This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. Monty 845 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
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. Monty 845 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the lead Naayar ( talk) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
OK what is wrong? Geek2003 ( talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for your assessment of Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.
In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Giday Alan. thanks for the feedback. Noted! I'm very new to Wiki editing, sorry! Cheers Ertvarkie ( talk) 04:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And now could you explain the removal of the category "Healthcare" from BridgeHead Software? Darmot and gilad ( talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
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).
Thank you for your time. 216.250.156.66 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
Alan -- have I gotten your reason for deleting my article correct? 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 pointers to it. Do I have that correct? The answer is important, as my strategy now is to write a generic article on forest sustainability reporting.
Rob Hendricks ForestSFM ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Alan -- Yes, I guess that was pedantic which is OK if the communication is clear, which it is not. You speak as if you're the innocent by stander, which you are not. I will write a generic article and defied it by saying all the forestry articles are not part of the forest article. The WP editors are not fully aware of the forestry or sustainability world and the articles approved for WP reflect that. I will work with the guy who wrote the Sustainable Forest Management article. Thanks
76.6.127.220 ( talk) Rob —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
Could you PLEASE in the future tag the pages first? Geek2003 ( talk) 06:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand?? Geek2003 ( talk) 06:52, 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)
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)
...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)
Alan: Some sage advice from wiser Wikipedians has convinced me that my part in our little mini-drama has been far from ideal, so I'd like to apologize for my brusqueness, and for generally getting off on the wrong foot with you. If possible, I'd like to start over and ask you a couple of questions about categorization, which I do a lot of on Commons, but in a relatively limited subject area.
It has been explained to me why "phosphate mining" is not an appropriate category for the subject of the article, and I can see the sense in the explanation - more or less an application of WP:WEIGHT in that phosphate mining is not the primary reason the subject is notable. My confusion comes in this: it was suggested that a cat such as "phosphate mine owners" or "phosphate mine people" would be more appropriate (similiar to what I did by changing "Barbados" to "Barbadian businessman" and "Sugar" to "Sugar plantation owners") -- but those categories don't exist. And since they don't, aren't they in some way inherent in "phosphate mining" as the most appropriate available category? (Setting aside the WEIGHT concern.) Wouldn't it be best to categorize phosphate mine owners into "phosphate mining" until such time as "phosphate mine owners" is created, and they're transferred into it? Or is it best to actually create that new category (something I wouldn't generally do on Commons unless I knew I had at least a couple or three images to go into it).
Thanks for any clarity you can bring to this, and, again, my apologies for my side of our dust-up. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, I noticed that you have done some improvements to my article Dimitar Dobrev (academic) and am writing to thank you but also to ask for your assistance. Another editor (in fact several) have been adding warning boxes to improve it i.e. "this article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It may require cleaning up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2011. It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject. Tagged since August 2011. It should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines. Tagged since August 2011. This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2011) The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (August 2011) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)" This is my very first article and I have put a lot of work into this and most certainly do not wish to see this get deleted! As I already explained to another editor ("Cindyamuse") because of the difficulty posed by it being sourced from another language, it may well be that from what you see, as an external observer, this article does not meet with the Wikipedia quality standards. Why does it say that it lacks inline citations when I have provided those - but they are originally from the Bulgarian language and had to be translated so the English reader could see where they came from. What must I do to improve it, can you please suggest any helpful ideas, but please do not remove! --Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)snejana--Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrevasnejana ( talk • contribs)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Focus on the Family (disambiguation) 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/Focus on the Family (disambiguation) 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. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Alan,
Just got your delete request on "Howard J. Brown, Management Consultant". I appreciate Wikipedia and by extension all the work you do to make it the great resource it is. I am convinced Howard makes the grade, but am glad to be tested as I want other articles to all be up to standard as well... I re-read the "notable" lists for people and academics and will gather more citations that meet those criteria.
One thing: World Game was a very important simulation game, started by Fuller, run by Schlossberg, Gabel and Brown. Of that list of four people only Brown is not on Wikipedia. I hope I can find a way to "prove" that.
I like how you wrote above "I spend too much time on Wikipedia." I guess I am about to start.
Lwolberg ( talk) 09:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In the Category:Language you removed some links to other EN Wiki projects. In my opinion these links connect Wiki projects. Please return their back. -- Averaver ( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I know we disagree, but why place a prod on a significant consumer product, as they will always be disputed. Furthermore, they can be merged or redirected at the worst -- and, since some of the recent batch of your prods might even be notable based on the reviews, I think you are acting indiscriminately. I've deprodded so you can think more carefully about how to handle the individual ones. It might really be helpful to simply try to merge the least notable--there is not likely to be much opposition, & if it does need a discussion, I'll support you. I'll even help in the merges, if you like. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Opal card, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A3 tag was placed only one minute after creation, which is far too soon: enough content has now been added to make clear this is a valid article. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Alan,
Please help me prevent the persistant deletion of the Independent Music Conference page. I used this page as a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Music_Conference
The MMC page, as well as many other music conference pages have been featured on Wikipedia since at least 2006.
There is no reason why some music conferences would be acceptable content unless ALL music conferences are acceptable content.
WikiPeteyAH ( talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the seemingly never-ending and convoluted editorial guidelines, rules and regulations that are being quoted, there are THIRTY TWO other music conferences featured in Wikipedia, and unless you plan to "speedy delete" all of them, there must be some way to feature the Independent Music Conference that is also acceptable. Repeated "speedy deletions" have made corrections or improvements impossible. RESTORE THE PAGE and allow us to make any required edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.214.219 ( talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Template:Waste Management, thank you for the reversion Alan, regards AnthonyPA ( talk) 11:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a new article on historic places in Christchurch. On the article's talk page, there is a list of missing photos. Of the 320 items that are registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in the geographic area of Christchurch (excluding Banks Peninsula), there are only 80 registrations that we haven't got photos of. If you have a camera and would like to contribute, have a look what needs doing. Please leave a note on the talk page if you managed to get some photos, or if you know your way around Wikimedia Commons, you could upload them directly (note that it's complicated and I recommend that you start by leaving a note if you've never uploaded to Commons before). Thanks for your consideration! Schwede 66 05:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan,
I've removed the speedy tag from this article - Simple is a major brand in the UK, and the list of awards alone constitutes a claim of notability. The article needs some serious fixing, but it's not a candidate for A7 - could perhaps be taken to AfD, which might attract a few editors to source it and tidy it up. Cheers, Yunshui ( talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you know there is no such speedy criteria as "unremarkable product" or "it does not contain any information of encyclopeadic value" The place to discuss adding such criteria would be WT:CSD, but you're probably aware such a suggestion has been rejected repeatedly. If the page you added it to had been covered by G11, promotional, I would have just changed the tag and deleted it as such, as I have changed many A7 tags for things not subject to A7 but which were pure advertisements, but this purely descriptive factual page does not meet the requirements for that , either. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You can please ignore what I wrote earlier, I'm getting some technical explanations elsewhere on how to prevent the problem from happening again. OttawaAC ( talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain on the article's talk page why you removed those categories? You didn't give any reasoning in your edit summary. As I said, I might be persuaded to agree to some of them, but I certainly won't be persuaded without any reasoning. Thanks. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In 2010, you created an article on wildlife smuggling. However, our older article on wildlife trade discusses the legal and illegal trade, as well as smuggling. Due to the current lack of references and scope, I would like to suggest that you consider merging your article into the wildlife trade article. Viriditas ( talk) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel that your opinion/suggestions would be valuable. The proposal is here. LittleBen ( talk) 06:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject New Zealand for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 01:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, I don't know why you reverted back the changes made to "Environmentalism". I originally wrote the definition that's used on the wiki today and wrote to include information on Earth Day. I would like an explanation as to why you reverted my edits. Personally I think information about Earth Day and the changes to the Clean Air/Clean Water act should be intact. Also the sentence in the definition was made to be too long. -- Turn685 ( talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
On another matter, I have for a long time been keen to define boundaries for Christchurch suburbs. When I started to look into it, I found, to my big surprise, that they aren't defined anywhere! That doesn't help with putting a map together. It all sounds like WP:OR to some extend, but maybe we as a community of Wikipedians can agree on something, and that will enable us to have suburb maps. I've put some thoughts onto the Woolston talk page; chip in if you've got an opinion. Schwede 66 22:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Laugh? I Could Have Cried book cover.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) 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Bill Subritzky.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XLerate ( talk) 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could I suggest that you add a brief reason when you remove a category from an article? It may cut down on future reverts if other editors understand your approach to categorisation. It is also unhelpful to revert an editor and then immediately carry out an unrelated edit to the same page, as it hides your revert edit summary on their talk page. If given a chance, I would have suggested diffusion to a sub category, perhaps a geographic relative of 'Category:Bat roosts in Britain' rather than a complete removal? Scillystuff ( talk) 23:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
RefToolbar is now integrated into Common.js (it is automatically available to everyone). My suggestion would be to remove your personal installation of RefToolbar completely, clear your browser cache, and try using the new version that is incorporated into the editor by default. Kaldari ( talk) 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AgResearch logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. + m t 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI, A page you created Wikipedia:Graphs is being requested to be moved to Wikipedia:Charts, you might want to comment at WT:Graphs. The text of the page was changed from "graph" to "chart" with an additional sentence note stating that graphs are not charts. Further the related page Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs was renamed to Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading charts.
70.24.251.158 ( talk) 07:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that I have undeleted this article because its deletion was contested by its creator and because it wasn't eligible for PROD in the first place as it had previously been PRODed back in August. A trout slap for both of us on that one. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Noticed your edits relating to Sea Empress oil spill. Just a quick note that I had meant to investigate that article a little further, as the primary author had a bit of a history of copyright issues and the article appeared in one major swoop. Agathoclea ( talk) 08:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Alan,
Part of closing merge discussions is removing the merge tags from the pages ( Politics and sports) and ( Nationalism and sport). I just did that. Tanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Alan Liefting/Archive 13! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
A question awaits on Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_States#NYT_resource for you. :-) 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. According to Wikipedia:Categorization#Images: "A category can mix articles and images, or a separate image category can be created." Since there is no seperate image category for ad campaigns, then the image would appear to belong in the main category. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit to the template to remove every U.S. city from the list. You might want to get a consensus before you do that. On several of the smaller cities there have been AFDs for which their conclusion was to keep and there are ongoing discussions as well. — Moe ε 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Re
Dodge (given name):
The above is one of at least 5 places from which you removed calls to {{
incomplete list}} around 23:30, 4 November. I've just reviewed
Template:Expand list#Usage where i find in the current documentation:
It seems clear that at least the three i tagged meet that criterion for tagging, and since you did not argue for deletion of the pages, i assume you are unaware that
(as stated at
NOTDAB), and thus fundamentally different from lists where each entry must correspond to an existing article (of which the obvious example is
Dab pages). The entries i began these lists with do correspond to articles, but those entries are just initial portions of lists for which there are obviously notable entries so far missing, not all of which need articles (before the entries are added, nor, perhaps in some cases, ever). If i am mistaken in believing there is nothing more than that confusion behind your removals that i am now reverting, please help me understand what problem you are trying to solve.
--
Jerzy•
t
04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears you have a question on Talk:Climate change in the United States ( NY resource). 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan-- nice to meet someone who is interested in ecology/ecologists and knows and works on categories too. I could use some advice on the above page, which you flagged as redundant some time ago. See my reply there, and let me know if that seems workable to you. Also I don't understand the hierarchy of categories: Does an article need to be cat as "American ecologists" and "Ecologists" and "Systems ecologists" (for example) to appear on all three indices, or does the lowest level roll up as it were? .
I'd like to see more stubs created for significant ecologists. Do you know or run across people willing to work in that area? (Seems like a good subcat for the WP:Biography project.) Thanks for all your work! -- Araucana ( talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The article you created, Occupy movement in the United States has been nominated for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that about the problem in Fiji. Very interesting!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Alan, you seem knowledgeable about categorisation, so I'd like to ask you for a quick bit of advice about people in history - of technology like Robinson Thwaites, or pioneers in medicine. What one would intuitively want would be "Pioneers of Technology" or "Technology Pioneers" or "Victorian Engineers" ... but none of these seem to exist, and I'm hesitant to create such things. What is the WP thinking on this - can we not have a simple way of showing that someone was in at the start of a movement like the Industrial Revolution (or the history of modern medicine, surgery, ...)?
I guess the trouble I'm having is that if some is, say, incredibly good at something extremely specialized, then there isn't going to be a category - Historical Pioneer in the History of Brass-Smelting Technology in the North of England... is ridiculous. The alternative would be for the categories to be analytic, ie Person, History, Technology, Smelting, Brasswork, England; but it seems this isn't the WP view of things (it could be called tagging, or concept association).
Your advice? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see you started the article and have been active there recently so you may help me with the following:
I read it some time ago (two years maybe) and I could have sworn there was some info (which I am now after) about ferrets having similar effect and status in NZ but there's no sign of it now, checked the edit history, no trace there neither, so.. was it ever there or was it only on external links? Ilderek ( talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is someone of you experience edit warring? Please self revert so we can discuss it on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that within the AfD template when placed in articles, there needs to be spaces between the vertical bars "|" where the page name is within the template. Otherwise, the link to the AfD is a red link. When the spaces are present, the link functions properly. I noticed this error in the template after you nominated List of environmental history topics for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not permitted to replace a removed prod tag. Nor is everyone who suggests a merge required to complete it. Feel free to take them to AfD, (please notify me) but expect to be challenged on both the point of not having looked for reviews, and for mergability. Sometimes the articles you deal with this way get deleted, sometimes they don't--PROD assumes the deletion will go unchallenged, and these product deletions are generally challenged. (I've let a few stand where I dont think it's worth looking) DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Category:Biopower, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the invite,I'm flattered I would rather let the article do the talking,in line of recent advents (Greece Sovereign debt crisis and Italy).I would just say this it is important to try and understand the present situation with regards the present situations around the world.It would be interesting to find out,if Foucault was alive today,what would he think of the present situation in Greece and Italy;two of the worlds first or most important civilisations in regards normalised power and the founders of the modern doctrine Raison d'état.At this moment in time I would prefer to decline the invitation because I have lot on with my day job,writting,however,I will participate at a later date.
Many Thanks Richardlord50 ( talk) 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Giday Alan, I thought you might like to see a note I left to a user you had communicated with regarding her username. The relevant policy is WP:NOSHARE, an exciting new shortcut to add to the myriad you no doubt already have tucked away! Danger High voltage! 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of respect you would notify editors of AFDs. Why didn't you? An editor with 7 years experience would surely know to notify the creator of articles for AFDs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That was not mentioned in the discussion and I missed it. Funny thing was I added it for another move earlier. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you have time before Friday evening, your help with this politics task force collaboration would be much appreciated! If you have questions, please ask them there. Schwede 66 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Alan, as you know, I do find the WP policy on categories hard to understand, and really it's not for want of trying.
You've felt obliged to remove the category 'Publications' from Police Gazette (UK). It was, certainly, a publication by the British police force for many years. While I'd be delighted to understand the reasons for removal, the immediate need is to know what category to put the article in. Should I create a new category, Historical publications, or what? Former publications? Official publications? Defunct official British publications?
There is something deeply disturbing and paradoxical in a system which has to undo what would seem perfectly correct work without explanation and without providing alternatives - I'd much rather devote effort to building and to telling truth than to explaining, arguing, defending, justifying and rescuing.
Thanks for the manual archive, and apologies for a cryptic edit summary when I summoned Miszabot - there are clearly some undated threads which we'd have had to have tidied up anyway, so it's all good. -- McGeddon ( talk) 20:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In light of recent developments, don't you feel a little silly? Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your recent move which doesn't seem to have been particularly thought through. The article was on the mainpage. The article had been written under that name by me for a reason. It would have been a pretty good idea to at least ask on the article talkpage to suggest the move. As it is traditional music of Denmark and Danish traditional music is not the necessarily same thing. The traditional music of Denmark includes non-Danish traditions that have been established or that are practiced in Denmark. Danish tradtitional music is a style of music that is traditional to Denmark. Just like music of Ireland and Irish music is not the same thing. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan I have just created an article and deleted it because it did not conform properly (I think I have been to hasty to create without properly think through). But it has left a robot message to delete the rest of the article, which is what I want. I can not completely delite it at the moment. Are you able to delete it. The name is Hirose Financial UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alta International ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Dilthey is a core philosopher of contemporary hermeneutics. I have restored this category for the article; I recognize that h. has several branches, but he is certainly an important figure. hgilbert ( talk) 12:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I am. Guidance is always helpful. Yfever ( talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please point me to an explanation of why you are removing the category "Fruit" from so many pages? Thanks. Nadiatalent ( talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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. Monty 845 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
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. Monty 845 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks for the lead Naayar ( talk) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
OK what is wrong? Geek2003 ( talk) 12:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you for your assessment of Planetary boundaries. 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi, This is a random survey regarding the first sentence on the Wikipedia policy page Verifiability.
In your own words, what does this mean? Thank you. Regards, Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Giday Alan. thanks for the feedback. Noted! I'm very new to Wiki editing, sorry! Cheers Ertvarkie ( talk) 04:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And now could you explain the removal of the category "Healthcare" from BridgeHead Software? Darmot and gilad ( talk) 15:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
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).
Thank you for your time. 216.250.156.66 ( talk) 19:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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).
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).
Alan -- have I gotten your reason for deleting my article correct? 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 pointers to it. Do I have that correct? The answer is important, as my strategy now is to write a generic article on forest sustainability reporting.
Rob Hendricks ForestSFM ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC).
Alan -- Yes, I guess that was pedantic which is OK if the communication is clear, which it is not. You speak as if you're the innocent by stander, which you are not. I will write a generic article and defied it by saying all the forestry articles are not part of the forest article. The WP editors are not fully aware of the forestry or sustainability world and the articles approved for WP reflect that. I will work with the guy who wrote the Sustainable Forest Management article. Thanks
76.6.127.220 ( talk) Rob —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC).
Could you PLEASE in the future tag the pages first? Geek2003 ( talk) 06:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand?? Geek2003 ( talk) 06:52, 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)
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)
...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)
Alan: Some sage advice from wiser Wikipedians has convinced me that my part in our little mini-drama has been far from ideal, so I'd like to apologize for my brusqueness, and for generally getting off on the wrong foot with you. If possible, I'd like to start over and ask you a couple of questions about categorization, which I do a lot of on Commons, but in a relatively limited subject area.
It has been explained to me why "phosphate mining" is not an appropriate category for the subject of the article, and I can see the sense in the explanation - more or less an application of WP:WEIGHT in that phosphate mining is not the primary reason the subject is notable. My confusion comes in this: it was suggested that a cat such as "phosphate mine owners" or "phosphate mine people" would be more appropriate (similiar to what I did by changing "Barbados" to "Barbadian businessman" and "Sugar" to "Sugar plantation owners") -- but those categories don't exist. And since they don't, aren't they in some way inherent in "phosphate mining" as the most appropriate available category? (Setting aside the WEIGHT concern.) Wouldn't it be best to categorize phosphate mine owners into "phosphate mining" until such time as "phosphate mine owners" is created, and they're transferred into it? Or is it best to actually create that new category (something I wouldn't generally do on Commons unless I knew I had at least a couple or three images to go into it).
Thanks for any clarity you can bring to this, and, again, my apologies for my side of our dust-up. Best, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock_request_for_IPadWanderer. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello there, I noticed that you have done some improvements to my article Dimitar Dobrev (academic) and am writing to thank you but also to ask for your assistance. Another editor (in fact several) have been adding warning boxes to improve it i.e. "this article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It may require cleaning up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Tagged since August 2011. It may have been edited by a contributor who has a close connection with its subject. Tagged since August 2011. It should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. Please help by adding section headings in accordance with Wikipedia's style guidelines. Tagged since August 2011. This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (August 2011) The topic of this article may not meet the notability guideline for biographies. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (August 2011) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2011)" This is my very first article and I have put a lot of work into this and most certainly do not wish to see this get deleted! As I already explained to another editor ("Cindyamuse") because of the difficulty posed by it being sourced from another language, it may well be that from what you see, as an external observer, this article does not meet with the Wikipedia quality standards. Why does it say that it lacks inline citations when I have provided those - but they are originally from the Bulgarian language and had to be translated so the English reader could see where they came from. What must I do to improve it, can you please suggest any helpful ideas, but please do not remove! --Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)snejana--Dobrevasnejana 13:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrevasnejana ( talk • contribs)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Focus on the Family (disambiguation) 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/Focus on the Family (disambiguation) 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. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 06:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear Alan,
Just got your delete request on "Howard J. Brown, Management Consultant". I appreciate Wikipedia and by extension all the work you do to make it the great resource it is. I am convinced Howard makes the grade, but am glad to be tested as I want other articles to all be up to standard as well... I re-read the "notable" lists for people and academics and will gather more citations that meet those criteria.
One thing: World Game was a very important simulation game, started by Fuller, run by Schlossberg, Gabel and Brown. Of that list of four people only Brown is not on Wikipedia. I hope I can find a way to "prove" that.
I like how you wrote above "I spend too much time on Wikipedia." I guess I am about to start.
Lwolberg ( talk) 09:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello. In the Category:Language you removed some links to other EN Wiki projects. In my opinion these links connect Wiki projects. Please return their back. -- Averaver ( talk) 17:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I know we disagree, but why place a prod on a significant consumer product, as they will always be disputed. Furthermore, they can be merged or redirected at the worst -- and, since some of the recent batch of your prods might even be notable based on the reviews, I think you are acting indiscriminately. I've deprodded so you can think more carefully about how to handle the individual ones. It might really be helpful to simply try to merge the least notable--there is not likely to be much opposition, & if it does need a discussion, I'll support you. I'll even help in the merges, if you like. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Opal card, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A3 tag was placed only one minute after creation, which is far too soon: enough content has now been added to make clear this is a valid article. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Alan,
Please help me prevent the persistant deletion of the Independent Music Conference page. I used this page as a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Music_Conference
The MMC page, as well as many other music conference pages have been featured on Wikipedia since at least 2006.
There is no reason why some music conferences would be acceptable content unless ALL music conferences are acceptable content.
WikiPeteyAH ( talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the seemingly never-ending and convoluted editorial guidelines, rules and regulations that are being quoted, there are THIRTY TWO other music conferences featured in Wikipedia, and unless you plan to "speedy delete" all of them, there must be some way to feature the Independent Music Conference that is also acceptable. Repeated "speedy deletions" have made corrections or improvements impossible. RESTORE THE PAGE and allow us to make any required edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.214.219 ( talk) 23:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Re: Template:Waste Management, thank you for the reversion Alan, regards AnthonyPA ( talk) 11:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to draw your attention to a new article on historic places in Christchurch. On the article's talk page, there is a list of missing photos. Of the 320 items that are registered with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust in the geographic area of Christchurch (excluding Banks Peninsula), there are only 80 registrations that we haven't got photos of. If you have a camera and would like to contribute, have a look what needs doing. Please leave a note on the talk page if you managed to get some photos, or if you know your way around Wikimedia Commons, you could upload them directly (note that it's complicated and I recommend that you start by leaving a note if you've never uploaded to Commons before). Thanks for your consideration! Schwede 66 05:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan,
I've removed the speedy tag from this article - Simple is a major brand in the UK, and the list of awards alone constitutes a claim of notability. The article needs some serious fixing, but it's not a candidate for A7 - could perhaps be taken to AfD, which might attract a few editors to source it and tidy it up. Cheers, Yunshui ( talk) 08:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you know there is no such speedy criteria as "unremarkable product" or "it does not contain any information of encyclopeadic value" The place to discuss adding such criteria would be WT:CSD, but you're probably aware such a suggestion has been rejected repeatedly. If the page you added it to had been covered by G11, promotional, I would have just changed the tag and deleted it as such, as I have changed many A7 tags for things not subject to A7 but which were pure advertisements, but this purely descriptive factual page does not meet the requirements for that , either. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
You can please ignore what I wrote earlier, I'm getting some technical explanations elsewhere on how to prevent the problem from happening again. OttawaAC ( talk) 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you explain on the article's talk page why you removed those categories? You didn't give any reasoning in your edit summary. As I said, I might be persuaded to agree to some of them, but I certainly won't be persuaded without any reasoning. Thanks. -- Pontificalibus ( talk) 10:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
In 2010, you created an article on wildlife smuggling. However, our older article on wildlife trade discusses the legal and illegal trade, as well as smuggling. Due to the current lack of references and scope, I would like to suggest that you consider merging your article into the wildlife trade article. Viriditas ( talk) 00:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I feel that your opinion/suggestions would be valuable. The proposal is here. LittleBen ( talk) 06:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject New Zealand for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters ( talk) 01:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
Hi, I don't know why you reverted back the changes made to "Environmentalism". I originally wrote the definition that's used on the wiki today and wrote to include information on Earth Day. I would like an explanation as to why you reverted my edits. Personally I think information about Earth Day and the changes to the Clean Air/Clean Water act should be intact. Also the sentence in the definition was made to be too long. -- Turn685 ( talk) 19:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
On another matter, I have for a long time been keen to define boundaries for Christchurch suburbs. When I started to look into it, I found, to my big surprise, that they aren't defined anywhere! That doesn't help with putting a map together. It all sounds like WP:OR to some extend, but maybe we as a community of Wikipedians can agree on something, and that will enable us to have suburb maps. I've put some thoughts onto the Woolston talk page; chip in if you've got an opinion. Schwede 66 22:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Laugh? I Could Have Cried book cover.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) 09:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Bill Subritzky.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XLerate ( talk) 10:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could I suggest that you add a brief reason when you remove a category from an article? It may cut down on future reverts if other editors understand your approach to categorisation. It is also unhelpful to revert an editor and then immediately carry out an unrelated edit to the same page, as it hides your revert edit summary on their talk page. If given a chance, I would have suggested diffusion to a sub category, perhaps a geographic relative of 'Category:Bat roosts in Britain' rather than a complete removal? Scillystuff ( talk) 23:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
RefToolbar is now integrated into Common.js (it is automatically available to everyone). My suggestion would be to remove your personal installation of RefToolbar completely, clear your browser cache, and try using the new version that is incorporated into the editor by default. Kaldari ( talk) 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AgResearch logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. + m t 11:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
FYI, A page you created Wikipedia:Graphs is being requested to be moved to Wikipedia:Charts, you might want to comment at WT:Graphs. The text of the page was changed from "graph" to "chart" with an additional sentence note stating that graphs are not charts. Further the related page Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading graphs was renamed to Wikipedia:Don't draw misleading charts.
70.24.251.158 ( talk) 07:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a note that I have undeleted this article because its deletion was contested by its creator and because it wasn't eligible for PROD in the first place as it had previously been PRODed back in August. A trout slap for both of us on that one. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Noticed your edits relating to Sea Empress oil spill. Just a quick note that I had meant to investigate that article a little further, as the primary author had a bit of a history of copyright issues and the article appeared in one major swoop. Agathoclea ( talk) 08:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Alan,
Part of closing merge discussions is removing the merge tags from the pages ( Politics and sports) and ( Nationalism and sport). I just did that. Tanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Alan Liefting/Archive 13! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
Please click
HERE to take part. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey |
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Wiki Media Foundation at 10:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC).
A question awaits on Talk:Climate_change_in_the_United_States#NYT_resource for you. :-) 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi. According to Wikipedia:Categorization#Images: "A category can mix articles and images, or a separate image category can be created." Since there is no seperate image category for ad campaigns, then the image would appear to belong in the main category. Thanks, Beyond My Ken ( talk) 20:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit to the template to remove every U.S. city from the list. You might want to get a consensus before you do that. On several of the smaller cities there have been AFDs for which their conclusion was to keep and there are ongoing discussions as well. — Moe ε 23:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Re
Dodge (given name):
The above is one of at least 5 places from which you removed calls to {{
incomplete list}} around 23:30, 4 November. I've just reviewed
Template:Expand list#Usage where i find in the current documentation:
It seems clear that at least the three i tagged meet that criterion for tagging, and since you did not argue for deletion of the pages, i assume you are unaware that
(as stated at
NOTDAB), and thus fundamentally different from lists where each entry must correspond to an existing article (of which the obvious example is
Dab pages). The entries i began these lists with do correspond to articles, but those entries are just initial portions of lists for which there are obviously notable entries so far missing, not all of which need articles (before the entries are added, nor, perhaps in some cases, ever). If i am mistaken in believing there is nothing more than that confusion behind your removals that i am now reverting, please help me understand what problem you are trying to solve.
--
Jerzy•
t
04:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears you have a question on Talk:Climate change in the United States ( NY resource). 141.218.36.152 ( talk) 22:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan-- nice to meet someone who is interested in ecology/ecologists and knows and works on categories too. I could use some advice on the above page, which you flagged as redundant some time ago. See my reply there, and let me know if that seems workable to you. Also I don't understand the hierarchy of categories: Does an article need to be cat as "American ecologists" and "Ecologists" and "Systems ecologists" (for example) to appear on all three indices, or does the lowest level roll up as it were? .
I'd like to see more stubs created for significant ecologists. Do you know or run across people willing to work in that area? (Seems like a good subcat for the WP:Biography project.) Thanks for all your work! -- Araucana ( talk) 16:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
The article you created, Occupy movement in the United States has been nominated for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that about the problem in Fiji. Very interesting!-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Alan, you seem knowledgeable about categorisation, so I'd like to ask you for a quick bit of advice about people in history - of technology like Robinson Thwaites, or pioneers in medicine. What one would intuitively want would be "Pioneers of Technology" or "Technology Pioneers" or "Victorian Engineers" ... but none of these seem to exist, and I'm hesitant to create such things. What is the WP thinking on this - can we not have a simple way of showing that someone was in at the start of a movement like the Industrial Revolution (or the history of modern medicine, surgery, ...)?
I guess the trouble I'm having is that if some is, say, incredibly good at something extremely specialized, then there isn't going to be a category - Historical Pioneer in the History of Brass-Smelting Technology in the North of England... is ridiculous. The alternative would be for the categories to be analytic, ie Person, History, Technology, Smelting, Brasswork, England; but it seems this isn't the WP view of things (it could be called tagging, or concept association).
Your advice? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I can see you started the article and have been active there recently so you may help me with the following:
I read it some time ago (two years maybe) and I could have sworn there was some info (which I am now after) about ferrets having similar effect and status in NZ but there's no sign of it now, checked the edit history, no trace there neither, so.. was it ever there or was it only on external links? Ilderek ( talk) 22:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is someone of you experience edit warring? Please self revert so we can discuss it on the talk page. AIRcorn (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
It appears that within the AfD template when placed in articles, there needs to be spaces between the vertical bars "|" where the page name is within the template. Otherwise, the link to the AfD is a red link. When the spaces are present, the link functions properly. I noticed this error in the template after you nominated List of environmental history topics for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
It is not permitted to replace a removed prod tag. Nor is everyone who suggests a merge required to complete it. Feel free to take them to AfD, (please notify me) but expect to be challenged on both the point of not having looked for reviews, and for mergability. Sometimes the articles you deal with this way get deleted, sometimes they don't--PROD assumes the deletion will go unchallenged, and these product deletions are generally challenged. (I've let a few stand where I dont think it's worth looking) DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Category:Biopower, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the invite,I'm flattered I would rather let the article do the talking,in line of recent advents (Greece Sovereign debt crisis and Italy).I would just say this it is important to try and understand the present situation with regards the present situations around the world.It would be interesting to find out,if Foucault was alive today,what would he think of the present situation in Greece and Italy;two of the worlds first or most important civilisations in regards normalised power and the founders of the modern doctrine Raison d'état.At this moment in time I would prefer to decline the invitation because I have lot on with my day job,writting,however,I will participate at a later date.
Many Thanks Richardlord50 ( talk) 13:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Giday Alan, I thought you might like to see a note I left to a user you had communicated with regarding her username. The relevant policy is WP:NOSHARE, an exciting new shortcut to add to the myriad you no doubt already have tucked away! Danger High voltage! 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Out of respect you would notify editors of AFDs. Why didn't you? An editor with 7 years experience would surely know to notify the creator of articles for AFDs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That was not mentioned in the discussion and I missed it. Funny thing was I added it for another move earlier. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
If you have time before Friday evening, your help with this politics task force collaboration would be much appreciated! If you have questions, please ask them there. Schwede 66 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Alan, as you know, I do find the WP policy on categories hard to understand, and really it's not for want of trying.
You've felt obliged to remove the category 'Publications' from Police Gazette (UK). It was, certainly, a publication by the British police force for many years. While I'd be delighted to understand the reasons for removal, the immediate need is to know what category to put the article in. Should I create a new category, Historical publications, or what? Former publications? Official publications? Defunct official British publications?
There is something deeply disturbing and paradoxical in a system which has to undo what would seem perfectly correct work without explanation and without providing alternatives - I'd much rather devote effort to building and to telling truth than to explaining, arguing, defending, justifying and rescuing.
Thanks for the manual archive, and apologies for a cryptic edit summary when I summoned Miszabot - there are clearly some undated threads which we'd have had to have tidied up anyway, so it's all good. -- McGeddon ( talk) 20:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
In light of recent developments, don't you feel a little silly? Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your recent move which doesn't seem to have been particularly thought through. The article was on the mainpage. The article had been written under that name by me for a reason. It would have been a pretty good idea to at least ask on the article talkpage to suggest the move. As it is traditional music of Denmark and Danish traditional music is not the necessarily same thing. The traditional music of Denmark includes non-Danish traditions that have been established or that are practiced in Denmark. Danish tradtitional music is a style of music that is traditional to Denmark. Just like music of Ireland and Irish music is not the same thing. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Alan I have just created an article and deleted it because it did not conform properly (I think I have been to hasty to create without properly think through). But it has left a robot message to delete the rest of the article, which is what I want. I can not completely delite it at the moment. Are you able to delete it. The name is Hirose Financial UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alta International ( talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Dilthey is a core philosopher of contemporary hermeneutics. I have restored this category for the article; I recognize that h. has several branches, but he is certainly an important figure. hgilbert ( talk) 12:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I am. Guidance is always helpful. Yfever ( talk) 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you please point me to an explanation of why you are removing the category "Fruit" from so many pages? Thanks. Nadiatalent ( talk) 01:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)