User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alan Liefting. 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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Removing cats

Please do not do so again. Thanks. Rarelibra (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a guideline that is commonly adhered to that user pages should not be in the article namespace. The pages that I uncategorised are probably best to be categorised under Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly a guideline - to quote two things:

"it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"
"when in doubt, discuss first on the talk page"

you failed to discuss and, instead, merely initiated deletion. You also didn't treat with common sense as it is not set in stone. Regards. Rarelibra (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There is also nothing wrong with being bold. Since the title of how pages are displayed in a category (only the sequence can be stipulated) your user pages look out of place. The map images that you have created are appropriate in Category:Maps etc. The current article names for your user pages are also meaningless. User talk:Rarelibra/Maps1 means nothing but Category:Maps of Europe is quite descriptive. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Common sense" suggests that any user pages should not be visible within the encyclopeadia itself. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of exceptions - you are not an authority - and that is just a guideline. So please stop. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What are these exceptions? If there are plenty of exceptions why is there almost a complete lack of user pages in the article space categories? Why do you say I am not an authority? Do I need to be an authority when we ca ignore all rules? Do you think User talk:Rarelibra/Maps has a touch of vanity and therefore makes it even more unsuitable for inclusion in article namespace? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Engineering categories

From: Wikipedia:Categorization: 'There are often occasions when articles might ideally be moved from a category to two or more of its subcategories, but not all of the subcategories exist. In such cases consider creating the additional subcategories, but if you decide not to do so, leave the articles in the parent category for the time being.'

I have replaced the categories on Arup. If you feel there are better subcategories to put them in, feel free to create them. In the meantime, the article should stay in the engineering categories as it places the article in the right place should someone be looking for structural, civil, mechanical engineers etc Tkn20 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for elaboration on merger opposition

Hi, would it be possible for you to elaborate on your comments on the Wilderness/Backcountry hut merger? - see Talk:Wilderness hut#Merge proposal --Ozhiker (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Kia Ora Alan,

I think you did an excellent job on the population biology page for wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me stealing some of you content on ecological traps, adding to it, and moving it to a new page. I think I have a bit if a different perspective on the subject than the population biology folks and so I felt it belonged to a different discussion. Regardless, I noticed you recently added the citations to it, which was very cool. I'd love to talk with you about ecological traps if you are ever interested.

Totally off topic, I was happy to see that you are a kiwi! I've visited for a couple of times now and felt a feeling of being home for the first time to a place I have never been. You live in a very interesting and progressive country (at least compared to the USA).

Keep contributing to wikipedia!

Bruce Robertson bruce.robertson@mso.umt.edu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.188.50 (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting articles

Please read Wikipedia:Summary style. I notice you've split death in culture out again, and I agree that it does need its own article, but we don't do splits like that. A summary of the split off article should be left, and because this aspect of death is very important this would be a sizable one, probably 2-3 pages in length. Richard001 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hollyford

Hi Alan - I notice you removed the line in Hollyford Track that said it was one of the best known tracks in NZ. Other than the Milford, I can't think of any others that are better known (it's probably on par with the Heaphy, Routeburn, and Kepler). It may not be part of th "Great Walks" system, but that doesn't change how widely it's known. I'd say that it's very much one of the best known tracks in the country. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, you might be right. I'll do a little digging and see if I can get a ref. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Could you be a little more specific when typing edit summaries and I know, its not vandalism but it is getting a little borderline. You might want to check these diffs out [1]. Dimadozen (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This to has also been retrieved [2] Dimadozen (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone else has used my name on Uncyclopedia. It may be the same person who was placing offensive material on my WP user page. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 01:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently discussing the problem on the user's talk page, as well as on my own, if you would like to see it or contribute anything. However, should you wish to do so, I would recommend the creation of an account to use beforehand. Boomsta (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of that particular person on Uncyclopedia. I'll admit, I was a bit confused before, but I'm going to guess that I blocked the right person. If I'm wrong, let me know. —Hinoa (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Hollow Men book cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Hollow Men book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Secrets and Lies book cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Secrets and Lies book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Montessori in the United States

An editor has nominated Montessori in the United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montessori in the United States and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of "list of environment topics" for deletion

At this time, the link for discussing the nomination of list of environment topics for deletion goes to the old discussion. Apparently, you need to revise the tag to start a discussion about the new nomination. -- Wavelength (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder about that. I did realise that but I have not yet found the correct tag. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 11:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bac Mor agus Beag

I reverted the edits, because it made the picture formatting really strange. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What is that?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmontsy (talk • contribs) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation‎

I have reverted your edit of Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation‎. WP does not include contact info in articles. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory for a guideline. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why do other national governments have their key centre's address given, but not the indigenous nations? That is racist. The policy is not a bad policy, but the address was placed in there to be consistant with other government articles. CJLippert (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have seen not examples of contact details for any governments nor any other organisation for that matter. Do you have examples? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 04:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article for White House and most of the indigenous governments with the the {{NorthAmNative/Anishinaabe}} template in their talk pages have the address and phone number of the main centres. But looking around a bit more, I see that none of the parlaments and diets or the offices of presidential/prime minster have their addresses listed, so it appears to be exceptions, rather than the norm, though there are external links provided to those parlament/diets and offices of presidents/prime ministers that contain that information. CJLippert (talk) 15:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You would have to admit that the White House is an exception in giving an address given its notability. I could not find policy or guidelines on stating govt address in WP articles but my opinion is to not have addresses at all. External links to the govt have the address and that should be sufficient as you point out. In order not to be reverse racist any indigenous govt should not have address listed, although it is not really a racist issue in my view. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit of Pollution

Alan, you added the words due to human activity into the introductory definition of pollution. That means that volcanic eruptions, forest fires, floods, and other of nature's catastrophes are excluded as source of pollution. Did you meant to do that? - mbeychok (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The most common use of the word is as an effect of human activity on the environment. The majority of the dictionaries are not specific in the definition are attribute pollution to human activity. Also the article is all about pollution due to human activity. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of environment topics

I had put in an uncompleted afd on List of environment topics‎ as you noted. I had previously put it up for deletion and I could not figure out the templates to have it put up a second time. That pages on the associated alphabetical list should be deleted or usified. Alternatively they should have the irrelevant links culled out. WP is not a collection of links and the links are wide ranging and many have no relevance to the word environment as used in the title. There is some discussion at User talk:Wavelength#List of environment topics. See also Template talk:TopicTOC-Environment. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It clearly meets the exception for organizational lists specified in the policy on link collections, and it serves at least two of the three main purposes of lists per WP:LISTS (it only takes one to justify a list). Your concerns can be more effectively addressed without going to AfD, and based on the last AfD attempt going there again has a snowball's chance in Hell of gaining consensus to delete. I'm in the process of improving the lists, and I suggest that you, I, and User:Wavelength work together to fix the problems you see. The Transhumanist 22:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The preamble on the lists states they are for the effects on humans of environmental events and also the effect of humans on the environment. This amounts to quite a lot. They must be divided into the two different arenas. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for. I suggest you make a proposal on the talk page. By the way, I'm glad to see you are so discerning and trying to improve the semantic accuracy of the encyclopedia. I look forward to reading your proposal and your reasons. The Transhumanist 22:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Culling Lists of environmental topics

I think you should discuss the meaning of "environmental" and the scope of the environmental alphabetical index on talk:Lists of environmental topics before culling items from the various lists as you mentioned above. Otherwise, you may find yourself in an edit war with User:Wavelength, who has put in a lot of work on these lists over the past couple of years. Be sure to invite him to the discussion. The Transhumanist 00:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks on "Show Preview" needed reminder.

Best to you and yours, Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefaust (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Acterra article

Article has graduated from "stub" to "start" class at this point (some detail, links, stats). Also, I had to revert some spelling changes, specifically back to "nonprofit" (perfectly proper, and Googles 49 million hits vs. "non-profit" 17 million) and "startup" (universally accepted[3] even on Wikipedia: Startup_company). Rep07 (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, check the Wikipedia official style guide: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Hyphens. In conjunctions of this kind, hyphens are recommended only when the letters brought in contact would be the same ("non-negotiable"). Rep07 (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Glossary

Hi Alan, how are you going? I saw you removed my entry at Glossary of climate change. While I understand and agree that 'Effects of Global Warming' is not appropriate for a glossary in the stricter sense, I think in this case the glossary is more of a collection of articles about Global Warming because the topic covers so many articles that it is hard to keep an overview otherwise. This is exactly why we decided to have no 'see also' section in the Global warming and Climate change articles but instead link to the glossary. Anyway, if we'd apply the rules as strict as you seem to suggest, we'd also have to remove a bunch of other articles from the glossary. So, what do you think? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed all of the entries that are not approp in a glossary. See also Talk:Glossary of climate change. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Three Gorges Dam

I notice that the Three Gorges Dam article has been split and I'm interested to know why, but can't seem to find where this has been discussed. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction... thanks, Johnfos (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any discussion of a split. I was being bold. The main article and the associated enviro effects article deserve separate article since they are both quite notable issues. I do not see it as a POV fork if that is a concern of yours. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 07:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would humbly suggest that you are being too bold in doing splits without discussion, and without using the usual templates, especially where GA or FA articles are concerned. Such articles have got where they are through an arduous review process, and the hard work of many editors, and need to be treated with extra consideration when making substantial changes.

Could I gently ask you about your personal experience in bringing articles up to GA or FA standard as this may help to alleviate some of my concerns; your user page is remarkably short on details about this sort of thing... Johnfos (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hinewai Reserve

I see that it is linked to by at least three pages (in the article namespace). But it was only linked to by two pages when I added the tag. By the way, a page is an orphan if two or less pages in the article namespace link to it. (Not how many pages it links to.) What you were thinking of is a page being a dead end. You can remove {{orphan}} from the page if you haven't already. --Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for helping edit the article in a non-demeaning way as did the last user.

i have always wanted to help in wikipedia, but as i am knew not sure how so im looking over the various tutorials.

thanks again for showing that some users are normal people and not complete idiots...

)

also, thanks your edit was at least tidying things and helpful :)

//charlie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliemcf (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Intentional Living Article

Hi Alan. I am the original author of the article "intentional living." I follow this topic almost daily. It is intended to be a general reference not exclusive to any particular group as there are different parties who reference "intentional living." There are also a number of books written either on "intentional living" or living an "intentional life." You have commented about a lack of references. It is true that I have not quoted any one of the particular groups or published sources using the term. I kept the article very neutral using references primarily for the sake of definition. Is there a risk of the article being removed if more references or quotations are not added? I certainly don't want to risk this as I feel that documenting this term is very important. Please assist and advise what changes need to be made, if any, to keep the article from being removed. Thanks! Richard Bunnage.

If there are books written about the topic they can be used as refs and wont necessarily make the article POV. Quoting a range of sources would reduce the chances of being POV. Three dictionary definitions does not constitute a suitable level of referencing. Not having references is not the only criteria used for deletion. The topic does seem to have some notability so I suspect the article would survive passing a deletion process. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 20:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will work on this. Richard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.123.124.238 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Alan Liefting, I noticed you revert vandalism occasionally. Would you like me to grant your account rollback rights to make vandal-reversion a bit easier for you? Acalamari 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that feature would be of use to me. I would like you to grant me that feature. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted. :) For information on use of the tool, you may wish to read Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 22:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I can feel the power.... -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 22:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 22:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

About unreferenced text on Diomede page

I'm sorry, I thought it was a bot removing the text. I'm still working on the text and haven't done any of the references so far. I'll update them as closing my open windows'.

Would you think it's acceptable to refer goverments research about FUTURE improvements under this wiki policy: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced."

Let me know how to change the text to fit in, I think it's important and it is NOT my own opinnion either.

Thanks, Baldwin040 Comment added by Baldwin040 23:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is referenced from an authoritative source and is not speculation it is acceptable for WP. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 23:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be an authoritative source. I'll keep working with the page, though.
Thanks for advice,
Baldwin040

PROD removal reversion

Hi, reverting the removal of a PROD notice like in [4] is against the PROD procedure. Anyone, including anonymous IP users and the original submitter, may stop a PROD. Instead, you may wish to open an AfD. --bd_ (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I may inadvertently reverted to the wrong version when I removed an edit. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 07:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Article space cats in userspace

Hi Alan, I noticed you were doing useful work tidying up some electronics categories. When article space cats are mistakenly used in userspace, e.g. in draft articles, it is a good idea to change the cats into quoted form, rather than removing them, helping to minimize WP:BITING. Regards, - Neparis (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip. I was simply removing the brackets on some. I did not think about the quoted cats option. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AUK

This is an invitation to WikiProject Auckland, a WikiProject which aims to develop and expand Wikipedia's articles on Auckland. Please feel free to join us.

Taifar ious1 09:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thrint

You changed one word, "defense" from the American to the Brit/International spelling at Thrint. Could you point to the Wikipedia Style page establishing the latter standard as policy? Somercet (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was a little over-enthusiastic spell checking done during an edit. It probably should be American spelling given that Larry Niven is American. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 09:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Notability}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.Alterna. (single)). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 19:56 15 March 2008 (GMT).

please reformulate I don't understand. "RM"?

"rm image that does not add appropriately to page."

what is RM ???

Your right it's inappropriate to give full focus on 2n2222, What I thought is that it would introduce the notion of 3 contacts over the "famous" transistor symbol.

I think you shouldn't have deleted the astounding "finger nail SDHD 50 billion transistors chip". I thought it was more captivating that the earlier old plain "gigabits ram chip for 2 USD."

Have you tried to move those two edit elsewhere ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transisto (talk • contribs) 08:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"rm" as an abbreviation for remove. See Wikipedia:Edit summary legend for a list of common abbreviations.I have also comment on the other questions at Talk:Transistor. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Transistor re ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transisto (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Three Gorges

Hi Alan - I've added a comment on the split/merge issue at Talk:Environmental_issues_with_the_Three_Gorges_Dam#Merge. Thanks for the thoughts about the hard drive, BTW - thankfully I use a laptop and regularly keep everything backed up on an external hard drive - I only lost about a day's worth of work overall, which wasn't too bad. I'm currently using a loan machine, but hopefully I'll be getting my own machine back with a new HD pretty soon. Grutness...wha? 23:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Bernard McGrath

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Bernard McGrath, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Bernard McGrath. SilkTork *^YES! 10:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Goat Island, Auckland

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Goat Island, Auckland, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Goat_Island,_New_Zealand. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Goat Island, Otago

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Goat Island, Otago, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Goat_Island,_New_Zealand. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan - I see this was a false positive. I've extended the article a bit - and moved it to Goat Island, Otago Harbour so as not to get it confused with another Goat Island off the Otago coast (Goat Island/Te Mapoutahi). Grutness...wha? 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

When Creating new articles...

Hi Alan, could you please take time to read Wikipedia:CITE and use inlice citation and a References section (template {{reflist}}) rather than just putting your sources as external links. It is much easier for the original author to do it than for someone else to have to re-read all the references and tidy up the article. (The best use for External links is for the website of the article subject, or similar material which isn't valid as a reference). Thanks, dramatic (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am familiar with WP:CITE and as a bare minimum I would place the link as a references with the ref tag (and possibly give it a title so it does not appear as the bare url). If the reference it likely to be permanent and my edit not likely to be overwritten I would use the full ref template. Which ones are you concerned with? -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned! I've recently noticed Wilding conifer (where what look like references are all under External links) Cycling Advocates' Network where the only reference is their own website (not independent, should be an EL) and Cyclone Bola - which I know a good source for and intend to extend myself. dramatic (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Those article are all stubs and I have not really put mush effort into them as yet. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to your contributions to my userbox, but you messed up on the formatting.--Juthani1 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is appearing in Category:Architecture. This is probably against WP policy. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it. I understand what you meant and how you feel. Sorry that I attached the category onto it. I didn't know I was causing harm. If you want to do anything else to this userbox feel free to do so. If you have and concerns or need my help, please place comments on my talk page. Thanks--Juthani1 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

David Farrar

Are you going to change all the existing references to David Farrar to point directly to the new pages? -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge consensus

Can I please get your take here? Thank you. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, did you notice the third opinion someone left here? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 11:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Test?

If this is a test, can you move it into your userspace or something? It doesn't really belong in the article space as it is. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Monoculture (computer science)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Monoculture (computer science), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://articles.gourt.com/en/Monoculture. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

False positive. The link is a mirror. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 10:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheep

Well, I think WP:Stub's approach is redudant, and assumes the worst common denominator of reader intelligence (they aren't going to be able to tell that sheep stubs is also a category?). I'm going to bring it up on the talk, but thank you for clarifying the reasoning. And thanks very much for the tip on placement conventions, how to do that has always nagged at me. Is it part of the stub guideline or MOS? Best regards, VanTucky 23:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read the Categorizing stubs section in the guideline you linked, and it says nothing to support retaining Category:Sheep when sheep-stub exists. Is it perhaps in another section? VanTucky 23:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now reread it and yes it does not offer any real guidance on stubs and cats. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) -

I am all for preventing redundancy in the categorisation but I do not feel the the sheep can and sheep stub cat is redundant. Like I said the sheep cat is for users and the stub cat is for editors. I have been doing a lot of recategorisation and commonly articles will be in the topic cat and the topic stub cat. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting link under OLD?

Hello Alan,

I'm led to believe that you most likely corrected an improperly installed link. (Under OLD I had problems installing a proper internal link to the Oxford Latin Dictionary [OLD] entry).

So, unless I'm mistaken above, accept my sincere thanks for tidying up after me.

In any case, be well and only good things to you and those you love,

DH

And thank you DH for your kind words. But am I in need of thanks? We are both, along with all the other editors doing constructive edits, creating a resource for which 'all users should be thankful. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Windflow Technology company logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Windflow Technology company logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Liliane Ackermann

The artice on Liliane Ackermann does follow the guidelines of Wikipedia : importance of the person, references. (Highland14 (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

I did not make any edits to suggest otherwise. I removed text that belonged on the article creators page as can be seen by my edit here. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP space categories (original thread)

Category:Version 0.5 articles by category and Category:Version 0.7 articles by category are being added to article space categories. These belong in Wikipedia space only. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 16:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alan. The version 0.5, 0.7, and 1.0 categories seemed to lack structured organization. Some were not categorized and there seemed to be some duplicate categories (e.g., Category:Held Wikipedia 0.7 Candidates and Category:Version 0.7 Held articles). I arranged everything under Category:Wikipedia Release Version as a top category. You can get an overview of the entire structure here. Please feel free to rearrange as you see fit. Best. GregManninLB (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer

Where is the guidleine on stub placement? Cheers. --evrik ^(talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Stub#Categorizing stubs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Three Gorges Dam

The third opinion wasn't very helpful; I am planning to ask for a Request for Comment. Is that all right with you? Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Sure, that is fine by me. Would be great to resolve it. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The XYZ Digital Map Company

Hi Alan, you have marked my article on The XYZ Digital Map Company as needing references. Not sure what you want, but as I founded the company along with Mark I can vouch for what is in Wikipedia as being correct.

Let me know,

Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Witels (talk • contribs) 15:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable, verifiable third party sources for infomation otherwise, as you can imagine, it can be open to abuse (not that I am suggesting it in this instance). The article at present has no inline sources. See WP:V, WP:FIVE for some editing info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Portal:New Zealand

The portal has run out of DYK items. For the time being, I've set it to repeat the items from the beginning of the year, so it will be fine for the next few months.

If you don't want to spend time on it, I'll change it to use 26 items and repeat every six months.-gadfium 05:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I will shuffle the weekly entries around so that each week has only four points. This will free up some to fill the weeks that are missing entries. Also, if you can think of any more DYK's feel free to add them. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored the DYK display in the portal, since it will now run for another few weeks before exhausting the prepared content.

It looks like we have a couple of hundred DYK entries. We need twice as many if every week has four entries, and unless someone puts a lot of effort into it, that's not going to happen anytime soon. I suggest we either drop to two entries per week, or have 26 weeks and repeat in the second half of the year. The latter is my recommendation. See Portal:Latin America for an example of a portal which rotates its images on a six monthly basis.-gadfium 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think the 26 week rotation is a good idea for the time being. I have got a few of my own that I have come up with (all by nyself....) that I am now adding. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added three, but do you realise that there are ten spare ones sitting in weeks 50-52? We can comfortably make the 26 weeks.-gadfium 04:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw them, but where is the challenge if we simply copy them!!?? We gotta get all of them sorted!! For the time being we should probably put two entries per page to fill all 52 weeks. If we can't do that by week 26 we should do the 26 week rotation as you suggested. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Deflection (engineering)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Deflection (engineering), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Deflection. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

False positive. Am doing a split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Marc With a C

Just to let you know, I have removed the CSD noticed as it does assert notability (but it is not sourced, that is why I have AfD'ed it. Articles that do assert notability, however poorly sourced, should not be deleted under a notability related CSD. Have a nice day! :) asenine ^{say what?} 06:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and could you reply on my talkpage please? Thankyou. asenine ^{say what?} 06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CSD. "Any editor who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this." asenine ^{say what?} 06:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And it does assert notability in that it says they have been placed in rotation on college radio stations. asenine ^{say what?} 06:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for separating the Dixie Chicks band page from the political controversy!! I was dreading having to do it, and felt I might end up doing it poorly, just to see the individual band members' pages done properly. I'm really a newbie here, so any help on the Martie Maguire page or comments would be useful! :)--leahtwosaints (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No sweat. I have looked at the Martie Maguire page and it seems pretty good. Well referenced and a good balance of info. Not sure what the unreferenced tag is all about. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Zachary Levenson

Yes, I think the article belongs at AFD rather than CSD because it asserts that he's a "prominent biostatistician". NawlinWiki (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you a physician or researcher?

Are you a physician? If you are you might want to improve the article on Allan Rechtschaffen by adding sources. If you are not a researcher or physician your challenge to the article amounts to little more than silliness. The Rechtschaffen/Kales scale has been the benchmark for evaluating sleep disorders world wide. Recently there have been modifications but this was the pioneering work.Richard Dates (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am neither a physician nor a researcher (at least not as an actual career) and I don't have to be either of these to notice that an article lacks references. Calling my edit "little more than silliness" is a slur on the thousands of editors who are trying to make WP a more robust encyclopaedia by having information referenced. You will notice from my edit that I did not remove any information from the article. I am not making any "challenge to the article" I simply want the information contained in it to be referenced to verifiable sources. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ask!

I'm Hippy deluxe, The image Image:Usage WebBrowsers Chart.png is no longer be used. I don't host it any more because other user has created better version: SVG of it. I nominated it for delete! If You have read this, please delete this later. Hippy deluxe (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China

I note that you merged Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China back into Environment of China. Is it because of your concern for possible content forking or for POV issues? Can you see the same problems with the articles at Category:Environmental issues by country? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether or not one of these articles was a POV fork, but they did not seem to address topics that were distinctly different enough to merit separate articles. Almost all of the content of both articles covers human impacts on the environment. I could see having two articles to accommodate a natural environment/human impacts split, but Geography of China and Wildlife of China already cover the natural environment. I took a look at Category:Environmental issues in the United States for comparison. There's no "Environmental issues in the United States" article, though there's a need to add material about human impact to Environment of the United States.

Taking a look at other countries right now, there's an Environmental issues in Afghanistan but no "Environment of Afghanistan", and likewise for Greece and India. It's fine with me if "Environmental issues in __" is the naming convention, but I'm skeptical that a corresponding "Environment of __" for each country is also necessary. -- Beland (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Environment of Australia and Environmental issues in Australia. These are both a skeleton articles at present but that is how I envisage the two types of article. The former is about how the environment is protected and the latter is about the impacts on the environment due to human activity. There seems to be enough info to fill both articles in this case but this cannot be said for all countries. I am surprised that these types of article do not exist for the US given the number of American Wikipedians. The likes of Geography of China and Wildlife of China are articles about what exists out there. Since WP will only grow I prefer to see the separate articles to exist from the early stages since splitting articles is not always easy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

AWB on environment

Hi Alan. It seems AWB has replaced the link to natural environment on environment with environment (biophysical), even though it's a real article and the link it replaced it with was already there. Annoying thing... Richard001 (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that one up. I should have been a bit more careful. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on categories

Alan, I appreciate that you like to work with categories. But I believe you are placing too much emphasis on categories, and this has at times led to the inappropriate splitting of articles (eg., Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China, and Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam), and inappropriate requests for deletion of lists (eg., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental periodicals). Johnfos (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles that I have split:
Fiber to the premises Environment of China Knight Rider Agnes of God Catsuit Consumer price index Diplica Dixie Chicks Windecker Industries Backup Web browser Bus rapid transit Billy Kane Montessori method Bertrand Russell Anthony Cream Goat Island, New Zealand Fluting Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China Boy racer (sub-culture) Coal I Never Promised You a Rose Garden (novel) Aisle American Airlines

Out of these only three have been disputed and the dispute is not clear cut in any of those cases.

Check to see if they are suitably populated and not deleted. I have been working on the category system, along with stacks of other stuff, because there are many good articles that are poorly categorised. If you do an analysis of my edits you will find that it is well within the consensus of the WP community. I am not sure how much analysis you did of my edits to arrive at the conclusion that you did. If you are concerned about my focus on categories perhaps you should raise some REAL concerns about User:Wavelengths fixation on lists. The lists which (s)he creates are often deleted. Cheers for now. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Contribs

Okay, my email should be working now. I just need an email from you so I have an email address to attach the file to. Mr.Z-man 09:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Simple Full Wave Rectifier

Yes, I thought I'd flagged it for deletion; I have done so now, thanks. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sudhagad Fort

Hi! Saw you moved this, which I agree with due to proper caps, but are you aware it's a duplicate? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of it. There needs to be a merge or redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I thought that was the outcome of the AfD, but I was wrong. I think it depends on which is the proper name, i.e. is it called Sudhagad Fort or is it just a fort located in Sughadad. Nothing makes that clear and I'm not too familiar with India. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am no expert on India either. I have already made a note about possible page name at Talk:Sudhagad#Merge. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kamahi photos

Hello Alan. Saw your nice pic of the Kamahi flowers, and just wondered whether you might have one of the whole tree or can maybe get one when you're out and about? The pic in the infobox is mine, but it's only leaves from a very young tree. Next time I head down-country I will see if I can find some Kamahi. Not certain whether they occur in AK, and if they do I might not be able tell them from Tawhero which is pretty similar. I have uploaded pix of Tawero btw, but they're not the best. Kahuroa (talk) 00:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a pix of the whole tree unfortunately. Getting pictures of trees by themselves for WP is something I keep in mind when out and about. There is plenty of Kamahi on the West Coast and I do get over there often enough. It does apparently grow up around Auckland. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Earmark (agricuture)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Earmark (agricuture), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071222124427AAwpJC2. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

False positive. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixative (drawing)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Fixative (drawing), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.reviewpainting.com/Fixative.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

False positive -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Puppet on a String (album)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Puppet on a String (album), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Puppet on a String. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Removing cats

Engineering categories

Request for elaboration on merger opposition

Splitting articles

Hollyford

Edit Summary

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Hollow Men book cover.jpg

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Secrets and Lies book cover.jpg

AfD nomination of Montessori in the United States

Nomination of "list of environment topics" for deletion

Bac Mor agus Beag

Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation‎

Your recent edit of Pollution

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.jpg

Re: List of environment topics

Tags

Culling Lists of environmental topics

Thanks on "Show Preview" needed reminder.

Acterra article

Glossary

Three Gorges Dam

Re: Hinewai Reserve

thanks

Intentional Living Article

Question

About unreferenced text on Diomede page

PROD removal reversion

Article space cats in userspace

Thrint

Cleanup templates

please reformulate I don't understand. "RM"?

Re:Three Gorges

Bernard McGrath

When Creating new articles...

Thanks

David Farrar

Merge consensus

Test?

Sheep

Thank you for correcting link under OLD?

Fair use rationale for Image:Windflow Technology company logo.jpg

Liliane Ackermann

WP space categories (original thread)

Answer

Three Gorges Dam

The XYZ Digital Map Company

Thank You!

Zachary Levenson

Are you a physician or researcher?

Thanks for ask!

Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China

AWB on environment

Too much emphasis on categories

Contribs

Image:Simple Full Wave Rectifier

Kamahi photos