User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 → Archive 23

Topic ban enacted

Hi Alan. Per the consensus at the Administrators' Noticeboard, I have closed the proposed topic ban as enacted. Until the ban is lifted, you may not make any category-related edit outside of the article namespace. Please let me know if you have any questions. 28bytes (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

While it can be debated whether CfD discussions were intended with "category-related edit outside of the article namespace", there can be no doubt that something like this edit or this edit falls squarely within the topic ban. It doesn't matter whether these edits are good or bad, with a topic ban you just shouldn't be making them. Please stop doing this kind of edits. Fram (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I will reply when my anger subsides. I don't want to type something that I will regret and lead to an escalation of this ridiculous situation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Glow by J.Lo

Hey there. I saw you blanked the Flanker section of Glow by J.Lo. Please leave it. It's under construction and I am currently working on adding reception, promotion, impact etc, to make sure it is all encyclopedic content. Don't overlook everything by just blanking it. I don't appreciation that while I was working on it. Thanks. (see: Fantasy) Arre 06:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As I suggested in the edit summary the section was too promotional (IMHO). The flanker fragrances are not deserving of more than a mere mention. The infoboxes, images (which are only redlinks) and info is unjustified. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, and I agree with you, which is why the page is under construction. The flankers do deserve attention, they are notable. The images are redlinks because that section was present before and I just copied/pasted it and I am currently trying to improve the page. Arre 06:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
But surely no amount of article construction makes them any more notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Can you also take WP:OWNERSHIP into consideration. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but removing everything knowing that it was under construction wasn't very considerate while somebody else was working on it. Also, I'm in no way showing ownership over the page by trying to better it. Goodbye. Arre 09:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Echo Bridge Home Entertainment conflict

Hi there, Alan. I noticed you left a speedy deletion message on the Echo Bridge Home Entertainment article. I mentioned the companies' films that they distribute, including Miramax Films and The Asylum, made a disambiguation page and I put links to some of the pages that had Echo Bridge's name on it. I was thinking, can we stop this speedy deletion thing going on right now? Mario Saenz 2:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The topic appears to meet the criteria for speedy deletion so I want to leave it for the administrator to decide. Sorry about that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

you should inform the article creator when you prod something for deletion

You prodded an article of mine for deletion, and didn't post on my talk page. Fortunately I noticed it in my crowded watchlist and was able to deprod it. Read what is written about it in a mainstream newspaper like USA Today [1], and elsewhere, and you can see notability is obvious. Dream Focus 17:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be a courtesy but I don't believe it is necessary. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 October 2012

Thanks!

Thank you for the barnstar! Yes, I'm still around, though not nearly as active as I once was. I do get lured back occasionally to do some work here though.:) Grutness...wha? 04:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Cauldron Development LLC

I've added secondary sources which ref. Cauldron Development LLC on the talk page. Please remove the speed deletion tag or explain what further justification you require. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcoffland (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It still does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

2012-10-28

I blocked this account for 72 hours earlier this week because you had broken your topic ban [2]. Since that block expired, you have made additional category-related edits outside the main namespace [3] [4] [5]. Accordingly, I have re-blocked this account for 1 week, which is the next in the usual sequence of block lengths. If you would like to appeal your topic ban, you should open a thread at WP:AN after the block expires - but you can't simply ignore the topic ban without getting it reversed. As you know, to appeal this block you can use the {{unblock}} template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2012

2012-10-23

A plain reading of your topic ban [6] on "category-related edits outside the main namespace" includes edits such as [7] [8] [9] [10] as well as the edits to the "Category" and "Category talk" namespace that you have recently made. Fram already warned you about your topic ban in the section I linked, and I am certain you are aware of the topic ban, because you made an edit on Oct 17 [11] regarding several of the pages that you edited in the diffs I gave above.

Although I think it is an unfortunate turn of events, because of the topic ban violations I have blocked this account from editing for 72 hours. I chose this length because it was the previous length of a block of this account for the same reason (block log)

If you are looking for guidance about what to avoid, I would suggest:

  • Do not add or remove categories from any page outside the main namespace, either as a standalone edit or as part of another edit.
  • Do not edit the "Category" or "Category talk" namespaces at all.

I believe that avoiding those things would keep you safely inside the limits established by the topic ban. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

So I have been topic banned because some editors fail to see the big picture of what Wikipedia is all about, and now I have been blocked for carrying out edits that improve Wikipedia. Words fail me! There is no hope for the future of Wikipedia. It is a real shame. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It is not for you to unilaterally decide what improves Wikipedia, contrary to established consensus. At a minimum, your blanking of the categories from the image file was disruptive even notwithstanding the topic ban. That you may think you have good reasons for removing all categories from all images, or removing categories from article drafts rather than commenting them it, is not justification for you to do as you please when other editors disagree. Or do you think we should all just endlessly edit war rather than respect consensus? You don't seem to care to establish consensus or respect it from what I've seen, which is a shame because unlike a lot of editors with that attitude, you actually generate content. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You raise a number of points:
  • I am quite aware that I cannot go against consensus and I like to think that in many cases I know what improves Wikipedia. If I am unsure I seek guidance in the appropriate forum.
  • To call my removal of categories from images as disruptive is completely untrue. It is not disruptive to remove a random image from a category that was added by an editor who is not aware of the unwritten convention relating to categorising images. It is not disruptive to clean out a bunch of random images from a category (i.e. no thought put into whether they are the best selection). It is not disruptive to remove images from a category that is used for content. For example, this reversion that you did places a logo of an organisation in five separate categories in which it does not belong. That is disruptive editing in my opinion.
  • You are setting up a sort of false dichotomy by suggesting that I would be happy to have endless edit warring. I don't know why you would suggest such a thing! Have you and I not been involved in attempting to establish a category MOS? Which incidentally has stalled. I have attempted to get more prescriptive guidelines on many occasions. Is that the behaviour of an editor who would be happy with an anarchic editing environment?
  • The is no guideline about template categorisation (as far as I can see} but the vast majority of template are not categorised in content category. They have their separate category structure.
  • The editors who complain about some of my edits fail to see how Wikipedia should look for ease of use by the readership (Those Whom We Serve) and fail to see the unwritten conventions in the well maintained areas and fail to see how ridiculous it is to revert some of my edits.
  • In the absence of guidelines I take my clues from what is done in the well maintained areas of Wikipedia. An example is ridding content categories of templates. There does not be a guideline on it and they have their own category system and they are of no use to readers.
  • There is no guideline that says categories should be comment out rather than removed.
I essentially have a topic ban that is not based on guidelines, policy or convention. Finally, thank you for noting that I generate content. I would like to generate a lot more in my areas of expertise but being hounded by some editors and the need to fight the fires of vandalism and bad good faith edits and trying to clear long-standing backlogs leaves me very little wikitime to do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The topic ban is based on WP:CONSENSUS (a policy) that you haven't respected consensus in this area. Continuing to violate that topic ban because you disagree isn't going to make anyone trust you more, particularly when you couldn't even be bothered to comment at the ANI discussion. postdlf (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
I will reiterate: there is a consensus for removal of both images and templates for content categories by virtue of their absence from the well maintained and high profile categories. You are making the assumption that the few editors who oppose my removal of images and templates have a consensus. That is not true. There is no guideline, or policy, or editing by the majority of the community to support this outspoken handful of editors.
As for the loss of trust by editors because I violate my topic ban is but an opinion on your part. My trustworthiness can be easily gauged by investigating my editing history, and an editor who makes a judgement on the unfair topic ban which I am under would be misguided. You probably do not realise it but I do monitor my editing to check for consensus, or if someone has detected a mistake, so I know where I stand with the community. I know that I am slightly more hardline on deleting articles than the community average. I also know I am much stronger in favour of an encyclopaedia that is for readers rather than one for editors who give little thought to the requirements of readers (i.e. I feel there should be stronger separation of content and maintenance). Furthermore, a prominent notice at the top of this page advocating for reader accessibility should indicate where my allegiances lie.
I am offended by your comment that I have lost trust because I did not partake in the ANI discussion. Why should I partake? The evidence is contained in my edit histories for all to read. Also, from what I have seen, no amount of commentary by an editor defending themselves in the ANI discussions has any effect on the outcome. Any comments that I would have made would therefore be a waste of time. For me wikitime is valuable since there is such a huge amount of work that needs to be done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Question re. procedure for fixing categories

I'd like to fix the categories mentioned here and would appreciate if you could explain or point me to a description of the procedure. LittleBen (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

To add Category:Chinese multilingual support templates to Category:Multilingual support templates for example all you have to do is add [[Category:Multilingual support templates]] to the Category:Chinese multilingual support templates page (category). Hope that helps. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Another question, if I may: I wonder what would be the best way to fix the category naming problem described here. LittleBen (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

AAIB road sign

Hi! About this edit, both the AAIB logo and the AAIB sign need to be in the article. The AAIB sign is a placeholder for photos of the building, because there is a gate blocking access to the building. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the image because there is no need for it. It is a photograph of a sign of the logo of the organisation (which is already in the article). On balance, when considering the interests of readers, the image is of no use. Also, placeholder images are generally frowned upon. If a photograph of the building is desired, and I think it is a good idea, then {{image request}} or related mechanisms can be used on the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
That roadsign image was taken because of an image request on my end. The photographer drove to the AAIB HQ but was unable to get past the gate, so he took photos of the sign and the gate. The sign is marked as AAIB, but the gate is not. Wikipedia:Image placeholders says "An image placeholder is a dummy image designed to draw attention to the need for an actual image. Wikipedia image placeholders were meant to be used on articles, especially those of living people, for the purpose of trying to obtain a freely-licensed image for them" - It doesn't seem to be talking about the same thing - what that means is that it's a grey person outline image that asks somebody to "get an actual photo of the person" - In this case, I don't know if there are any prospects of getting the actual AAIB buildings - one could still keep the photo request up, and one could mail the AAIB and ask them to upload a picture of the AAIB building - I still believe that both images are needed, because they each fill two roles: the first as the "logo" (the article needs a logo image) and the second as the "headquarters/facility" image. Because each article must at minimum have a "facility" image and a sign of it is the best possible image available now (the gate would be not as good), then there's a need for both images. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles don't need images at all but they are good to have of course. You say that "each article must at minimum have a "facility" image". I am unaware of such a policy. In my opinion the photograph of a nondescript sign is actually worse than having no image. The question should be: does having the image add anything for the reader? If the answer is "no" it should be removed. If it is there as a prompt for editors it should be a hidden comment or a talk page comment or notification. This is even more pertinent if there is little chance of getting an image. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to add a comment in the image and info in the talk page. Anyway, some things on here aren't based on policy, but on precedent and expectations. If someone writes about a U.S. city, the article would be expected to have census data. There is no policy stating this, but there is an expectation that census data will be present in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it is reader expectation that is important, and policy and guidelines don't always spell it out. I would link this conversation to the talk page but I am blocked from editing at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I linked to this talk page WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2012

Speedy deletion declined: Tom Fry

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tom Fry, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: "Fry has won many competitions in his vert skating career" = an assertion of importance. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

MacPaw and CleanMyMac pages

Hi, Alan. Could you please explain how come you find CleanMyMac and MacPaw not notable enough to be present on Wikipedia? I thought that since the CleanMyMac competitors such as Ccleaner, MacKeeper and CleanGenius are present on Wikipedia, CleanMyMac is worth of that too. The companies similar to MacPaw, such as Zeobit and Software MacKiev are also present on Wikipedia.

I will not hide the fact that I created an SPA on Wikipedia, but I'm trying to follow the rules and make my articles as neutral and unbiassed as possible providing as many external links as I can. Can I ask you to help me improve my articles instead of simply proposing to delete them? SimplyMax 10:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

References do not necessarily confer notability. While some editors may argue that the articles in question are acceptable under the general notability guidelines others will say that they they are not suitable articles for Wikipedia for a host of reasons. Note that the existence of similar articles is not a case for retaining the ones in question. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
All the pages you mention are part of a systemic bias in Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
My experience is that usually GNG is successful, but GNG does leave itself open to being overruled, i.e. editors decide that even though it meets GNG it still is not notable. Also, OTHERSTUFF can be used successfully if a precedent is met, i.e. if one of the otherstuff articles is comparable, and survived AFD/another challenge to its notability. But merely saying that another article of the sort exists wouldn't be a successful OTHERSTUFF since the other editor can say "We'll I'm nominating this for deletion too!" - I started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computing#Notability_question at the computing project so other editors can take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not my own work

I have replied to you on the wikEd Talk page. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/The Welsh Buzzard 10:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Been waiting

To have the opportunity to balance things a little, and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pastoral_farming&curid=3170195&diff=521630247&oldid=521338320 it happened - thanks for that, the pedantic over-stated nature of the editing in the agricultural range of articles gives me the bee gees to put it politiely, thanks again, have a good day SatuSuro 06:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Another thanks at AUSMIN - it was a direct copyvio from the dfat website (I have been finding a few recently, direct word for word and no one does anything to them, odd) - and was in a hurry - thanks for the fix... SatuSuro 06:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No sweat. We all do our bit. It popped up in Category:Articles with missing files - which has a huge backlog on which I am currently working. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
cripes sucker for punishment - bet you get no thanks for that sort of work :( SatuSuro 06:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Am forever battling vandalism, good faith bad edits, a lack of care, mistakes from experienced editors, software glitches, bad scripts etc. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Question about adding a picture to an article

Hello, (or Giday!)--

Thanks for your help on the article (Danny Click) I have been trying to put in place on Wikipedia. My latest effort has been an attempt to upload a picture, both because I think the article would be better with one, and because I'd like to move the article above its current "C-class" rating, and a photo of the subject is listed as one of the criteria for that.

I submitted a photo yesterday, and I'm wondering how long the process of approval might take. It's not showing as an upload under "my contributions," so I'm assuming it hasn't been reviewed yet.

Happy to answer any questions I can about the photo I uploaded. My apologies for uploading it twice--still trying to figure this whole process out.

Best,

--David Dodd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddodd (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

  • You must have done something wrong because you do not show as having any uploads. There is no 'approval' process to upload. You can do it, and then add the image to the article if it is a free license image. Nobody has to 'approve' the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • As Hammersoft has pointed out you may have done something wrong. Try the upload process again and see what happens. Also, have a read of the info at WP:IMAGES for further assistance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Still no luck after two further attempts. Ddodd (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)David Dodd
    • If you describe the process that you are doing I may be able to help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I am using the Upload page, working my way through all the boxes, and the progress of the upload gets to 100%, after which I try clicking on the image link, but no upload seems to have occurred. I am uploading from a file on my own computer, and checking and filling out all the required boxes. Ddodd (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)Ddodd
      • Odd. There is nothing in your upload log for Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. Are you getting any error messages? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Nope. No error messages. Just a generic instruction to click on the file name to see if the upload was successful. 198.102.103.18 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)ddodd

Sustainability

Hi Alan - hiving off the bibliography was a good idea I reckon: keeps it as short and simple as poss. I guess any major topic has its key Bibliography is this the way of dealing with it now?Granitethighs 05:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't gone through it to see how applicable the entries are. Also, I want to go the the References section of sustainability article to see if they have a corresponding entry in the Notes section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2012

Topic ban

On October 10, I was asked about this edit [12] that violated your topic ban. At the time I declined to do anything, thinking it might have been a one-time mistake. On October 14, you made the following edits [13] [14] [15] which also violate your topic ban [16] [17]. The point of the topic ban is clear: you should simply ignore all issues of categorization outside of article space.

Because of the edits linked above, which were made after your previous block, I have blocked this account from editing. There is a standard sequence of increasing block lengths: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month. Because the last block was one week long, this block is set at 2 weeks. As you know, you can contest the block with the {{unblock}} template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think WP:IAR is applicable for the edits that you mention? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Editors asked you to stop removing categories in that way regardless whether it was against the rules, and eventually the community agreed on a topic ban because they found those edits so problematic (I didn't participate in the topic ban discussions). IAR isn't relevant, because even if the "rules" allow that sort of edit in general (and they do), the community directly asked you in particular not to do it, not because of any general rule, but as a specific decision about your specific edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Given that many of my non-article namespace edits are not reverted (esp those that are not image or template related) do you think the wishes of a few editors is more important than what the community wants as a whole? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless it is overturned, the topic ban represents the wishes of the whole community, just like any other decision made after a public community discussion represents the entire community. At the same time, of course, consensus can change, and the topic ban may be lifted in the future by another discussion. I was not involved in the discussions that led to the ban, but I have read it and I believe that the normal process was followed. Moreover, the topic ban was upheld when you asked for it to be lifted after your previous block. That is why I feel the ban has community consensus behind it.
If I can offer some unsolicited advice for how to get rid of the topic ban: take it slowly. Most of your edits are to the main namespace anyway, so just stick to those for a few months and leave the rest entirely to other people. If you appeal the topic ban again, take the comments in the first appeal into account: the issue is not about whether it is "right" to remove the categories, the issue is with collegiality and how to handle disagreements when there is no firm policy to decide them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
So are collegial discussions with a handful of editors more important than what the vast majority of the community actually wants?
I have stumbled across an editor who has been given a number of blocks that were not supported by the community. BTW, thanks for the advice but I am now even more confused about the whole thing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Essays listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Essays. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Essays redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I am blocked from editing because I violated my topic ban so can I ask you to forward my thoughts? I changed the redir from pointing at the category to the more useful page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays (and it is the page one would expect). Rather than changing Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays to match the WP:ESSAYS and WP:Essay redirs they are the ones that are changed to point at Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays instead of at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Essays. Redirects should always go to the most useful page and Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays is the the most useful target for the Wikipedia:Essays redirect as well as the other two mentioned above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Elysian Fields redlinks

Please leave the previous and next route parameters for the LA 3021 infobox on article Elysian Fields Avenue. Pages are being added for the missing Louisiana state highway routes, and once 3020 and 3022 are added, there will be nothing on 3021 to link to it. Someone will have to manually add this again, and this is an unnecessary extra step. This parameter appears on all Louisiana state highway pages. Thanks. Britinvasion64 (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The article popped up in Category:Articles with missing files, one of a number of roads related articles in that category. I think it would be better to add the links I deleted after all the missing Louisiana state highway routes are added. That would be better for readers and for WP maintenance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not better for the following reasons: 1) the missing parameter will cause the article to be orphaned from the rest of the project once the surrounding articles are added as nobody contributing to WikiProject U.S. Roads has the time to check hundreds of articles from needless omissions; 2) the above causes confusion to the reader, while a redlink does not; 3) you are CREATING a maintenance issue and unnecessary work for people contributing to the project. Leave it alone. Britinvasion64 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Please have a read of WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:READER. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alan Liefting (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

While the editing block is technically correct because of the topic ban placed on me, the edits in question that led to the current block are not contentious (they have not been reverted). Also, I feel that the parameters of the original topic ban are too wide and it is in place for every other reason except for the goal of the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your topic ban is formulated as following: "...may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted". Nothing about contentiousness or any other merits. No room for interpretations other than "do it and be blocked". You've already been blocked for violating it - you should've known that it's for real. If you think your ban is conter-productive, ask for it to be lifted, not violate it. Max Semenik (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Alan, I echo what Max said above. There have been other editors who have attempted to use the logic that if an edit is uncontroversial, it should not violate any ban. It has never worked in the past, and I seriously doubt it will work in the future. WP:IAR does not apply here. If after your block expires you continue to make edits that could even marginally be interpreted as violating your topic ban, it is 100% likely you will be blocked for at least a month. People are watching, and will block. Please Alan. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong. You can either choose to abide by the restriction in every respect or be blocked. There's no middle ground. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice. It seems that the WP bureaucracy has morphed into something that does very little for The Reader - the actual goal of the project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

:Category:Bibliographies by subject

You should tag this category to alert people that it is being discussed at CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have but unfortunately I have a topic ban on category-related non-mainspace pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if there is policy saying that categories "should" be tagged when up for discussion. It is common practice admittedly and it is a nice thing to do for editors who trawl through the category pages. But aren't they such an ugly imposing thing to throw at The Readers! Also, in this case it is a fairly uncontroversial so the workers at the CfD coal face can easily deal with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Category talk:Mass murder

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Category talk:Mass murder.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ottawahitech (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oops, I did not realize you were blocked until Nov 28. Anyway there is no hurry just dropby when you get a chance later. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
  • And ref my comment above just now; Alan, I wouldn't engage in this discussion. Just exit anything to do with categories. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • @Ottawahitech. Note that the category MOS is in development and not yet "live". Mass murder is one killing many and a massacre is many killing many. I think this is a case where they can both be subcats of each other. As for having the {{Cat main}} link and/or a topic summary it is a close judgement call in this case. I think the rules should be: if there are only a few subcats AND there is an eponymous article (that MUST have a space as the sort order) a {{Cat main}} is redundant and potentially confusing; and if the topic is self explanatory a topic summary on the cat page is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • @Hammersoft, all I live for is to categorise WP articles. Now that I cannot do it my life is not worth living. The last remaining pleasure that I had in my life has been summarily stripped from me... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • I just saw this and of course it was Fram that initiated it. I am not surprised. He seems to be behind a lot of Bans and blocks lately. Alan I know it is difficult, but it will get better. Many of us have stopped editing completely lately because of this sort of beauracratic crap. We are all volunteers and as such we do this as a service and a hobby so when we get banned or blocked from the thing we enjoy doing, its very hard to take. Regardless of how much we enjoy it though its not worth hurting yourself over it. Maybe try editing in one of the sister projects like Simple, Commons, wikinews, etc. were the ban doesn't exist. There is still plenty of categorizing to do in those and they need and want the help. If Wikipedia doesn't want it, there are others we can support that do. 108.28.162.125 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
        • I do some editing on some of the sister projects but I want to edit Wikipedia. I want to be part of this wonderful new thing that we are building. But I am topic banned for no good reason and continually blocked as if I am a vandal. The bureaucracy of Wikipedia needs a serious overhaul. A bureaucracy is needed to help the goal of The Project but it should not be used by editors and admins for wiki-lawyering, to push an agenda, etc. It seems that the bureaucracy is hijacked by collective human behaviours that do not help The Project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
      • @Alan_Liefting, I hear you and sympathize with your feelings!
I myself also prefer to be left alone so that I can categorize wiki-articles. However, it seems that others are constantly putting obstacles in my way, and, surprisingly I originally felt you are one of those people. I am not sure why I felt you are one of 'my enemies" (I don’t anymore btw). Maybe this will provide one clue? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It is the enemy of Wikipedia that is but my only enemy.
Hey, write that one down - its good! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:Bibliographies_by_subject.
Message added 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like to comment but I am blocked at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I can't even edit my page notice to let people know. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What would you like it to say, I'd be glad to edit it to your specifications. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer but I have bunged a notice at the top of this page. That may suffice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 November 2012

Temporary unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alan Liefting (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have a guest staying with me who is keen to start editing Wikipedia. He had tried to set up an account some time ago without success. Since I am currently blocked he cannot create an account and IP editing is disabled for my IP address. I would like a 12 hour unblock so he can create an account. I make a solemn promise that I will not make any edits myself and will not influence him unduly. I will have him communicate via my talk page to confirm his actual existence. It was interesting to see that account creation and IP editing is disabled for blocked editors who have an account. I guess that is for unscrupulous editors...

Accept reason:

IP autoblock and preventing account creation is standard practice to prevent sockpuppetry while blocked; it is not an implication that you would do so. In any case, I have kept this account blocked but disabled the autoblock on the IP address and allowed account creation. Please have your guest drop me a note once his account is created. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will get him to send you a note. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Note to talk page stalkers: It was User:Johnragla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless another admin objects, I will leave your block in the state I left it, trusting your honor that you will not engage in sockpuppetry while the block is in effect. If you believe you have a case for being unblocked before the scheduled expiration next week, feel free to post another unblock request. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your vote of confidence. Actually, (with all due respect of course) I don't like even like aliases as user names, let alone a sockpuppet account! Wikipedia is an open editing model so it is curious to see that the vast majority of users choose to use an alias. Not that it really matters. An editor should be judged by their edits not who they are.
I would like to be unblocked but I have already tried it. A second attempt may be fruitless, especially given the comments elsewhere on this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, in my case my username is my name (first initial and last name). It wasn't my first choice. A lot of people pick aliases, not for anonymity, but because that's how they're known elsewhere. I wanted 'anachronist' which was my handle on all other Wiki projects but en-Wiki, but that username is taken here, and because it has contributed exactly one old edit I can't usurp it.
Since I've already answered one unblock request, it wouldn't be proper for me to address another one for the same block. I'll just observe that the current 2-week block duration is typical escalation for repeated incidents of edit-warring. You might argue for a reduction to 10 days instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I was not edit warring. I am blocked because I broke my topic ban. And it is instructional to note that the edits leading me to being repeatedly blocked are not being reverted. This shows that the punitive measures against me is NOT because I have carried out disruptive editing as claimed by some editors.
As someone who is uninvolved can I ask you to review the indefinite topic ban that is imposed on me? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I see references to it above, but no details. Can you point me to the place where the topic ban was decided on? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive240#Topic_ban_for_Alan_Liefting. There is endless discussion in my talk page archive about the issue, especially prior to the enacting of the topic ban. There are also an interesting discussion here: User_talk:Fram#You_should_look_at_this_since_you_are_involved. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2012

Twelve Local Heroes

Hi Alan, regarding your recent edit, I have commented on the article's talk page, but I take it that it's not on your watchlist. Can I thus please draw your attention to it? Thanks. Schwede66 05:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Defacing"

Hi Alan. Let's be clear here. History is fiction, and this world, as is the Universe, is based on my design, which was stolen from me. So, if you choose to deny me my right to alter the records to wake you and others like you up from this stupor you're in, and explain to you there is indeed a creator and he's right here, right now, not asking for permission from you to change these records, then I'll single handedly take you, and Wikipedia completely out of my existence, and that's no joke. Am I making myself clear?

I'm tired of 'falsified' records denying me credit, denying OTHERS credit for their work, and if your closed mind refuses to understand that life is a product of discussion, debate, and my explaining to you - you are alive, but not living, when you refuse to let others have creative freedom. After all, I am the solitary consumer of this information, which you're well aware of, and I'm done consuming your crap.

If you block any further edits of mine, consider yourself and wikipedia completely banned from existence.

Any negative or retaliative responses or 'insinuations questioning my sanity' will result in a complete ban from existence for you as well.

Are we understanding eachother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.90.45 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Oh yes I understand. Shame you got blocked. We could have had a nice little chat! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Corruption in NZ

Hi Alan,

Irrespective of the merits of an argument that fraud should be treated separately from corruption, I have obviously put an enormous amount of work into researching the page as it currently stands. When someone comes along and deletes half of it - suggesting it should be under another heading - the fact that you just deleted weeks of work does not make me feel well disposed towards you. I am open to your position - but you will get more co-operation if you go about things with a little more consideration - try asking me what I think about it first - or start a discussion on the Talk page. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Offender9000 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you should realise that on Wikipedia nothing that we add should be treated as being permanent. If you are concerned about the longevity of your edits I would suggest that following what the community wants is the best option. Having said all that the material is not deleted as such. It can be retrieved, and in fact you did so by reverting my edits. If you want to write about fraud in NZ write a separate article as I suggested on your talk page. I am in the process of trying to get a Fraud in the United States article together (there is always a lot of existing info on WP about the US).
Also, you should not take it personally. Editing Wikipedia works best if we act as if we are automatons - bereft of human emotion. I hope that helps. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason I suggested you bring it up on the Talk page is because that allows the community to have a say. Wholesale deleting does not.

Expecting editors to be bereft of human emotion is also unrealistic and, quite frankly, a seriously strange idea. I am not an automaton and have no intention of becoming one. Sorry but that suggestion doesn't help at all. Offender9000 03:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I said "act as if we are automatons". We should leave all human frailties on the other side of the keyboard. I try but I have failed miserably. Anyway, lets drop it. There is too much other crap to deal with. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Griddle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Energy efficiency (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) 10:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AN thread closed

As a result of your request on AN, there was consensus that you are prohibited from posting further appeals for a period of six months, and limited to one request for lifting it every three months thereafter. Failure to abide by these restrictions would result in escalating blocks, as with the original ban. — Coren (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

  • It's amazing that less than a day after Beeblebrox's counter proposal, the whole smash is closed as reaching consensus. While there were a considerable number of supports, there simply hadn't been time for anything other than the initial counterproposal to gain view, consideration and discussion. This "consensus" was rammed down Alan's throat. I haven't been following this closely, but what I see is a lack of proof for the statement "Given the frequency of his appeals to this ban". Alan, have you made requests about this topic ban since it was enacted? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I am through with all that fucking bullshit. They win. I lost. But given the quality of the discussion I may as well talk to a brick wall. I know I will get a sensible answer that way. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
      • Have you made any other appeals? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
        • As far as I know there is only the one appeal that I completely forgot about (pushed into the subconscious as a wiki-survival method perhaps?). It is mentioned in the latest bullshit session. And why do you ask? Are you going to take on the self-serving wiki-bureaucracy single-handedly? Don't waste your time on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Nobody is suggesting you are not a valued member of this community, just that you don't seem to be able to see or accept that consensus is against you on this one particular issue. It is unfortunate that formal restrictions appear to be the only avenue, but when a user refuses to accept consensus it is the only tool left short of just blocking, which I don't think is what anybody wants. It's not "self serving" for me, I frankly don't care all that much about the obscure world of categorization. It is about your refusal/inability to see consensus, and the fact that at this rate we could expect to revisit this ban every two weeks. It's barely a month old and you have already appealed twice. That is simply not acceptable, whether you forgot about the first one or not. I'm sure you have much to contribute outside of the area you are banned from, why not just do that and not be so worried about it? The world will not end if you are not personally involved in certain aspects of categorization. Best of luck to you in whatever you decide to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe I like being treated as a common wiki-criminal? Maybe I am 107 years old and all I have in life is Wikipedia categorisation? Maybe I am into the wiki-BDSM that is dished out by the wiki-bureaucracy? Maybe I really care about my beloved Wikipedia? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox, the very foundation of your counterproposal was "Given the frequency of his appeals to this ban", yet apparently (please feel free to correct this) this statement is fallacious. Frequency? The implication is ongoing frequent appeals to have the ban lifted. Apparently, there have been two. It is also highly problematic that this 'consensus' was closed in less than a day. This process is fallaciously based and bungled in its management. There should be no surprise whatsoever that Alan is miffed about this. Anyone would be. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It was only enacted a month ago. He's been blocked for violating it three times and appealed it twice. That's five total incidents relating to this ban in only a month.That is not acceptable. It is not necessary for Alan to agree with the terms or to find them reasonable, but he does need to abide by those terms. The close was perhaps a bit sooner than I would have done it but I would suggest that the near unanimity of support for the topic ban combined with the complete lack of support for lifting it made the closing admin feel it was not in anyone's best interest to keep piling on. In other words, they were trying to be nice to Alan. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox, you're equating being blocked with making a request to have the ban lifted. They are hardly the same thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the thread was cut short because it was evident that its conclusion was foregone and that there was little else than further aggravation for Alan was going to result from it dragging on. — Coren (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Do I have this right? He makes a proposal, and rather than simply oppose the proposal a counter proposal is made which even further restricts him. The counter proposal is closed in less than a day and applied, further restricting him on this project...and it was closed early so as to be nice to him? What? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hang on everyone. Let me drop my trousers and bend over so I can take it up the arse. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Bibliographies by subject

On your nomination at CfD of Category:Bibliographies by subject you did not tage any of the involved categories. Doing so is needed so interested editors are alerted to the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit non-article namespace pages so I could not do it. While it is the done thing and a good idea there is no "need" to do it, especially if it is not controversial. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I have mentioned you in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Enterprise Switch Manager and hope you will get a chance to have your say before this wp:AFD is closed. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I guess you probably realise that I would make a delete !vote. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I was hoping you would also answer questions. Ottawahitech (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

John Carr Deleting

Hi Alan

Can you explain why you have deleted large parts of the page on John Carr? ----

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.5.33 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned in the edit summaries that material is unreferenced, there were too many images added and the was a duplication of the book in the Further reading section. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

FIS Alpine Ski World Cup

Regarding this edit [18] that you recently made: instead of just "rm redlinked image", next time in such a situation, please check the history, and fix the mess created by the previous anon IP editor, who had accidentally broken the link to the image file. Thanks in advance. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at the edit history and it looked like the IP editor was only playing with the caption. It popped up recently in Category:Articles with missing files. I am normally suspicious of IP edits and check to see if they have mangled the file name (a common occurrence). I guess I was a bit lax on that one. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2012

"It is the enemy of Wikipedia that is but my only enemy"?

Alan, you said that ‘’’ It is the enemy of Wikipedia that is but my only enemy’’’ , but if this is so why do you keep trying to delete articles that are clearly not spam by insisting that they are?

If you are really interested in the welfare of Wkipedia you should participate in discussions here. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Application Server 5300 Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 December 2012

Orphaned non-free media (File:NAAEE logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:NAAEE logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: BBK Electronics

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of BBK Electronics, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Bose

Hi Alan, What's the reasoning behind removing the consumer electronics category from the Bose articles? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Consumer electronics is too high a level for individual manufacturers products or product ranges. If the Bose products were to be included then all other manufacturers should also have theirs added. If that were to be done the category would be so full of articles as to be useless for navigation. Also, the articles in question are (or should be) in approp sub-categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)
Cool, thanks for explaining. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
So are you going to add them to subcategories, or are you merely removing the category that offends you, then leaving them? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Placement of Commons links in articles

Per WP:LAYOUT#External links: "InterWikimedia links (including the InterWiki template) to other projects (except Wiktionary and Wikisource) should appear in this section".

Also, do we really need to double-column every references section, no matter how few footnotes there are? Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I changed the Commons template to a type of layout I have seen other editors use and I quite like it as well. There is no reason to create an External links section simply to accommodate the template, and the MOS for layout is applicable if the External links section does in fact need to exist.
Since the same section of WP:LAYOUT also notes that ""External links" should be plural, even if it lists only a single item", I think that and the previously cited passage suggest that there should be, even if it's only one link. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
The Commons link is a special case of an ext link which is probably the reason why the section heading can omitted if it is the only link. Having the Commons inline style if it is the only link seems wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we should ask on the talk page for some clarity. It seems right to me, but I can see how you would come to the opposite conclusion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
As for the two columns of references I would say that nine refs justifies two columns (based on what I have seen done by editors on many other articles). Anyway, it is not a biggie. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we do need some MOS guidance on this. It makes sense when there's 50+ footnotes. But I think that doing that way all the time is a way to seem scholarly at the expense of readability, especially now that the current (as in, in use now for at least five years) referencing system automatically does all footnotes in smaller type (with the older system, that used to be an option, and when an article had one or two footnotes I didn't really see why it was so necessary to force it down to agate-type level). "Because that's how the Beatles did it, man!" cannot be by itself a justification for editorial practice. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to see some guidance on reflists that matches common practice. Template:Reflist makes a mention of columns but it is not very clear. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't force multi-column reflists in any case – it's a lot better to set the width of the reflist columns in ems, then let the browser work it out (in most cases this gives multi-column lists, but the point is that it doesn't force them when they'd be painfully narrow). In some simple cases with only a couple of refs, even limiting column width is too much and then we should just leave them to default.
  • As to Commons links, then the MOS is obscure, but it is there: It should go under an ELs section, but an ELs section shouldn't be created solely to hold the Commons link. This fails a little in the corner case where there's a stub with no section structure, but even then it's not something to worry about until the article has at least a Refs section. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, columns should not be forced and ems should be used. My point is that if there are mare than, say 4-6 refs they should be spread over two columns or more. That is the prevailing trend and that is what I have been doing, although I do use the forcing to two columns. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Duronto Express

Hi Alan Liefting, I appreciate the removal of two pictures from the article Arignar Anna Zoological Park, over which we had confusions for a long time. By the same token, should we retain some of the pictures of display boards in Duronto Express and similar images in other related articles? These are under debate for quite some time now, but we didn't remove them since we weren't sure about the same. Your opinion needed there. Thanks again. Challengethelimits (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The two images I removed from Arignar Anna Zoological Park were red linked. As for the images in the Duronto Express article I think that there are too many similar images in the gallery. I will make some changes to it. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello,

I noticed you removed an image file in the emaux de Briare article with a comment "redlinked": what does that mean? Is there anyway you can put it back, as it appears in the French version for instance?

Thx in advance for your enlightenment. Chaanara (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the File:Émaux de Briare (Loiret, France) logo.jpg image because it does not exist on the English Wikipedia or on Commons. The equivalent on the French Wikipeida has a different filename and is not on Commons. Also, there may be copyright issues with it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#New_editors_vilified_in_the_deletion_process.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ottawahitech (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 December 2012

Merry Christmas!!

For all you do!! Keep Wikipedia clean and ignore the loud noises some people make. Have a wonderful HOLIDAY!!


Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

  • Bah, humbug!!
But seriously, thanks very much for the sentiment. Also as an atheist and as one who considers religion to be harmful to society I don't partake in festivities relating to Christianity. Anyway, you keep of the good work as well. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Care still needed

Very sorry to have to complain again. But gigapan was case of vandalism. To be honest, I might have missed it bu I checked the history for spam user name. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Damn. I must not have even looked at the history. It looked like a newly created spam article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
In my defence, during my wiki-gnoming at Category:Articles with missing files I am seeing all sorts of rubbish turning up so I am becoming naturally suspicious of all the new ones that I see. Am I excused? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RFA effectiveness

The lack of effectiveness is the general consensus of the community and has recently been slightly addressed by Jimbo's most recent talkpage post. See:[19].--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

DWH oil spill

Alan, hi and thanks for your help at DWH page. This is a bad time to be making such major edits, as many are just going in the biggest holiday of the year. The editors at the page have not even begun to discuss the changes you are making. How does one decide they alone will redo an article during a major holiday without seeking consensus due to fear of edit conflicts? This makes no sense to me because Wikipedia guidelines say no one owns an article and that EVERYTHING is done by consensus. petrarchan47tc 08:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I am about to do a separate {{merge}} request. As I said on the talk page it is a logical progression given the article size. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the timing. I will try to figure out what has transpired but time is short. Alan, you need to know that the article and others related to BP have seen a lot of controversy in the past and changes are best done through consensus. That said, it is good to have someone interested in helping with the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Your idea to do a rehash of the Lede is great if you plan to work as a group. I tried once to make a tiny change to the BP Intro without discussion on the talk page first and ended up in three months of discussion and noticeboards. It's pretty much common knowledge that you can't make huge changes, whether they seem logical or not, without consulting other editors or without receiving a challenge to your edits. If you have the extra time, perhaps start with moving the Investigations section (see talk). petrarchan47tc 21:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

HazWasteOnline

Hi Alan; I am hoping that you can guide me wrt the HazWasteOnline page not meeting the notability guidelines. The software is now used by blue chip companies (BAE Systems, Tata, Cemex), most of the top environmental and enginering consltants (eg URS, Jacobs, Ove Arup, CH2MHill, AMEC, Grontmij, Golder Associates) and by regulators (Scottish Environment Agency and more recently the Irish EPA as we are finding Irish waste producers coming to us for help).

It is a fairly new software product that is gaining a good reputation in professional circles with the Environment Agency recently bringing it to the notice of the European Commission - and asking me to help review the new UK guidelines due out in the Spring. Because it is early days, there is not yet a wealth of references in the liturature, and yet it is the only software to undertake the complicated task of classifying potentially hazardous waste - and yes it does reference the guidelines/EU regulations as these define the rules that the software lives by.

Waste classification is a niche area, hence the software will be niche - but no more niche than more established software like Goldsim which is on Wikipedia.

As one of Wikipedia's great strengths is being able to find out about more uncommon things and in doing so help educate people. Most people who are required by law to classify their waste in Europe don't or can't because the regulations and chemistry are so complex.

We are trying to level the playing field amd a wikipedia entry helps both us and the other stakeholders.

I would appreciate any advice you can give - should I post this on the discussion page you initiated?

Ian

Ipohsib (talk) 11:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The deletion discussion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hazwasteonline) is the best place to make a case for keeping it. As an environmentalist I support any initiative to manage waste but the topic does not meet the Wikipedia notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at J04n's talk page.
Message added 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

J04n(talk page) 23:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Careful now

I was surprised to see you apply a speedy tag to List of the envirmoental issues all over the world (Gregory Paley). If I had followed that proposal, I would have deleted all the edit history. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was quite a messy situation. The page had been moved twice, both to a bad page name. I guess I should have done a WP:RM? I could not move the page back myself since I am not an admin. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The move was non-controversial so what you should have done was applied {{db-move|List of the envirmoental issues all over the world (Gregory Paley)|revert vandalism}} to list of environmental issues. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the info. I have never used that one before. And who says you can't each an old dog new tricks! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Concerned that you also placed a speedy tag on a museum article which has a full length article on Korean wikipedia. I used my alternative account to remove the tag seems as people are busy right now and have expanded it a bit. Its potentially dangerous speedy tagging articles which can be expanded. Please be more careful. If you want any article I've started expanded, kindly ask!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I had done a google search on it and it came up with next to nothing. I must admit that I had overlooked the Korean version and that you were the author. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for Gilbert Hitch

Alan, I understand that this article is now being considered for deletion. There seems to be no specific indication for the decision. Is it related to biographical content that can be adjusted? In the initial response it was indicated that the biographical content did not satisfy wikipedia WP-VERIFY conditions but that in all other respects it was acceptable for publication. I removed all unverified biographical content.Sintch (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I tagged it for deletion since it does not seem tp meet the requirement of the notability guidelines for people (see WP:BIO). As well as being verifiable articles must be on a notable topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Per WP:IAR and WP:AGF, I hope you'll allow me one chance to post my best wishes to you at this time of year. I spent many happy months in Godzone and often wish I could retreat there to avoid my daily grind. I found it profitable to re-read Christmas truce and realise how short and precious life is. It's a pity their truce lasted for such a short time. We, perhaps, could aim to extend beyond one night? In any case, my olive branch is extended (no standard British double entendre intended) and once again, all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I accept your olive branch and I also agree with the sentiments that you have expressed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

An uplifting exchange to eavesdrop on. Good on you both. --Dweller (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Domenichino

Please stop this pointless fiddling. If you can't see why the article on subject of a painting should not be in "see also", I can't be bothered to explain. Happy Christmas! Johnbod (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not pointless. I don' like doing pointless things. And I have just this minute posted a message on the talk page. See Talk:Adoration of the Shepherds (Domenichino). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW, it is now Boxing Day here in NZ and as an atheist is don't celebrate Christmas. Thanks for the sentiment though. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Declined speedy deletion tag- Attapeu Stadium

I've declined your WP:CSD#A3 nomination of Attapeu Stadium because the article does not meet the appropriate criterion. To quote part of the A3 criterion, "However, a very short article may be a valid stub if it has context, in which case it is not eligible for deletion under this criterion. Similarly, this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox, unless its contents also meet the above criteria." This page does have an infobox, and it's quite clear that the article is about a stadium, so it has enough context. This means that it isn't eligible for A3, and can't be speedy deleted as such. It may still be eligible for deletion under a different process, such as PROD or AfD.--Slon02 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It is a shame that CSD rules are too rigid. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

DWH environmental summary

Hi there Alan, would you be able to drop off that summary to the DWH oil spill talk page anytime soon? petrarchan47tc 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Philately

Hi, I put the more refs required tag back in, there are only four. I don't care about it being in the philatelic terms category but it does seem, in itself, to be a philatelic term? Thanks, Philafrenzy (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Zennor Head

I noticed you edited Zennor Head to remove some images - I couldn't see why you did but after restoring the previous version the images aren't showing - were they showing when you removed them, I can't work out why they are not as they are still on Commons. Thanks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the links because they did not exist on Commons. It seems they do a lot a deleting over there. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC
Oh ok thanks then ... the puzzle now is why I can still see their file description pages then? Does this page exist for you or is it hanging around in my cahce? --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Have just noticed that &nbsp has been added to some of the images at some point. Taking that out of the image links will probably make it work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes it was that and em-dashes which fit the MOS but break the file names. Thanks --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 00:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2012

Map of E11 is there, but not visible

Dear Alan Liefting, I will undo your removal of a useful map of E11 in E11 European long distance path, since that map is really useful if only it would appear. You will find the map in European long-distance paths, but for some (technical?) reason it refuses to show up in the article about E11. Please help to improve the link instead of removing it! DrMennoWolters (talk) 09:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attapeu Stadium.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Marriage in New Zealand

Kia ora. I'm glad you've started a Marriage in New Zealand article. When I was writing the Polygamy in New Zealand article, I remember being surprised that we didn't have an overall marriage one. It's not a bad start, but of course could use some fleshing out. It's good that you've included marriage stats, and would probably make a decent section of its own. Also useful would be sections on History, Wedding ceremonies and Divorce. I had a bit of a look-around: a couple of good examples would be Marriage in Japan and the giant Marriage in the United States. There's also an article in Te Ara called "Marriage and Partnering" that would probably be a good guide (or an external link), too. Nice work in getting it started. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that there is heaps of room for expansion. I will use the Te Ara page as an ext link. I don't really like using Te Ara as a direct reference. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_19&oldid=1139048031"