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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There are heaps of legitimate government reports and notable books on the subject - and yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wilderness_Areas_of_Australia - you seem to have depopulated it - what is going on? (in the terms of another retiree in the public domain - please explain (and please do not use the its all in the environment argument) Satu Suro 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan,
I know you've taken an interest in carbon sequestration topics, so I wanted to let you know about openCCS - it may be of use if you get into that area again. See my longer note here.
I hope the semi-retired lifestyle suits you - glad that you haven't retired completely! -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Talk:Global warming? I think some of your maintenance work on categories may be going against the general editing guidelines on categories, so we should discuss it to see if it makes the encyclopedia better. If we decide it does, of course we can ignore the guidelines, but that discussion does need to be held. -- TS 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention that you have deleted the page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DATA_Inc due to the fact that you deemed it as promotional.
The intent of the page is to chronicle the history of the organization. As the individual in question has built the organization from the ground up, developed methodologies that are in use in the industry today, and has won several awards, I question why you would deem this as a "promotional page."
Please advise and if so, restore the page appropriately.
Otherwise, if you still deem this page as promotional, please highlight exactly what you deem as promotional on this page, and I will determine if this is correct or not, and fix appropriately.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnikanorov ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are you recategorising NZ electorates to NZ [Region] electorates? Splitting them up now means a visitor or editor accessing through categories needs good geographic knowledge, or will have to search through several regional categories to find anything. At the very least this change should have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics before being started. Fan | talk 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Fan | talk 06:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for ur good work.-- Fotokannan ( talk) 08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
Alan, I just wanted you to be absolutely sure that your good work over the years has not gone unnoticed. Thanks for all you do at NPP! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited Biosecurity in Australia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Viable, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Crowned Crane ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thanks for marking my obviously legitimate page for speedy deletion 7 minutes after it was created... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elj1201 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What aspect of WP:BIO qualifies the nomination for deletion of Greg Cosell? The article clearly passes WP:BIO standards. 108.40.72.212 ( talk) 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please take this subject to a deletion discussion if you don't think it's notable. Given the cites already in the article and a quick Google news search, I don't think there's any question about her notability. I didn't even have to look in the Google News archives or on Google Books. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Alan, Mr. Nawaz Akram is notable inventor, and manufacturer from Pakistan. You live in NZ and may not know that in third world poor countries hero are not media sensation. Mr. Nawaz's NRE is the only company from south Asia that installed plants in Europe and Canada. Please do not delete this page. I am not related to him. He is a real hero from a poor country who has inspired a lot of young people. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 ( talk) 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this really deserves an article, as opposed to a section in Agapanthus. Could you explain perhaps? Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion had been posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Agapanthus_in_New_Zealand_and_similar_articles. Further comment should be made there. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
. Hello. My name is Dean Camp. I recently signed up to edit, and the article "Aftermath of World War II" was the first one one the list offered to me by Wikipedia. I made some edits concerning a comma and information from page 35 of "West Germany under construction: politics, society, and culture in the Adenauer era" by Robert G. Moeller, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1997. I noticed that the information was quoting the source in some places without using quotations marks. . . Today, I had time to do further citation research and noticed that "Page 35 is not part of this book preview" anymore. Aditionally, "Pages 84 to 93 are not shown in this preview" either, which are also, like page 35, referenced by the Wikipedia's article's citations. This omission of available pages indicates that the source provider, "Google books", has made changes to the available information since I made the previous edit changes three days ago on 22 January. . (Q) Why has Google removed the cited page, especially since is is the exact page referenced by footnote 42? Is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauzeandchess ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Clique problem/Alternative draft. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Clique problem. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Clique problem - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, could you consider suspending the AfD process for this article for a few hours? The user is new and has told me that he will be adding more content in sometime which may help assert notability. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi you nominated Mr. Bean (character) for deletion due to copyright violation. However the text shown in the duplicate detector from Zimbio was itself copied from Wikipedia article Mr. Bean. Zimbio is dated 25 November last year, and the Wikipedia article had this text before. You should check this out yourself before nominating. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It was my first time
creating an album page, forgot (album) was supposed to be in lowercase. Thank you for fixing it for me :)
--
Ruben(nerd) (
talk)
05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you nominated the article Ekso Bionics for deletion, and notified too but you didn't tell me the reason for deletion. Please Specify. -- Kondicherry ( talk) 08:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
On 1/20 I received an email from Wiki that a page I created (Sheets Brand) was taken down for speedy deletion. It contained your name, and I wanted to see how I can "userfy" the page so that it is informative about the company. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamihud ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
See template:Invalid references. 198.102.153.2 ( talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful additions. Re. the bare URLs, are you able to fix them? Re. the unclear citations, can you explain what is unclear about them? Regards KJP1 ( talk) 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have removed the category squash from the article Nicolas van Caesbroeck. He even played in the Belgian national team. Can you explain that, please? Night of the Big Wind talk 12:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Ingredients by country, 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) - 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan Liefting. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Gajendra Ahire, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. If you read the actual criterion, it is very specific on this point :"this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox" Additionally it was an extremely simple matter to use the content of the infobox to make the article into a one-line stub. Many of our articles started out in a similarly poor state, perfection is not expected at the instant an article is created. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you removed Category:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes from File:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Animated Series.png? Smallman12q ( talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, say you are right in deleting my post because of violation of G11. But what difference does this post have? - Ayala Land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayala_Land.
I will rewrite the article but can you send a copy of the deleted article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuelc ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the article. I've added some sources and notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I might be missing something, and apologize if so. Why are you removing Cognitive Science as a category from Mind? Please reply on my talk page.
Thanks Jj1236 ( talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Environment by year project, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
User:ThaddeusB might be willing to program a bot that will add information to our years in the environment article series from the IUCN red list database. This could be a big breakthrough for the series, see User_talk:ThaddeusB#Prehistoric_articles_bot. If you have any ideas for another database source that would be useful to draw from, please chime in on his talk page! :) Abyssal ( talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan - I am new to Wikipedia. I am not very computer knowledgeable. I wrote an article on Salina, Colorado where I've lived for forty years. I went into edited an incorrect date, (1959 error should read 1859), and I received a message from Wiki that my article was not verified. I tried to reference my two sources: The Switzerland Trail/Forest Crossen/Robinson Pess 1978/ISBN 978091370249 and The Mining Camps Salina & Summerville/M.M. Anderson/Junction House 2005/ ISBN 0977223000. I spent more than an hour reading about referencing for beginners, reliable sources, verification, etc....but I just don't get it. I am 66 years old and I don't know how to footnote/reference my article so that when a reader accesses it, it doesn't have a Unverified Warning. Please help! Mr. Larry Rasmussen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzman45 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In the merge, you deleted the gallery of photos. Why did you do this, please? DrChrissy ( talk) 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If you do not like the aesthetics of the gallery tag and you believe this makes for an 'ugly' layout, perhaps you should take this up with those responsible for creation of the tag. As a user of Wikipedia, I try to stay within the guidelines and principles of the site. One of those would be to use the gallery tag where appropriate. I would also argue that aesthetics is highly subjective. I did not like the layout of the photos you suggested....so who is correct? I am re-instating the gallery on the page. DrChrissy ( talk) 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan,
I saw that you removed the "Green vehicles" cat from Hybrid electric vehicle. I'm sure you had a very good reason for doing so and am curious what that reason is. Please respond if you have a moment. Thanks. Ebikeguy ( talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sure you have good intentions and I am trying to believe that. But you placed my article up for deletion only a few minutes after I had started it. I am having a hard time understanding that. Jacqke ( talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Glossaries on the military, 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. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You clearly have a reason for doing this but I am not at all sure what it is and I'm afraid I find this edit summary incomprehensible. Ben Mac Dui 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I asked about the purpose of this edit to the category on the article's talk page. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There were a plentiful of nominations you made which are closed as keep, mainly because you did not read WP:BEFORE before nominating them. Your nominations are becoming WP:BITEy to the creators of these articles. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mirage (novel), in which I closed today. you redirected the article only minutes after it was created, which seemingly upset the page creator, and then what was your next action? Nominating it for AfD. You alienated this new user, who tried to make quality contributions to Wikipedia. So, in a nutshell, please read WP:BEFORE before making any further AfD nominations, as this is not the first AfD of yours I NAC'ed as a clear "keep". Just google the topic - and there's the answer whether or not it's appropriate to nominate it for AfD. Thanks. -- B music ian 01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand. Since you had some involvement with the List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI). Since you had some involvement with the Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Credit Managers' Index (CMI). Since you had some involvement with the Credit Managers' Index (CMI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Association of Credit Management (NACM). Since you had some involvement with the National Association of Credit Management (NACM) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably. Since you had some involvement with the CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In this edit you removed the "Category:2012 Summer Olympics" Coe is the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. Why would this not be a relevant category for article? You can reply on my page. Trackinfo ( talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, I wonder if you might consider withdrawing the nomination, given the great improvement the article has undergone in the past few days. Ladyof Shalott 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my last comment at Wikipedia talk:Environment by year project. Abyssal ( talk) 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The two cats you removed from Birth control movement in the United States look valid topically, .. were they redundant somehow? -- Noleander ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there - I notice you've removed Category:Planned Parenthood from several organizations. They were in this category because they are or were the national affiliate of the Int'l Planned Parenthood Federation. Please consider restoring the category. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF). Since you had some involvement with the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Rossami (no ami of mine) has actually re-created TGen Drug Development (TD2)! Please express your opinion at the RfD. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted a bunch of your removals of Category:PseudoScience from articles that are clearly about pseudosciences. (Although I agree with your removal of articles about people who commonly practice pseudoscience.)
Please see Talk:Homeopathy#Categories for an ongoing discussion of this. Please reply there - I don't monitor this talk page. SteveBaker ( talk) 21:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you were making a number of reverts recently ( [2], [3], [4]) using the rollback tool.
This is just a reminder that the rollback tool shouldn't be used undo good-faith edits made by another Wikipedia contributor, even if you believe their edits were incorrect. The use of rollback should particularly be avoided when there is an ongoing discussion and when you have already reverted the same content before (as appears to be the case at Talk:Homeopathy). For a guide to when rollback should or should not be used, see Wikipedia:Rollback feature. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO). Since you had some involvement with the Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Noformation Talk 08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am going to have trouble hiding my anger here but I will try. I can across Category:Pseudoscience and it had the big ugly banner across the top of it saying move articles to subcats. So I did. Because it was a mess. A real mish-mash of about 250 articles spread over two pages. But it seems there are editors out the who want to link every article to every other article via the categories. That is not what should be done. How the hell is WP going to improve for our readers if this sort of poor editing is going to be done. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan, sorry if I contributed to you getting angry, I certainly did not intend it. Would you mind starting a centralized discussion on this topic, perhaps at the village pump, so that a clear consensus can emerge? Once that's taken care of you can easily point to that discussion, or even have a bot do the work for you. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to do, but it seems as though there are conflicting guidelines and so it's probably a good idea to get some input before undertaking a large task like this. Thanks. Noformation Talk 03:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please refer to my proposal to upmerge Category:Sports events by country to Category:Lists of sport events Hugo999 ( talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan I'd like to ask the reason for this change, no edit summary was provided. XLerate ( talk) 06:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Great idea you had creating the page Film censorship. Thanks very much, — Cirt ( talk) 08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Alan Liefting. I agree with your removal of the pseudoscience category from Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. I have started a discussion about it on the talk page; it would be helpful if you could comment. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan. FYI, you mixed up the category and the article when you made the CfD nomination. I've just fixed it. Cheers, Pichpich ( talk) 02:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan!
If you read the article, Peter Orno was named precisely because of an interest in pornography. I don't see why you removed the category "American pornography".
This is of course a life or death issue.
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your enthusiasm in making mass move of glossaries, but I just wanted to let you know I've moved the Glossary of association football terms back as there is no consensus to move it the way you did. "Glossary of terms" is very commonplace, your move in this case is entirely unnecessary. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the various projects. I work heavily at WP:CRICKET and WP:FOOTBALL so have reverted your changes there, which means if you insist on your change, you'll need to discuss it. As for other projects, well it's up to them. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
At least be decent enough to quote your guideline in your odd edit summary so the world can understand what you're trying to achieve. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If moving an article is disputed, you should know by now to take it to WP:RM and stop move-warring. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan, we do outlaw edit-warring, and move-warring even more so. The principle is summed up at WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss.
You made the move in good faith, being WP:BOLD. The move was reverted, so now you need a WP:RM discussion to seek wider input and reach a consenus. I am sure you will make a good case for your own preferred title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure that this move was a good idea? I personally think that it should be reverted, as "Glossary of music" could also refer to either a glossary of musical works, or a glossary of musical styles. While this page was as "Glossary of music terminology," it was far less ambiguous than the place that it is now. Should we look for a consensus for one way or the other? 14jbella ( talk) 02:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Did I do something wrong by placing Film Category? [5] :- ) DCS 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems you've been removing categories about censorship from a large number of pages; what is your rationale for doing so? I almost reverted the first of these edits that I noticed until I realized it wasn't an isolated edit. — danhash ( talk) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but
is just about the most flagrantly POV assertion I have ever found here at Wikipedia. The stated purpose - not the "explicit" purpose, which is quite another thing - of SOPA was indeed supposedly "protection of intellectual property". But the explicit purpose of the recent 24-hour blackout participated in by Wikipedia was to protest censorship. US congressional bills are routinely titled to obscure their true intent, in Orwellian fashion. Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You should really discuss things like that before doing potentially disruptive things. See MOS:GLOSS; there can easily be glossaries that are not of terms. The "terms" names were used for a reason. Unless you can point me to a broad consensus discussion about this, I'm going to move them back per WP:BRD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
All anyone has to do is revert your no-consensus moves back to the longer original page names, and add {{ R from short name}} to the shorter pages left behind, immediately after the REDIRECT code. This is correct usage of the templates, so it's not even WP:POINTy, and really all of these redirects should certainly exist - there are surely some people who would look for Glossary of cue sports instead of Glossary of cue sports terms. But it also has the side effect of preventing you from reverting the restoration of the original article title without going through WP:RM or some other process. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
... would be for you to go back and revert all of your own glossary page moves, and category deletions yourself, and for each one, post a query on its talk page for discussion by all interested editors. Some might well agree with your suggestions. This would save the hassle of someone else having to find and undo each of your unilateral moves and deletions. Might you consider doing this? It will of course be considerably easier for you to do it yourself. Thanks for your consideration. Milkunderwood ( talk) 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Re your "Ooooh! Last name basis am I??", posted on a different editor's talkpage in response to my post there:
No, I was referring to you as "Liefting" in the third person, to someone else. If I had been addressing you directly I would have used "Alan".
I am curious, though, Alan, about your snooping around following my posts to other people. Is this a frequent activity of yours?
Milkunderwood (
talk)
02:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So much discussion and so little achieved for such a minor issue.
I will give some explanations soon. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 20:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The number of edits you make, courtesy of AWB "press OK" is not of any interest to me at all. Your semi-automated approach is your business. But I'm not sure anyone has "revered" your edits. Every glossary move you've made has been reverted. Think before moving. And if reverted, discuss before re-moving. It's simple. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, what's up with
this edit of yours? The edit you reverted seemed to me to clearly be removing nonsense, but you reverted it as vandalism. I removed the nonsense again (politicians are not directly environmental issues), but just figured I'd flag it with you as a false positive. Cheers, {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
edits|
⚡}}
04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with category India? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, I see you've been getting a lot of grief above over those glossary moves. I'm really sorry to pile on, but I have to agree with them. Your policy justification of WP:CRITERIA has multiple factors, part of which is that "titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English". Many of your new article titles are are creating phrases that you may feel are "proper English", but are just not the common term in English. When you claim sanction under WP:CRITERIA, which exact phrase or portion of this policy are you actually referring to? Because of (what I percieve as) misuse of automated editing systems, I propose you should not rename ANY more articles without consensus (real and specific consensus, not the fake "would get wide support since I am changing the name in accordance with the guideline" type). -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 02:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Student7 ( talk) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe ( talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan- I manage media relations for the American Leak Detection corporate office. Since we are an international franchise service organization, I'm wondering why you would think we're a "non-notable" company? We created the leak detection industry, which I believe is quite notable. The vast majority of info on our page is incorrect and/or outdated. Roto Rooter, our major competitor has a lovely page built out, and I'll proceed to edit ours to correct any mistakes.
Thanks! DuaneDepoole ( talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Read it over. How do I request an edit since I obviously have a COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneDepoole ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
[11] Both cite journal and cite doi have their pros and cons, and I would not waste time on swapping them because such edits can always be reverted per WP:Preserve, WP:Notbroken, etc. A practical note is that the refs in arsenic are crippled (I think the citation bot will not autoexpand them, maybe because I blocked its automatic part :-). Would you consider reverting yourself or expanding refs individually? Regards. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Cite doi}}
and all other such templates is that they rely on a bot which runs outside Wikipedia. When Martin (
User:Smith609), who owns the bot, didn't renew his registration at toolserver.org, the bot stopped working. A template which depends on one editor is, in my view, thoroughly undesirable. If used, I think it should always be subst'ed.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
11:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)This edit didn't quite work out. You might want to try that one again. :) -- WikHead ( talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I agree the article isn't great (I posted the original short stub six years ago when times were very different but haven't touched the article since, other than to add an infobox two years ago). However, I'd say that being the parent company of seven individually notable musical instrument / professional audio companies is an implicit assertion of notability. Anyway, I don't have the time to fix the article, so go ahead and delete if you think it helps the encyclopedia. -- KFP ( contact - edits) 20:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've declined your speedy as it does have some context (sort of...) I've prodded it, as I'm sure it doesn't belong. May be a hoax or something that's out of a game. Peridon ( talk) 22:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I declined the speedy deletion of this article because it didn't seem necessary. The promotional content of the article should be dealt with through normal editing, rather than leaving Wikipedia without an article about this well-known chain of restaurants. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added a few sources to assert further notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Ørnulf Seippel probably meets WP:PROF, but very certainly passes speedy. The A7 criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. Saying someone is a professor at a major university is a credible claim of importance, at the very least. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I notice that in the last day or two you have nominated well over a dozen articles for speedy deletion, most of which have been declined by a wide spectrum of other admins and editors. I remind you about the use of A7 , not just for faculty, but for busineses and other topics: a claim to significance is sufficient. general.
I notice also a large number of AfD requests of restaurant chains and other articles at AfD , most of which are headed for SNOW keep. You certainly have the right to your own standards for what should be in Wikipedia, but since it appears that the consensus is very sharply different for these articles, continuing to nominate such articles for deletion would seem rather POINTY. there is such a large amount of promotional junk submitted that really does need deletion, and a good deal of equally promotional near-junk that has been here for a while, that perhaps you should rather concentrate of finding those where your nomination will be supported by consensus and actually have a reasonable chance of getting the article deleted. (for example, there's a large number of wrestling articles & articles on some other forms of entertainment that I think do not belong here, but I know they will not be deleted no matter what I say because there are too many people who hold otherwise, and so I leave them alone. There's enough else to get rid of.) DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Exopack Advanced Coatings, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article was nominated at AfD in the past, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion or PROD. Try another AfD,. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin Loudspeaker Company. They might be notable, it would depend on the product reviews But they pass speedy. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my userpage. Sorry about the CATs! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to comment at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Help:Help desk. -- John of Reading ( talk) 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Mobile phones by country, 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 - contribs) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I closed this debate early as noted. Bearian ( talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was just curious about this removal of a collecting category from the article, can you enlighten me? Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You do need to start an RFC, it looks like your definition of 'collectable" articles is way too narrow. Dreadstar ☥ 21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Leaving aside all else, this was not an issue for the administrator's notice board. And, if it had been an issue for the notice board, your post really did not give enough information. Administrator's have notoriously short attention spans, you need to do something more like "Following my removal of items from a category (diffs maybe) I've had an unpleasnt exhange [link to talk page], please see Dreadstar's comments [diff] [diff], etc etc". If you give information up front (which should be easier for you), it saves having to chase it up on the adminstrator's part (since they don't know where to look). - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
reunited discussions
Hi Alan, I restored this cat [12] because I couldn't see a reason to remove it. Are templates not categorized anymore, or was there duplication? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
And incidentally, by their nature, categories are part of the project. Though we don't categorise project pages in categories intended for holding articles by convention, but we do include such information on the page itself. We often add project related information in the form of hatnotes and banners, and other explanatory information. And templates and redirects are often categorised in article-space categories. Some of your edits lately to remove this sort of information would seem to me to be unhelpful to those using categories rather than the other way round. I understand you may disagree, but that doesn't make it any more "convention" or "common practice". - jc37 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys. It's pretty clear not only that we do, but also how such pages should be categorised. - jc37 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The goal here is our readers. And such pages are categorised specifically to help navigation. But to reduce confusion and maintain some clarity, we clarify what they are by the use of sort keys. This has been a rather long standing convention going back many years (as long as I recall, and I've had an account for over 6 years, and was a reader for several years before that). - jc37 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no explict statement in policy or guidelines saying the templates should be in content categories. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categorisation of content and project pages. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 00:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan Liefting. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hallo. I understand the reason for the redirect, but I don't think the tympanum article explains this feature. [[File:Moissac, Abbaye Saint-Pierre-PM 15077.jpg|thumb]] - Thoughtfortheday ( talk) 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added a reference Atban3000 ( talk) 21:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the imdb source I have added is adequate enough information on above actor;however,I will look for more biographical details JFBridge ( talk) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Birkenhead Library, building controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Birkenhead Library, building controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are you edit-warring? Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Just curious why you removed the two history categories from this article. The don't seem to be sub-categories of something else that is already there, and it seems like this article is relevant to a least the history of telecommunication (history of TV might be a stretch). Don Lammers ( talk) 01:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI). Since you had some involvement with the The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect International Telecoms Week (ITW). Since you had some involvement with the International Telecoms Week (ITW) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to inquire about the deletion that you proposed for the article on María Eugenia Casar. I wrote the article and it is factually based on the United Nations official press release ( http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sga1309.doc.htm). I referenced the source at the bottom of the article under external links. In fact, I work for the UN, which owns the content of the Press Release. Would you please let me know what I can do exactly to improve the article and prevent the deletion? Thank you. Asdfjklo ( talk) 13:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Questioning your use of Speedy Deletion, particularly on VPS Convenience. If you live or visit the region where this chain is located, you could see the importance of it as it is a large regional chain. It was also part of Marsh Supermarkets, which was the first supermarket to utilize scanning technology. They continued to introduce new items and ideas through the Village Pantry chain.
Per Wikipedia notability guidelines, this article has "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject" and "Presumed". Also, per the guidelines "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
From looking at your Talk page, it appears that the rules for Speedy Deletion are not being followed, and there is a mis-understanding of the rules of Notability. Thanks for your understanding Scoty6776 ( talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
::So, you have had a number of speedy deletions/prods turned down. Maybe you need to start yet another centralised discussion or RFC (that you should return to after starting) about your issues?
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Listen Alan, I've been here a few years and I'm not getting too many kickbacks, so I was wondering if I could persuade you to let me pop over and see you? I know the Green Party of NZ wouldn't be too keen on me flying the many miles from the UK to NZ, but I figure we could do some kind of UK-NZ collaboration? I bloody love NZ, and I'm proud to say that I think I'm one of a few white visitors to actually go to see the original Treaty of Waitangi document in Auckland before going to Waitangi itself. It rained there. A lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm inclined to delete it, it looks like copyvio, what do you think? Dougweller ( talk) 06:13, 20 March 2012 (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 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
There are heaps of legitimate government reports and notable books on the subject - and yet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wilderness_Areas_of_Australia - you seem to have depopulated it - what is going on? (in the terms of another retiree in the public domain - please explain (and please do not use the its all in the environment argument) Satu Suro 07:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan,
I know you've taken an interest in carbon sequestration topics, so I wanted to let you know about openCCS - it may be of use if you get into that area again. See my longer note here.
I hope the semi-retired lifestyle suits you - glad that you haven't retired completely! -- Chriswaterguy talk 07:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Talk:Global warming? I think some of your maintenance work on categories may be going against the general editing guidelines on categories, so we should discuss it to see if it makes the encyclopedia better. If we decide it does, of course we can ignore the guidelines, but that discussion does need to be held. -- TS 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
To whom it may concern,
It has come to my attention that you have deleted the page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DATA_Inc due to the fact that you deemed it as promotional.
The intent of the page is to chronicle the history of the organization. As the individual in question has built the organization from the ground up, developed methodologies that are in use in the industry today, and has won several awards, I question why you would deem this as a "promotional page."
Please advise and if so, restore the page appropriately.
Otherwise, if you still deem this page as promotional, please highlight exactly what you deem as promotional on this page, and I will determine if this is correct or not, and fix appropriately.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnikanorov ( talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are you recategorising NZ electorates to NZ [Region] electorates? Splitting them up now means a visitor or editor accessing through categories needs good geographic knowledge, or will have to search through several regional categories to find anything. At the very least this change should have been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics before being started. Fan | talk 08:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Fan | talk 06:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for ur good work.-- Fotokannan ( talk) 08:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | ||
Alan, I just wanted you to be absolutely sure that your good work over the years has not gone unnoticed. Thanks for all you do at NPP! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hi. When you recently edited Biosecurity in Australia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Viable, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Crowned Crane ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thanks for marking my obviously legitimate page for speedy deletion 7 minutes after it was created... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elj1201 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What aspect of WP:BIO qualifies the nomination for deletion of Greg Cosell? The article clearly passes WP:BIO standards. 108.40.72.212 ( talk) 05:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Please take this subject to a deletion discussion if you don't think it's notable. Given the cites already in the article and a quick Google news search, I don't think there's any question about her notability. I didn't even have to look in the Google News archives or on Google Books. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 23:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Dear Alan, Mr. Nawaz Akram is notable inventor, and manufacturer from Pakistan. You live in NZ and may not know that in third world poor countries hero are not media sensation. Mr. Nawaz's NRE is the only company from south Asia that installed plants in Europe and Canada. Please do not delete this page. I am not related to him. He is a real hero from a poor country who has inspired a lot of young people. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.146.247 ( talk) 10:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this really deserves an article, as opposed to a section in Agapanthus. Could you explain perhaps? Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This discussion had been posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Agapanthus_in_New_Zealand_and_similar_articles. Further comment should be made there. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
. Hello. My name is Dean Camp. I recently signed up to edit, and the article "Aftermath of World War II" was the first one one the list offered to me by Wikipedia. I made some edits concerning a comma and information from page 35 of "West Germany under construction: politics, society, and culture in the Adenauer era" by Robert G. Moeller, Univ. of Michigan Press, 1997. I noticed that the information was quoting the source in some places without using quotations marks. . . Today, I had time to do further citation research and noticed that "Page 35 is not part of this book preview" anymore. Aditionally, "Pages 84 to 93 are not shown in this preview" either, which are also, like page 35, referenced by the Wikipedia's article's citations. This omission of available pages indicates that the source provider, "Google books", has made changes to the available information since I made the previous edit changes three days ago on 22 January. . (Q) Why has Google removed the cited page, especially since is is the exact page referenced by footnote 42? Is this normal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauzeandchess ( talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Clique problem/Alternative draft. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Clique problem. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Clique problem - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, could you consider suspending the AfD process for this article for a few hours? The user is new and has told me that he will be adding more content in sometime which may help assert notability. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi you nominated Mr. Bean (character) for deletion due to copyright violation. However the text shown in the duplicate detector from Zimbio was itself copied from Wikipedia article Mr. Bean. Zimbio is dated 25 November last year, and the Wikipedia article had this text before. You should check this out yourself before nominating. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It was my first time
creating an album page, forgot (album) was supposed to be in lowercase. Thank you for fixing it for me :)
--
Ruben(nerd) (
talk)
05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, you nominated the article Ekso Bionics for deletion, and notified too but you didn't tell me the reason for deletion. Please Specify. -- Kondicherry ( talk) 08:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
On 1/20 I received an email from Wiki that a page I created (Sheets Brand) was taken down for speedy deletion. It contained your name, and I wanted to see how I can "userfy" the page so that it is informative about the company. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamihud ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
See template:Invalid references. 198.102.153.2 ( talk) 15:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful additions. Re. the bare URLs, are you able to fix them? Re. the unclear citations, can you explain what is unclear about them? Regards KJP1 ( talk) 19:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand why you have removed the category squash from the article Nicolas van Caesbroeck. He even played in the Belgian national team. Can you explain that, please? Night of the Big Wind talk 12:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Ingredients by country, 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) - 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan Liefting. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for Gajendra Ahire, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion, because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. If you read the actual criterion, it is very specific on this point :"this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox" Additionally it was an extremely simple matter to use the content of the infobox to make the article into a one-line stub. Many of our articles started out in a similarly poor state, perfection is not expected at the instant an article is created. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Why did you removed Category:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes from File:Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Animated Series.png? Smallman12q ( talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, say you are right in deleting my post because of violation of G11. But what difference does this post have? - Ayala Land http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayala_Land.
I will rewrite the article but can you send a copy of the deleted article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reuelc ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at the article. I've added some sources and notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I might be missing something, and apologize if so. Why are you removing Cognitive Science as a category from Mind? Please reply on my talk page.
Thanks Jj1236 ( talk) 20:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Environment by year project, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so 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 page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Whenaxis talk · contribs 02:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
User:ThaddeusB might be willing to program a bot that will add information to our years in the environment article series from the IUCN red list database. This could be a big breakthrough for the series, see User_talk:ThaddeusB#Prehistoric_articles_bot. If you have any ideas for another database source that would be useful to draw from, please chime in on his talk page! :) Abyssal ( talk) 17:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan - I am new to Wikipedia. I am not very computer knowledgeable. I wrote an article on Salina, Colorado where I've lived for forty years. I went into edited an incorrect date, (1959 error should read 1859), and I received a message from Wiki that my article was not verified. I tried to reference my two sources: The Switzerland Trail/Forest Crossen/Robinson Pess 1978/ISBN 978091370249 and The Mining Camps Salina & Summerville/M.M. Anderson/Junction House 2005/ ISBN 0977223000. I spent more than an hour reading about referencing for beginners, reliable sources, verification, etc....but I just don't get it. I am 66 years old and I don't know how to footnote/reference my article so that when a reader accesses it, it doesn't have a Unverified Warning. Please help! Mr. Larry Rasmussen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzman45 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In the merge, you deleted the gallery of photos. Why did you do this, please? DrChrissy ( talk) 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If you do not like the aesthetics of the gallery tag and you believe this makes for an 'ugly' layout, perhaps you should take this up with those responsible for creation of the tag. As a user of Wikipedia, I try to stay within the guidelines and principles of the site. One of those would be to use the gallery tag where appropriate. I would also argue that aesthetics is highly subjective. I did not like the layout of the photos you suggested....so who is correct? I am re-instating the gallery on the page. DrChrissy ( talk) 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan,
I saw that you removed the "Green vehicles" cat from Hybrid electric vehicle. I'm sure you had a very good reason for doing so and am curious what that reason is. Please respond if you have a moment. Thanks. Ebikeguy ( talk) 23:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sure you have good intentions and I am trying to believe that. But you placed my article up for deletion only a few minutes after I had started it. I am having a hard time understanding that. Jacqke ( talk) 23:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Category:Glossaries on the military, 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. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You clearly have a reason for doing this but I am not at all sure what it is and I'm afraid I find this edit summary incomprehensible. Ben Mac Dui 08:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I asked about the purpose of this edit to the category on the article's talk page. Pseudofusulina ( talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There were a plentiful of nominations you made which are closed as keep, mainly because you did not read WP:BEFORE before nominating them. Your nominations are becoming WP:BITEy to the creators of these articles. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mirage (novel), in which I closed today. you redirected the article only minutes after it was created, which seemingly upset the page creator, and then what was your next action? Nominating it for AfD. You alienated this new user, who tried to make quality contributions to Wikipedia. So, in a nutshell, please read WP:BEFORE before making any further AfD nominations, as this is not the first AfD of yours I NAC'ed as a clear "keep". Just google the topic - and there's the answer whether or not it's appropriate to nominate it for AfD. Thanks. -- B music ian 01:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand. Since you had some involvement with the List of dental schools in Australia and New Zealand redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI). Since you had some involvement with the Radiographic Supporting Bone Index (RSBI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Credit Managers' Index (CMI). Since you had some involvement with the Credit Managers' Index (CMI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Association of Credit Management (NACM). Since you had some involvement with the National Association of Credit Management (NACM) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably. Since you had some involvement with the CALM, Campaign Against Living Miserably redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In this edit you removed the "Category:2012 Summer Olympics" Coe is the chairman of the London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games. Why would this not be a relevant category for article? You can reply on my page. Trackinfo ( talk) 19:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, I wonder if you might consider withdrawing the nomination, given the great improvement the article has undergone in the past few days. Ladyof Shalott 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You haven't responded to my last comment at Wikipedia talk:Environment by year project. Abyssal ( talk) 00:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The two cats you removed from Birth control movement in the United States look valid topically, .. were they redundant somehow? -- Noleander ( talk) 19:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there - I notice you've removed Category:Planned Parenthood from several organizations. They were in this category because they are or were the national affiliate of the Int'l Planned Parenthood Federation. Please consider restoring the category. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF). Since you had some involvement with the National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Rossami (no ami of mine) has actually re-created TGen Drug Development (TD2)! Please express your opinion at the RfD. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 18:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted a bunch of your removals of Category:PseudoScience from articles that are clearly about pseudosciences. (Although I agree with your removal of articles about people who commonly practice pseudoscience.)
Please see Talk:Homeopathy#Categories for an ongoing discussion of this. Please reply there - I don't monitor this talk page. SteveBaker ( talk) 21:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you were making a number of reverts recently ( [2], [3], [4]) using the rollback tool.
This is just a reminder that the rollback tool shouldn't be used undo good-faith edits made by another Wikipedia contributor, even if you believe their edits were incorrect. The use of rollback should particularly be avoided when there is an ongoing discussion and when you have already reverted the same content before (as appears to be the case at Talk:Homeopathy). For a guide to when rollback should or should not be used, see Wikipedia:Rollback feature. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO). Since you had some involvement with the Neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Homeopathy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Noformation Talk 08:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I am going to have trouble hiding my anger here but I will try. I can across Category:Pseudoscience and it had the big ugly banner across the top of it saying move articles to subcats. So I did. Because it was a mess. A real mish-mash of about 250 articles spread over two pages. But it seems there are editors out the who want to link every article to every other article via the categories. That is not what should be done. How the hell is WP going to improve for our readers if this sort of poor editing is going to be done. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan, sorry if I contributed to you getting angry, I certainly did not intend it. Would you mind starting a centralized discussion on this topic, perhaps at the village pump, so that a clear consensus can emerge? Once that's taken care of you can easily point to that discussion, or even have a bot do the work for you. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're trying to do, but it seems as though there are conflicting guidelines and so it's probably a good idea to get some input before undertaking a large task like this. Thanks. Noformation Talk 03:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Please refer to my proposal to upmerge Category:Sports events by country to Category:Lists of sport events Hugo999 ( talk) 22:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan I'd like to ask the reason for this change, no edit summary was provided. XLerate ( talk) 06:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Great idea you had creating the page Film censorship. Thanks very much, — Cirt ( talk) 08:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Alan Liefting. I agree with your removal of the pseudoscience category from Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. I have started a discussion about it on the talk page; it would be helpful if you could comment. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs ( talk) 21:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan. FYI, you mixed up the category and the article when you made the CfD nomination. I've just fixed it. Cheers, Pichpich ( talk) 02:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan!
If you read the article, Peter Orno was named precisely because of an interest in pornography. I don't see why you removed the category "American pornography".
This is of course a life or death issue.
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 21:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your enthusiasm in making mass move of glossaries, but I just wanted to let you know I've moved the Glossary of association football terms back as there is no consensus to move it the way you did. "Glossary of terms" is very commonplace, your move in this case is entirely unnecessary. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
It depends on the various projects. I work heavily at WP:CRICKET and WP:FOOTBALL so have reverted your changes there, which means if you insist on your change, you'll need to discuss it. As for other projects, well it's up to them. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
At least be decent enough to quote your guideline in your odd edit summary so the world can understand what you're trying to achieve. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
If moving an article is disputed, you should know by now to take it to WP:RM and stop move-warring. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Alan, we do outlaw edit-warring, and move-warring even more so. The principle is summed up at WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss.
You made the move in good faith, being WP:BOLD. The move was reverted, so now you need a WP:RM discussion to seek wider input and reach a consenus. I am sure you will make a good case for your own preferred title. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure that this move was a good idea? I personally think that it should be reverted, as "Glossary of music" could also refer to either a glossary of musical works, or a glossary of musical styles. While this page was as "Glossary of music terminology," it was far less ambiguous than the place that it is now. Should we look for a consensus for one way or the other? 14jbella ( talk) 02:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Did I do something wrong by placing Film Category? [5] :- ) DCS 21:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems you've been removing categories about censorship from a large number of pages; what is your rationale for doing so? I almost reverted the first of these edits that I noticed until I realized it wasn't an isolated edit. — danhash ( talk) 21:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me, but
is just about the most flagrantly POV assertion I have ever found here at Wikipedia. The stated purpose - not the "explicit" purpose, which is quite another thing - of SOPA was indeed supposedly "protection of intellectual property". But the explicit purpose of the recent 24-hour blackout participated in by Wikipedia was to protest censorship. US congressional bills are routinely titled to obscure their true intent, in Orwellian fashion. Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
You should really discuss things like that before doing potentially disruptive things. See MOS:GLOSS; there can easily be glossaries that are not of terms. The "terms" names were used for a reason. Unless you can point me to a broad consensus discussion about this, I'm going to move them back per WP:BRD. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
All anyone has to do is revert your no-consensus moves back to the longer original page names, and add {{ R from short name}} to the shorter pages left behind, immediately after the REDIRECT code. This is correct usage of the templates, so it's not even WP:POINTy, and really all of these redirects should certainly exist - there are surely some people who would look for Glossary of cue sports instead of Glossary of cue sports terms. But it also has the side effect of preventing you from reverting the restoration of the original article title without going through WP:RM or some other process. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
... would be for you to go back and revert all of your own glossary page moves, and category deletions yourself, and for each one, post a query on its talk page for discussion by all interested editors. Some might well agree with your suggestions. This would save the hassle of someone else having to find and undo each of your unilateral moves and deletions. Might you consider doing this? It will of course be considerably easier for you to do it yourself. Thanks for your consideration. Milkunderwood ( talk) 17:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Re your "Ooooh! Last name basis am I??", posted on a different editor's talkpage in response to my post there:
No, I was referring to you as "Liefting" in the third person, to someone else. If I had been addressing you directly I would have used "Alan".
I am curious, though, Alan, about your snooping around following my posts to other people. Is this a frequent activity of yours?
Milkunderwood (
talk)
02:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
So much discussion and so little achieved for such a minor issue.
I will give some explanations soon. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 20:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The number of edits you make, courtesy of AWB "press OK" is not of any interest to me at all. Your semi-automated approach is your business. But I'm not sure anyone has "revered" your edits. Every glossary move you've made has been reverted. Think before moving. And if reverted, discuss before re-moving. It's simple. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hey, what's up with
this edit of yours? The edit you reverted seemed to me to clearly be removing nonsense, but you reverted it as vandalism. I removed the nonsense again (politicians are not directly environmental issues), but just figured I'd flag it with you as a false positive. Cheers, {{
Nihiltres|
talk|
edits|
⚡}}
04:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with category India? Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 20:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, I see you've been getting a lot of grief above over those glossary moves. I'm really sorry to pile on, but I have to agree with them. Your policy justification of WP:CRITERIA has multiple factors, part of which is that "titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English". Many of your new article titles are are creating phrases that you may feel are "proper English", but are just not the common term in English. When you claim sanction under WP:CRITERIA, which exact phrase or portion of this policy are you actually referring to? Because of (what I percieve as) misuse of automated editing systems, I propose you should not rename ANY more articles without consensus (real and specific consensus, not the fake "would get wide support since I am changing the name in accordance with the guideline" type). -- Tom Hulse ( talk) 22:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys!
I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.
It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 02:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Student7 ( talk) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it would save us a lot of effort if we worked out a general principle on this. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#On the categorization of biographies by (perhaps) incidental occupation. Mangoe ( talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan- I manage media relations for the American Leak Detection corporate office. Since we are an international franchise service organization, I'm wondering why you would think we're a "non-notable" company? We created the leak detection industry, which I believe is quite notable. The vast majority of info on our page is incorrect and/or outdated. Roto Rooter, our major competitor has a lovely page built out, and I'll proceed to edit ours to correct any mistakes.
Thanks! DuaneDepoole ( talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Read it over. How do I request an edit since I obviously have a COI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuaneDepoole ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
[11] Both cite journal and cite doi have their pros and cons, and I would not waste time on swapping them because such edits can always be reverted per WP:Preserve, WP:Notbroken, etc. A practical note is that the refs in arsenic are crippled (I think the citation bot will not autoexpand them, maybe because I blocked its automatic part :-). Would you consider reverting yourself or expanding refs individually? Regards. Materialscientist ( talk) 02:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Cite doi}}
and all other such templates is that they rely on a bot which runs outside Wikipedia. When Martin (
User:Smith609), who owns the bot, didn't renew his registration at toolserver.org, the bot stopped working. A template which depends on one editor is, in my view, thoroughly undesirable. If used, I think it should always be subst'ed.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
11:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)This edit didn't quite work out. You might want to try that one again. :) -- WikHead ( talk) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I agree the article isn't great (I posted the original short stub six years ago when times were very different but haven't touched the article since, other than to add an infobox two years ago). However, I'd say that being the parent company of seven individually notable musical instrument / professional audio companies is an implicit assertion of notability. Anyway, I don't have the time to fix the article, so go ahead and delete if you think it helps the encyclopedia. -- KFP ( contact - edits) 20:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've declined your speedy as it does have some context (sort of...) I've prodded it, as I'm sure it doesn't belong. May be a hoax or something that's out of a game. Peridon ( talk) 22:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I declined the speedy deletion of this article because it didn't seem necessary. The promotional content of the article should be dealt with through normal editing, rather than leaving Wikipedia without an article about this well-known chain of restaurants. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added a few sources to assert further notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Ørnulf Seippel probably meets WP:PROF, but very certainly passes speedy. The A7 criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. Saying someone is a professor at a major university is a credible claim of importance, at the very least. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I notice that in the last day or two you have nominated well over a dozen articles for speedy deletion, most of which have been declined by a wide spectrum of other admins and editors. I remind you about the use of A7 , not just for faculty, but for busineses and other topics: a claim to significance is sufficient. general.
I notice also a large number of AfD requests of restaurant chains and other articles at AfD , most of which are headed for SNOW keep. You certainly have the right to your own standards for what should be in Wikipedia, but since it appears that the consensus is very sharply different for these articles, continuing to nominate such articles for deletion would seem rather POINTY. there is such a large amount of promotional junk submitted that really does need deletion, and a good deal of equally promotional near-junk that has been here for a while, that perhaps you should rather concentrate of finding those where your nomination will be supported by consensus and actually have a reasonable chance of getting the article deleted. (for example, there's a large number of wrestling articles & articles on some other forms of entertainment that I think do not belong here, but I know they will not be deleted no matter what I say because there are too many people who hold otherwise, and so I leave them alone. There's enough else to get rid of.) DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Template:MIU (Movement for Israeli Urbanism) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Exopack Advanced Coatings, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article was nominated at AfD in the past, so it is not eligible for speedy deletion or PROD. Try another AfD,. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin Loudspeaker Company. They might be notable, it would depend on the product reviews But they pass speedy. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my userpage. Sorry about the CATs! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I invite you to comment at Wikipedia talk:Help desk#Help:Help desk. -- John of Reading ( talk) 07:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Category:Mobile phones by country, 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 - contribs) 19:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I closed this debate early as noted. Bearian ( talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I was just curious about this removal of a collecting category from the article, can you enlighten me? Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You do need to start an RFC, it looks like your definition of 'collectable" articles is way too narrow. Dreadstar ☥ 21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Leaving aside all else, this was not an issue for the administrator's notice board. And, if it had been an issue for the notice board, your post really did not give enough information. Administrator's have notoriously short attention spans, you need to do something more like "Following my removal of items from a category (diffs maybe) I've had an unpleasnt exhange [link to talk page], please see Dreadstar's comments [diff] [diff], etc etc". If you give information up front (which should be easier for you), it saves having to chase it up on the adminstrator's part (since they don't know where to look). - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 23:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
reunited discussions
Hi Alan, I restored this cat [12] because I couldn't see a reason to remove it. Are templates not categorized anymore, or was there duplication? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
And incidentally, by their nature, categories are part of the project. Though we don't categorise project pages in categories intended for holding articles by convention, but we do include such information on the page itself. We often add project related information in the form of hatnotes and banners, and other explanatory information. And templates and redirects are often categorised in article-space categories. Some of your edits lately to remove this sort of information would seem to me to be unhelpful to those using categories rather than the other way round. I understand you may disagree, but that doesn't make it any more "convention" or "common practice". - jc37 21:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort_keys. It's pretty clear not only that we do, but also how such pages should be categorised. - jc37 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The goal here is our readers. And such pages are categorised specifically to help navigation. But to reduce confusion and maintain some clarity, we clarify what they are by the use of sort keys. This has been a rather long standing convention going back many years (as long as I recall, and I've had an account for over 6 years, and was a reader for several years before that). - jc37 22:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know there is no explict statement in policy or guidelines saying the templates should be in content categories. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
RfC at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Categorisation of content and project pages. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 00:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan Liefting. Just to let you know, I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hallo. I understand the reason for the redirect, but I don't think the tympanum article explains this feature. [[File:Moissac, Abbaye Saint-Pierre-PM 15077.jpg|thumb]] - Thoughtfortheday ( talk) 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added a reference Atban3000 ( talk) 21:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the imdb source I have added is adequate enough information on above actor;however,I will look for more biographical details JFBridge ( talk) 21:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Birkenhead Library, building controversy. Since you had some involvement with the Birkenhead Library, building controversy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Why are you edit-warring? Pdfpdf ( talk) 04:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Just curious why you removed the two history categories from this article. The don't seem to be sub-categories of something else that is already there, and it seems like this article is relevant to a least the history of telecommunication (history of TV might be a stretch). Don Lammers ( talk) 01:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI). Since you had some involvement with the The Integral Satcom Initiative (ISI) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect International Telecoms Week (ITW). Since you had some involvement with the International Telecoms Week (ITW) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to inquire about the deletion that you proposed for the article on María Eugenia Casar. I wrote the article and it is factually based on the United Nations official press release ( http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sga1309.doc.htm). I referenced the source at the bottom of the article under external links. In fact, I work for the UN, which owns the content of the Press Release. Would you please let me know what I can do exactly to improve the article and prevent the deletion? Thank you. Asdfjklo ( talk) 13:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Questioning your use of Speedy Deletion, particularly on VPS Convenience. If you live or visit the region where this chain is located, you could see the importance of it as it is a large regional chain. It was also part of Marsh Supermarkets, which was the first supermarket to utilize scanning technology. They continued to introduce new items and ideas through the Village Pantry chain.
Per Wikipedia notability guidelines, this article has "Significant coverage", "Reliable", "Sources", "Independent of the subject" and "Presumed". Also, per the guidelines "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort."
From looking at your Talk page, it appears that the rules for Speedy Deletion are not being followed, and there is a mis-understanding of the rules of Notability. Thanks for your understanding Scoty6776 ( talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
::So, you have had a number of speedy deletions/prods turned down. Maybe you need to start yet another centralised discussion or RFC (that you should return to after starting) about your issues?
The Rambling Man (
talk)
20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Listen Alan, I've been here a few years and I'm not getting too many kickbacks, so I was wondering if I could persuade you to let me pop over and see you? I know the Green Party of NZ wouldn't be too keen on me flying the many miles from the UK to NZ, but I figure we could do some kind of UK-NZ collaboration? I bloody love NZ, and I'm proud to say that I think I'm one of a few white visitors to actually go to see the original Treaty of Waitangi document in Auckland before going to Waitangi itself. It rained there. A lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm inclined to delete it, it looks like copyvio, what do you think? Dougweller ( talk) 06:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)