard to their real-world utility. He follows and advocates WP:CAT like some kind of gospel-based mantra. There's never any apology for the destruction he's causing, but he continues to deny there's any issue with his multiple and rapid fallacious edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually read the article on Deeping Fen? Apart from the first sentence, and the small section on location, the entire article is about the drainage of the fen. For Adlingfleet, there is a short history section and some stuff on eels, but most of it is about drainage. For Laneham, over half of the article is about the Laneham drainage scheme. I could go on, but I cannot see that this is only a mention. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course I read the articles. Now I don't know about the geography, politics etc of the area but are these article leaning too heavily to the drainage aspect rather than other possible topics? Anyway, as for the drainage category it is not appropriate since the article is about one small (in the global sense) geographical area) and Category:Drainage is for global (geographically and topically) subjects. You could create a Category:Drainage in the United Kingdom which would then be a subcat of Category:Drainage and Category:Water in the United Kingdom. I think it may aaaalmost be justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

In terms of geography and politics, the articles cover sparsely populated areas which have been the subject of major civil engineering projects over four centuries by notable civil engineers, to reclaim them for agriculture, so their history is the history of their drainage. Do you not think it would have been better to suggest sub-categories as a way of improving Wikipedia, rather than just removing the existing categories, so that it becomes difficult both to navigate around the system and to find the articles that need moving to the new sub-category? Bob1960evens (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There does not appear to be suitable categories apart from the new one I have suggested. Don't forget that categories are but one way of navigating through WP. There is no point forcing article into categories if there are better methods of getting the info out there. Is there a need for a Drainage schemes in the United Kingdom article to tie them all together? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, I have created Category:Land drainage in the United Kingdom. I will have a look at all my sources to see if I have enough material for a general article on drainage schemes. Thanks for the suggestion. Bob1960evens (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert back if I'm in error here. Cheers. B^e——C_ritical 22:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Liefting doesn't explain his semi-automated edits, he will, at best, say "WP:CAT" to you. Isn't that right Alan? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of James Pearce (Sports Journalist), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: seems likely that a reporter with the BBC for > 10 years is notable. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your PRODding the above, can you please point me to which section of WP:NOT applies? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the spirit of WP:NOT that applies. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than a complete exposition of all information. This is a bit philosophical but Wikipedia is for knowledge rather than information. The list in question is information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, I think the question is valid and you need to answer it explicitly rather than nebulously. Which section(s) of NOT apply/applies? And if I may be so bold, would you be kind enough to include edit summaries explaining your edits in future please? Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Linda Biggs article has been nominated a second time for deletion. As you were a participant in the first AFD discussion, you may wish to particpate in the second discussion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

why delete man ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaica National Happy Party (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Elgin platform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nigg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories (talk)

Hi.

I left some comments on the talk page. - jc37 04:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I will mull it over. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Eponymous_categories. - jc37 07:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

I've uploaded the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find the links at that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for stalking me and helping to improve the articles I created such as the Make Love, Not War: The Sexual Revolution: An Unfettered History and World Naked Gardening Day. SupernovaExplosion Talk 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Although I don't agree with you regarding the title change of Prostitution among animals, your edits do improve the other articles. The original uploader of File:Garden girl.jpg confirmed the photo is unrelated to WNGD. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since you are interested in a variety of articles, could you share your suggestions in Wikipedia:Peer review/A Free Ride/archive1? I'm planning to nominate the article for FA after the peer review is over. Any suggestion for further improvement will be much appreciated. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers for the beer. I'll drink that tonight! I don't know if I was actually stalking you. I saw your name came up in all sorts of places and on interesting articles so I thought I might have a quick look at your edits. BTW the "Prostitution" Behavior in a Tropical Hummingbird supports my case for some sort of article name change of Prostitution among animals. I might try and help with the peer review on A Free Ride once I stop blushing... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

 

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment). Since you had some involvement with the GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

g'day - as far as I can see you dont like anything to do with Wilderness in tasmania, or the controversies - such as Lake Pedder or the Franklin dam as categories - it would be very helpful if you could come up with something that doesnt revert to Protected areas.

Something a bit more WP:AGF would be stating clearly why and how (even if you feel you done so already) - to do so here or somewhere - for the record it would be useful, to others who might not be as quick on the draw...as the discussions to date at xfd are simply inadequate.

It would be very useful, if you could indicate in your experience how large far-reaching controversies such as lake pedder might be better identified in the scheme of things, or please explain otherwise how your rationale for not having categories for such items helps the wikipedia user. thanks SatuSuro 01:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

What I don't like, because that is not what they are for, is that categories cannot be used as a surrogate for an actual article. I thought I outlined it quite clearly in the deletion discussions. I want to see the numerous historical environmental debates documented on WP because they are extremely notable. I even considered doing it myself but I am just busy enough. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

To say "you dont like anything to do with Wilderness in tasmania, or the controversies" about me is completely incorrect and I fail to see haw I gave that impression. As an environmentalist and a Wikipedian I want to have the info put out there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

apologies - I am not saying what I am - but the impression given in the Afd discussions to revert wilderness to protected areas suggested otherwise - (edit conflict)

Thanks for responding - but it still does not remediate the issue of where you have challenged the categories and havent come up with anything like a suitable replacement (imho) - surely there is a precedent elsewhere on wikipedia where a range of inter-related issues like that surrounded all of the pedder, franklin and wilderness issues in Tasmania (a good ornery mix of politics, divided communities, green/vs the others, lying engineers, and all the rest, people dying for the causes etc) - simply defaulting to protected areas for wilderness is short of an adequate coverage - surely you have in all of your trawling wikipedia havent found/seen a better way to do it? SatuSuro 02:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have said it numerous times - and you have replied that there is a lack of knowledgeable editors - that there is a need for actual articles. Topics such as Franklin Dam controversy, Environmental issues in Tasmania etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

so what is the franklin dam article about then? SatuSuro 03:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I will move Franklin Dam to Franklin Dam controversy. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow we are actually getting somewhere - what would you say to changing the category to Franklin Dam controversy then? try for s speedy non-controversial?? SatuSuro 04:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not to keen on a Franklin Dam or a Franklin Dam controversy category. I know all about OTHERSTUFF but even the Three Gorges Dam, arguably the most controversial dam ever, does not have its own category. So why should the Franklin Dam have one? It is even more tenuous a proposition given that the category has articles that should not really be in it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

OK I see your point, i'll get out of your way - have a safe easter SatuSuro 06:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I saw this edit and thought of you. Is that alright by you? I have noticed you taking an almighty number of cats off template/image etc pages and wondered if this would fall into that category (pun sort-of intended). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

hi;

i mean this politely & in a friendly way, but i don't think you quite understand the schema for geography categories.

individual rivers are meant to be listed as subcats of their tributaries, watersheds & region (etc.); it makes things easier to find & to group in associations.

it is also meant to mirror the layout of the same data @ commons

Lx 121 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to mirror the layout at Commons here on Wikipedia. Also, per WP:SMALLCAT there is no need for a category that contains one other article apart from the eponymous article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

i)disagree about common & wikip co-ordinating categories. it makes organizing information MUCH simpler, if/when identical topics have at least simillar categorization structures

ii) "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." -- WP:SMALLCAT (which is not to say that i agree with all current wikipedia practices in organizing information; there is much room for improvement)

iii) the river categories actually have plenty of room for potential growth. aside from articles/data about the rivers directly, there are also the cities & regions located along the river, bridges, dams, parks & conservation areas, etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 05:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

After being confused for about 4 days, I think I understand what you mean now. You meant that the categories should have their PARENTS removed that are non-wikipedia space categories. Is that correct? If so I'll get on it, since HotCats make this a pretty easy task for a human -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. That's right. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

 

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Gilderien's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 12:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

One month ago you prod'ed LOUD Technologies and it was kept because of my arguments at Talk:LOUD Technologies. You just prod'ed it again today but the arguments have not changed. Nothing has changed. Do you intend to try and delete the article once per month? Take it to AfD next time. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I had requested a speedy deletion last month but it was rejected by an admin who has a predilection for keeping rather than deleting articles. Since I am of the opinion that it is not a notable topic for WP I thought I might try a PROD. Anyway, I have no interest in taking it any further. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Binksternet (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never known of a professor at Oxford or a comparable university brought to AfD in my 5 years here following AfD that has not been found notable (actually very few from Oxford have been brought at all,since almost nobody would think to doubt it) , and at the very least the assertion that someone is one certainly as an indication of importance. Using a7 in such a case is Pointy. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• withdraw, sir.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't even got my trousers down yet... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

lol.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Conservation in New Zealand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fish and Game and National Parks Act 1980 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mr DPL bot. For a soulless and mindless heap of computer code you sound awfully human. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

In this edit to American Numismatic Association,

you removed the categories Category:Numismatic museums in the United States and Category:Museums in Colorado Springs, Colorado

I think those categories are worth keeping. The ANA's Money Museum is an important part of its activities, but does not have a separate article. American Numismatic Association Money Museum redirects to American Numismatic Association#Facility. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The American Numismatic Association is not in itself a museum. I will put the categories on the American Numismatic Association Money Museum redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan. FYI I have split off a new page New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited from the page Tiwai Point. I have put it in the categories; Companies of New Zealand and Manufacturing companies of New Zealand. Are these categories ok? Kind regards. Mrfebruary (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That was a good idea. Category:Companies of New Zealand was redundant to Category:Manufacturing companies of New Zealand so I removed it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, bro!Mrfebruary (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I've declined your technical move request since your proposed new title, Commemorative coins of Lithuania, is already in use for a different article. Perhaps you can reevaluate and see if you want to merge the contents of A into B instead. It seems that some of the same coins may be in both articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Hello, newly you me have sent three notifications of speedy deletion of the articles, I do not find well the reason, believe that all the articles must begin somehow, each one has his tactics, in this case, I prefer beginning with what I have well to hand, shields, uniforms, the information of the infobox, then with the expansion of the article. In addition the above mentioned articles for months I observe them and they were never created even, I believe that Argentine football has a world importance and in the version in English only the top divisions possess "acceptable" articles with regard to the clubs. I have database of football clubs of the world, in I make concrete 78.158 teams of the whole planet, initiate it 6 years to hand, in notebooks!! I have seen infinity of articles about football teams who do not exist by any means, have even exactly as the articles that I have just created, but without any type of information more there of his geographical location (i.e. Clubs of England, Scotland, Japan, etc), not infobox at all, please he does not even consider to revert this situation. Thanks--Hernan1483 (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC) you

You need to create articles that are more than one line and an infbox. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, but ... it is a process, at least I in spite of only winking cannot create it, initiate them it does less than two hours and I began with what that I considered the base to initiate it, if at least you will take the inconvenience to investigate in the network a minute you would see that it is not an article to be a nuisance, that they are really clubs of football.--Hernan1483 (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not create them off-line or as a subpage in your user namespace before going live? It is always nicer - and better - to see a fully formed new article rather than a stub. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But it is that it was in the middle of the process of created, translating the history of every equipment, the obtained titles, different national participations, probably you have reason, if this way you consider it I do not have problem with which they are eliminated, but, seriously, please he throws a glimpse, and you will see multitude of pages of clubs with only two, three, five lines. Seriously, there is no problem, eliminate them and better I will follow your advice. Forgives the inconveniences :) --Hernan1483 (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Having the existing short articles that are in dire need of work is not an excuse to add to the workload. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The articles created need expansion, yes, but they are legitimate attempts at bettering Wikipedia and should not be slapped with a speedy deletion right off the bat. Ducknish (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Read my talk page comment on the articles. Ducknish (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But there is no need for us to accept sub-standard articles. There are sufficient avenues for a contributor to make a good go of creating an article that is more than a mere sentence and infobox. There are also sufficient warning about adding unreferenced material. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the A7 criteria before continuing to tag articles with it. It is for articles that have no possible reason clear for why they matter. A soccer club obviously has at least some importance. If you contest the notability, you should put it up for a full deletion discussion. Speedy deletion is not for getting rid of articles you don't like because they're too short. Ducknish (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I also recommend WP:NOTCSD Ducknish (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)More the pity really. The various deletion processes can, and should be used to shape a robust, reliable, and respected encyclopaedia but they are being used to retain a huge range of articles that are rubbish, too short, are covert SPAM, or otherwise don't belong in an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That does not justify abuse of speedy deletion. If you want the articles gone, put them up to a real discussion.Ducknish (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm noticing you have a lot of articles you nominated for SD still standing, that didn't really fit the CSD when you tagged them. You may want a quick refresher look over the CSD, A7 in particular.Ducknish (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I am quite aware that I did overstep the line with the three football club articles but given the rubbish that comes through as new pages we really should be taking a much harder line on stuff that is not needed. Deletion is not permanent. An article is easily recreated if it is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is no excuse for tagging pages that do not unambiguously fit the CSD. There's a reason there are multiple deletion options on Wikipedia. If you feel a page should be deleted, don't try to force it into speedy deltion when it doesn't fit.Ducknish (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously Alan, you do not understand my point, I begin to create them and in less than 2 hours you say to me that they are going to be eliminated, when there are articles perfectly established with enough exage of only little lines, it is not an excuse, I repeat am creating them or at least it it was, sincerely already I am tired, instead of losing time in vain discussions you might realize improvements in them, in this case these articles concerned to a totally incomplete and out of date page, because of it concentrate on them, in addition you must know well that as soon as you begin there are more possibilities of receiving contributions, Already I do not have desire of continuing and continuing, you are the one that "gives the orders", so eliminate them or is what you want with them. This is a Wikipedia not a Quicklypedia?--Hernan1483 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And, with due respect, you are missing my point. There is no need to create very short articles in the main article namespace -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nur ein Schritt ist genug, um zu walkr zu beginnen..."Only a step is enough to begin to walk"--Hernan1483 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice sentiment but not really applicable. I have suggested that you "walk" in off-line places {eg word processor) or create the articles in your user namespace. There is also the option of Articles for Creation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem, now it erased everything.--Hernan1483 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ProCharger, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a good idea to insert a speedy delete notice into a Thoroughbred racing article, or for that matter, any article, on which you have no expertise. I suggest, so that you don't disrupt the work of knowledgeable editors and force unnecessary effort on them, that if you have doubts then post your thoughts on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing page where it can properly be assessed. Thank you for your cooperation. Hialeah Harry (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

reverted self - some other time - couldnt be bothered at the moment SatuSuro 05:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that you renamed the NAPLAN article, and marked the edit Minor. Probably a good idea, but hardly a Minor edit. Tuntable (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a function of the MediaWiki software. When moving a page there is no ability to choose it as a minor edit. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Cyanide Sisters, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A9 is not satisfied: "and where the artist's article has never existed or has been deleted". Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I removed your speedy deletion tag from User:Morganmyrmo, that was a redirect after a valid username change. While it was dodgy to come in with a new username and participate in the AfD discussion, the redirect is useful for linking from previous discussions on talk pages (before the username move). Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What is stopping the old name from being used in future? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Stopping the old name from being used by a new editor? I don't suppose anything is, from what I have seen some previous usernames redirect to current usernames. With the username changed, it should be available as a redirect (I am not that familiar with username changes, but I think it should be available for use now that the username has been moved over), however for the sake of transparency, in particular with the COI issues in the AfD discussions at hand, it should probably be kept until their closure (in particular this one that you have already commented on). Feel free to renominate it now, or in the future if you see fit. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely you are aware that we always regard a NYT editorial obit as absolute proof of notability . The rationale is that thheir judgment on whether a career is notable is more reliable than ours. Did you not notice that reference ? DGG ( talk ) 13:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Autobiomentary to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. "Neologism" isn't a valid speedy, and while I'm sure there is promotional intent here, I don't think this is a G11. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Shame really. Now it will hang around for ten days, get picked up by google, get itself cached, and waste the valuable time of overworked editors. Sigh.... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, several people (including me) have proposed a speedy for "blatantly made up one day", but it always gets shot down on problems of definition. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it by that cabal of Conservapedians (not to be confused with Conservapedia) who oppose any change from the status quo???? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You've been squished! Littleton Coin Company is clearly a notable topic, as evidenced by the availability of reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this historically significant company. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan, We thank you for your suggestion. We restructured the article "Ric's Art Boat" by realigning quotes and text. This adds to a better understanding and and degree of clearness. We are always open to any recommendation. Best regardsInternational-critics (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited SS Port Kembla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. You split the Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States article from the Hydraulic fracturing article. There is a discussion how to summarize the remaining environmental concerns sections. As a editor who contributed to the split process, your opinion and assistance is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, Alan. Just a quick note - when tagging an article for CSD under A3, please check that it's been around for at least 10 minutes (you tagged Google dicksha only a minute after it was created). It's useful to give these articles a little time, as sometimes the author has just not had time to work on them. If there are other valid criteria, or about 10 minutes has passed, feel free to tag the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I have now deleted the article, but tagging according to A3 one minute after creation is not a good practice to get into, as I explained above. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was patently obvious rubbish. Waiting ten minutes does not change that fact. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That may be so, but it doesn't hurt to wait - the user might have had something. Anyway, it's not too important; it's deleted now anyway, so I wouldn't worry. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

But there is a principle at stake. WP is continually flooded by utter crap new pages (as well as some really good ones) and there is a desperate need to address the problem. The conservapedians will not allow any changes to the status quo such as stricter inclusion guidelines, flagged revisions, pending changes etc. Editors end up wasting a lot of time and some get disillusioned with the project and walk away. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I've declined your speedy deletion proposal of the above article because "there is one google hit etc. sigh....". Please check the criteria for speedy deletion page to see which criterion is appropriate or use proposed deletion or Articles for deletion. I've prodded the article as an unreferenced essay and original research. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? It is something created on facebook and you don't want to speedily delete it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

G3 / db-hoax would be an appropriate tag in that case; I'll re-tag thus. Best, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Baffle gab1978 is right - speedy deletions have a strict set of appropriate rationales; having few google hits is not one of them. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pity really isn't it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have declined all the speedies on this article. Piling up inapplicable speedies is not the way to deletion. "entry in factbook that has no content" is not a speedy reason. It is not WP:CSD#G1 nonsense, which is for things like "4g7"##*gz%" or "Yaaayyyy LOL!!!!"; nor is it a WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax, which implies intent to deceive. This guy has made up something he wants to tell the world about, not realising that that is not what an encyclopedia is for. Many people, including me, have suggested a speedy for "Blatant NFT", but it has always been turned down, for good reasons about problems of definition. This has got to go, but PROD and if necessary AfD is the only way. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes... See my PROD2 on the article. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again but "sigh..." is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion. Please use the correct criteria so the creators and us lesser mortals can tell why articles have been nominated for speedy deletion.- thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. No bother. Yeah I know that "sigh..." is not a deletion rationale but doing new page patrol is soooo frustration. And by the way, I am an even lesser moral than the godly admins.   -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration, no worries - I'm not an adim either thank heavens... :-D Thanks for doing what you do here. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I found something that I could edit productively by adding a photo, but the page had semi-protection or something on it so I couldn't edit it. Then, I went to "View Source" and somehow I could add code so I tried to include a picture but it didn't work. I wrote "Images: 250px-Mrpopo.png" but it didn't work. (By the way, Mr. Popo is not a made-up person this time. You can look "Mr. Popo" on Wikipedia.) Also, even if I learn how to add pictures to pages, but the "View Source" thing doesn't work, what do I do? It said I need to do 10 edits to get past Semi-Protection. But as I said to User: Fluffernutter all the topics I'm good at are already done by someone else, except for Dragon Ball, where Mr. Popo is from. PLEASE TELL ME WHAT TO DO! Dodobird1982 (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I hit the wrong button by accident. Meant to re-direct. By all means-delete it, ASAP. Kierzek (talk) 02:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You can tag it with {db-author} -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Done and done. Page now deleted. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It is meant to be a redirect to article page of SS general who was always known by his full name. Kierzek (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello: I see you have the re-direct up for deletion. This page should not be speedily deleted because the original page was properly deleted; as you know, I created it by mistake; I meant to create a redirect. After it was deleted, I subsequently created this redirect (this time hitting the right button). So the problem was solved and this redirect is correct. Sorry for any confusion that may have arisen as to this matter. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Got myself a bit confused. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Talk:Folksonomy/old, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It contains the history of the article and is not an abandoned draft. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you have flagged my article Pre,ier Marinas Limited for deletion as unambiguous promotion, I have tried very hard to phrase the article as information only and I feel that the article is valid as Premier Marinas (where I keep my boat) are a real business based in real locations with many customers, I have tried not to talk about the company in terms of its benefits or in a promotional way, but I am happy to amend any element that you feel is of an overtly promotional nature. I have also provided an independent article from the YHA Gold Anchor Scheme by way of reference.

I would be grateful if you could remove the speedy deletion tag or let me know what element you take issue with, Wikipedia states that articles about commercial organisations are not invalid as long as they are not advertorial so please tell me where the advert is and I will amend it.--Dcbreeze (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Dcbreeze

If you would prefer you can reply on the article talk page, best regards--Dcbreeze (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)Dcbreeze

Please note I have added further 3rd party referrences re Premier Marinas--Dcbreeze (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

May I suggest you review again your comments on this article and take note of my reply--Dcbreeze (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please take note of my answer to your recent comments on the AFD page of this article.--Dcbreeze (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for your attention to Climate change in the United States. Please see wp:Tea. 99.119.129.109 (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I am about to have one and all. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I am objecting to the proposed deletion of this page (Creative Nation) for being a "non-notable" company, as I have provided evidence that this company is a PARTNER of Universal Music Publishing Group, a division of NBC/Universal (i.e. a Fortune 500 Company). I have referenced press releases regarding this partnership, and will continue to reference more major media coverage, as future announcements about it's partnerships come about this year. Please advise if there is anything else I need to do in order to provide evidence of Creative Nation being a notable company, thank you kindly (Jpoindex (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

Note that today (April 19th, 2012), I have added 9 in-line citations for the Creative Nation wikipedia page. I do hope the red flag can be removed from this page (Jpoindex (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

I apologize for mis-stating or mis-representing the intentions of this wiki entry. The creation of the Creative Nation wiki page is in no way an attempt to advertise or promote the company. Creative Nation is not a company that is selling a product, nor is it a company promoting a service. Rather, it is a private, US music publishing company, that represents a group of distinguished songwriters and musicians, and does not accept unsolicited requests. With the recent announcement of a partnership with Universal Music Publishing Group a separate wiki entry seems necessary. I ask that any proposal to delete this entry be re-considered, and I'm happy to improve the page further, if that would make a difference. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this statement (Jpoindex (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC))

We still work by consensus, not by your petulant blanking of a page when your speedy request was quite rightly refused. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It was not petulant! Keep you personal feeling towards me out of any discussions and please assume good faith and stop making insinuations. The article, which it should be realised is not non-indexed, is sitting there going nowhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You will note that the page was speedily deleted in the end. I am not one to be vindictive but narhh, narhh, narhh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

I have made the proper citations to the disputed page. I hope this resolves the issue. Cheers, Tommyjack1. P.S., I am hoping to add these photos to the contribution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_artist_Edie_Parker_during_the_production_of_the_hockey_world%27s_most_photographed_sculpture_%22Our_Game%22.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hhof_our_game.jpg

I am very new to this, and am having a great deal of trouble adding these photos to the entry. Any ideas? Thank you Alan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommyjack1 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

user:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, interview away. I am an avid supporter of the Wikimedia Foundation projects but I am not sure if I can be particularly inspiring. Wikipedia, on which I do the vast majority of my edits, is bogged down with too many conservative Wikipedians - conservapedians if you will, although not to be confused with editors of Conservapedia - is leading to stagnant policy and guidelines. Wikipedia has grown immensely - even exponentially - but policy, guidelines, and the attitude of regular and long-standing editors has not changed to suit. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The article had been kept via AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GIANTmicrobes. There are some "references" on the talk page--feel free to try that one more time. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have rewritten the page. I would be grateful if you would now reconsider your nomination for its deletion. Thanks.Rick570 (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

== Fahed Boodai article ==

I have finished writing the Fahed Boodai article which you flagged for speedy deletion whilst it was under construction. I believe that Fahed conforms to the Wikipedia definition of "notability" as a quick google search reveals that he has been widely profiled in both Arabic and English secondary mainstream media sources, from print and cable television. Thank you.

  Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards's talk page.

I got the following message on my article:

This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Note that schools are not eligible under this criterion. See CSD A7.

If this article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page, and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, clicking the button below will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place to explain why you believe this article should not be deleted. You can also visit the talk page directly and tailor your own message, or check if you have received a response to your message.

Note that once tagged with this notice, the page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation posted to the talk page is found to be insufficient. Note to page author: you have not edited the article talk page yet. If you wish to contest this speedy deletion, clicking the button above will allow you to leave a talk page message explaining why you think this page should not be deleted. If you have already posted to the talk page but this message is still showing up, try purging the page cache.

This page was last edited by Alan Liefting (contribs | logs) at 20:16 UTC (1 second ago)

   Please consider placing the template:
   ==Speedy deletion nomination of Sarvi Solutions==

 

A tag has been placed on Sarvi Solutions 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. OnlyHunkHere (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

   on the talk page of the author. 

Will you please let me know why am I not able to make a company page? Please reply on just_neo_chetan@yahoo.co.uk

A company must meet the Wikipedia notability guideline in order to justify an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made the page for Indian model, dubbing-artist and talent actor, Sharad Shegade and put it up on Wikipedia, so if anyone who has more info can add it into the article. It'd be nice if anyone can find the info and add it in.

BlueMario1016 - talk 18:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you redirected Promised Messiah Day. Personally I think it deserves its own page, its celebrated by millions across the globe. Although atm the page is small it should hopefully grow. Thanks --Peaceworld 21:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan Liefting, thanks for your message and the one you send me on the same issue a few days ago. Your point is (and was) well made and I agree with you. I have removed some more from the category just to save you the trouble. When I add new articles to the category I will make sure that there is good evidence. Thanks very much for your help.Rick570 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully share your stated mission of removing articles that "don't belong on Wikipedia," but it would be more effectively accomplished if you used the proper reasons and proper process, rather than tags such as a speedy tag saying "I like putting pink boxes on articles that don't deserve to be on Wikipedia" on an unsourced BLP, or "I don't like it and I want it gone when I get back from my cup of tea." on an article on a work of fiction, or "because Wikipedia is full" on a forthcoming video game, or "Wikipedia is getting too heavy..." on a research institute DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since some of the WP procedures are a joke I may as well treat them as such. It is ridiculous that a newbie editor can can create a crap article and then leave it for the decreasing number of experienced editors to try and sort out. We are fighting a losing battle. Hardworking editors are leaving at a time when WP is gaining popularity. Overly prescriptive speedy deletion criteria does not help. Having all the new pages turn up on a google search does not help. No peer review prior to becoming a live article does not help. Stagnant policy does not help. It is all a big joke. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am very willing to support you in advocating noindex for the first 24 hours--I agree that this is a loophole in our system that should be ended. But otherwise: it is more effective in removing junk to remove only the ones that people will agree on is junk, and to the extent you nominate for deletion articles that will not get deleted, you are interfering with deleting those that need to be and will. You are also diminishing the force of your arguments for deletion. I share your frustration with process--it is very annoying when the results do not agree with what I think they should be: I have a considerable list of articles that should be deleted but will not be, and an even more considerable list of those that were deleted but shouldn't have been. They are both of them too long to work on effectively; it's all I can do keeping up with the current problems. Stagnant policy is a problem here as in any organization, but sometimes if it moves it moves in the opposite direction to what one desires, & I've therefore learned to leave it alone lest the result be even worse. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Care to give this the appropriate treatment?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer has now thrown a PROD on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmm how about Aloha Street, I see a Japanese site, can't find anything reliable in English.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Have tried a speedy. There is very few ghits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice one, although there seems to be a (marginally) notable street in Seattle called Aloha Street!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you have been adding your signature to some of your edits to articles, such as the edit you made to Western Media Effect on Non-Western Eating Pathology. This is a common mistake to make and has probably already been corrected. There is no need to sign your edits to article content, as the article's edit history serves the function of attributing contributions, so you only need to use your signature to make discussions more readable, such as on article talk pages or project pages such as the Village Pump. If you would like further information about distinguishing types of pages, please see What is an article?. Again, thank you for contributing, and enjoy your Wikipedia experience! This is an automated message from 28bot. False positive? Please report it. 28bot (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

...oops! Sorry Mr 28Bot. It won't happen again... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As you do a lot of work on categories, I thought I would ask for your views on a categorization issue. Suppose there is an article on species X y. My position has been that if the genus X is "large", then the article should be categorized as [[Category:X|y]], whereas if the genus is "small", so that Category:X will never contain many entries, then the article should be categorized under a parent taxon, typically the family. The boundary between "large" and "small" isn't entirely clear to me, but 1–5 species is "small" and 10+ species is "large".

However, my position isn't clearly supported anywhere as far as I can see: size isn't mentioned at WP:CAT, unless I've missed it; Wikipedia:TOL#Categories is vague about the "groups" to be categorized and inconsistent with WP:PLANTS which prefers scientific names to common names. So occasionally (as at present) I get into a dispute with an editor who wants to categorize a species article for a genus with only two species under the genus.

I've tried in the past to get something clearer written down about categorizing organism articles, at both WP:TOL and WP:PLANTS (I mostly work on plants), but couldn't get a consensus.

Do you have any thoughts/advice? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I entirely agree with your views on the categorisation of organisms. Having only two or so articles in a category should be avoided per WP:SMALLCAT unless part of a wider categorisation scheme. However, I would argue that categorising at a genus level is not a wide scheme in the context of WP but obviously it is as a biological taxonomic system.

WP categories are entirely suited to the biological classification system. There is also a need to consider a parallel and crosslinked categorisation of common names as well.

It would be good to establish a formalised guideline to avoid ongoing editing disagreements. I don't think I would be able to stomach the interminable discussions with Wikipedians who are too set in their ways. Conservapedians if you will. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful response. I think I'd seen WP:SMALLCAT in the past, but forgotten about it (it doesn't seem to be linked from WP:CAT – I'll check again – it should be). I now remember that when I previously used WP:SMALLCAT as a justification for re-categorizing, I ran up against this bit "... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"; it was argued that it was accepted that species articles should be classified under the genus. Like you I don't think there is any such acceptance in WP, but equally like you I'm not sure that I want to enter yet another long argument at WP:TOL (or more specifically WP:PLANTS). Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no universal categorisation of species to a genus level in WP. I was doing some work on Category:Bacteria (which I must finish) and there was a real mish-mash of schemes. It seems that is often the case that a group of editors focus on a small sub-set of WP pages and don't look at the bigger picture or con=cider what is best for the readers of WP. The categorising of organisms within WP can be done in such a way that it is factually correct and a useful navigation system. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello: I've performed some research regading the Montreal Forest Development article, and since you have contributed to the AfD discussion, I am requesting that you revisit the discussion to read my comments. Only people that have contributed to the AfD discussion for the article are receiving this notice (no canvassing). Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to let you know I challenged two of your CSD nominations. Edward S. May was expanded somewhat after your tagging, and made a better claim of importance, though will probably be deleted if nominated at AfD, a prod for failing notability would also be appropriate. RedBubble on the other hand clearly passed criteria A7, it has a strong case for passing WP:GNG and is clearly outside the scope of A7. Monty₈₄₅ 05:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

i add links for Big (KBS Tv Series) with official links of Korean by --Sunuraju (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

```Buster Seven Talk 11:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC))

Thank you. As a wikitheist I have a lot of faith in the Church of Wikipedia and its Creator. But I am mindful of the household chores that go undone, my poor wikiwidow, and the need to earn a living. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

Please let me know if you have questions about the recent articles I published on master hand engravers. I have personally interviewed both engravers and have years of experience in the field of hand engraving. I would like to further the knowledge of the art. Thanks,

Ahenson26 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Ahenson26

All articles on Wikipedia require references and a degree of notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan, as hand engraving is a small field of art, what would be required to prove notability in such an instance? Also, I can provide permission for the two articles on master hand engravers. How do I do that? I have several other masters I wish to include in Wikipedia for their contributions to the art of hand engraving. I work for the leading manufacturer of tools and equipment for hand engravers and jewelers, and I constantly publish articles about the industry and the artists. I also interview these artists first-hand on a regular basis. There is very little other published material outside our domain. Thanks. Ahenson26 (talk) 06:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Ahenson26

It is because it is a small field of art that makes it of insufficient notability for Wikipedia. Have a read of the main notability guidelines and all of the related pages. Note that Wikipedia never uses primary sources so your interviews will only be useful if referenced form another publication. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, can't find any sources on this.. Not even in Chinese. Should probably be deleted. Lacustuary also has no hits in google books and appears to be used by a small minority of people in Ohio.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. I think you know the drill. Take it off to AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Here. Just wanted you to know, but I assumed it was a mistake. Good Ol’factory <sup>(talk)</sup> 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of McGuffey Foundation School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: schools are not eligible under A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. GB fan 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

This all blew up at the start of the year, and over the course of a month or so, a lot of very painful things were said. The community over at FAC are pretty wounded, and you hit a sore spot. Please don't take it to heart: there's normally a much more welcoming response! Iridia (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was surprised at the vehemence. I thought: is it the editor? is too late at night? (it is afternoon here). Thanks for the background to the saga. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Those particular editors are generally some of the most level-headed around. Would be late evening for them. (Afternoon for me too). A bad sign of how upset everyone still remains. On the upside, there's a much more cheerful discussion here, which is the more frequented discussion forum, which I'll probably bring to the attention of WP:NZ once it's got legs. Iridia (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Just repeatedly removing material from the template {{reproductive health}} without explanation or discussion could be taken as edit warring. Please raise your concerns on the templates talk page. The material there was discussed before addition, there is plenty of time to discuss it when considering removal. Thank you. Zodon (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

It looked patently obvious to me that the template was not a very good place for the material I removed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for leaving a note about the "List of pastries" article on my userpage - I have not checked the deletion discussion as yet, but I can do so now. Best wishes, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your nomination of this list for speedy deletion as patent nonsense ({{db-g1}}) was quite improper. Your persistence in taking the matter to AFD without good grounds seems disruptive. Please take more care with your nominations. Warden (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You will note from the history that I quickly changed my initial speedy deletion criteria. It may have been a Fruedian slip. But anyway, we are trying to build a serious encyclopaedia yet new article creation is one big joke. I will therefore treat it as such. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Brilliant joke about "Frued". But you should not "treat" Wikipedia as "one big joke" because doing so will be terminal. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It was not a joke about the Fruedian slip. It may have been the actual cause for applying the incorrect CfD template. Also, I do not treat WP as a joke. As I clearly stated above "new article creation is one big joke". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Once again, I feel inspired by your incredible fruedien joak thred, but in the meantime, don't treat any of the processes as a "joke", in your case that's not even funny. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)