User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Speedy deletion of Richard Pearce (artist)

A tag has been placed on Richard Pearce (artist) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Jfire (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion seems appropriate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MetService logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:MetService logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now at File:MetService logo.png. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ministry for the Environment (New Zealand) logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Ministry for the Environment (New Zealand) logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now at File:Ministry for the Environment (New Zealand) logo.png. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium logo.gif)

You've uploaded File:Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now at File:Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium logo.png. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning: Greg Timp

Hello to you; concerning your tagging of the above as a speedy: I've declined the speedy on the grounds that the article has been around quite a while, and has been viewed by multiple editors. Also, I feel that it isn't really a clear-cut speedy. If your heart is in this, you could bring it up as a regular AfD. Lectonar (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Environment and History paper

Did you find it? If not, then I have a copy which I have come across. Let me know what's up (and whether I can delete the copy I have). Thanks!--droptone (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it goes. Let me know when you've successfully downloaded the file so I can remove it from public view. Thanks.--droptone (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Hello - I see that you are reorganizing some lists into horizontal format rather than vertical format. I think this is a matter of personal preference, rather than consensus or policy. There seems to be no consistency. My own opinion is that vertical is easier to read, and can be used to group articles in the list by indenting and the like, but horizontal makes for shorter pages. Not sure it matters, really. Regards —G716 <^T·_C> 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

List of health sciences topics uses both formats!!—G716 <^T·_C> 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

YEah, I have set up a few topic lists in the horiz format. I have had no complaints to date. It makes sense to use the horiz format if it is a list of topics the is REALLY long. Keep up the good work on the health topics. Interested in sorting out Lists of environmental topics as well? I have had a bit of history with them!!Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Charles Compton

Theres more than one article by the name "Charles Compton". It is the procedure that follows most disambiguation pages.-SilverOrion ^{(You talk way too much!)}

If one of the articles is not the most likely topic to be searched for than there is no need for a separate disambig page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to deduce which article would "most likely" to be searched for, thus it is more practical to create a seperate disambiguation page-SilverOrion ^{(You talk way too much!)}

Some people have a clear cut case of being more notable than others of the same name. Se Wikipedia:Disambiguation for info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well which article are you proposing?-SilverOrion ^{(You talk way too much!)}

None, which is why I moved it back to Charles Compton. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong tagging for speedy deletion

Hi Alan Liefting. Thank you for your work on patrolling pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I just wanted you to inform that I declined to delete Modification and Replacement Parts Association, a page that you tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because of the following concern: Please remember that A7 only applies in cases where there is no indication that the article may meet the notability guidelines. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion and especially what is considered Non-criteria. In future you should rather tag such pages for proposed deletion or file them at articles for deletion. Regards So Why 10:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad speedy nomination

You nominated Lucas Kazan for speedy deletion under A7. As numerous assertions of distinct notability are made in the article, it is ineligible under CSD-A7. Please slow down, examine the articles, and take more care. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another bad speedy nom

Luis Soares - Olympic athletes are generally considered notable. Also note the Fr article on the subject. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Trend in New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions for different sectors from 1990 to 2005.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Trend in New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions for different sectors from 1990 to 2005.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Litter in the United States

An article that you have been involved in editing, Litter in the United States, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Litter in the United States. Thank you. Maybe it will turn out to be a good article. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-tagging for CSD

Hi there. I just declined Antone Belt again, after PeterSymonds (talk · contribs) already did so. Please be very careful to never re-tag an article for speedy deletion after an admin declined it (the only exception being copyright infringement that the previous admin has missed to notice). Regards So Why 12:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

5-Hour Energy

Regarding your speedy tagging of this page, the subject is a product not an "article about a real person, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". So I believe the tag is inappropriate. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles B. Hazeltine

I see that this has been mentioned as a potential issue before, but you may want to be more careful with your speedy tagging. The article on Mr. Hazeltine includes an assertion of notability, and as such, is not eligible for speedy deletion. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the level of notability of people for inclusion into WP is set rather low. I get the impression that half the worlds popn can be included into WP without incurring a cfd, prod or afd. OK, that may be a slight exaggeration!! But seriously, are we having too many biographical articles created? Is this at the expense of creating other, more important, articles? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We deliberately set a very low standard of notability (or to be more precise, claim to notability) for speedy deletion. If there is any claim made to notability at all, the article should be taken to AfD or prodded. This gives a greater chance for sources to be found and the article improved before an article is deleted.-gadfium 02:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense but my issue is with whether WP is getting the right balance between biographical articles and all other articles. Human nature being what it is veers editors towards producing biographical articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Tatra (company)

Category:Truck manufacturers applies to the company and not the category which includes people and cars. Generally categories named after companies will not have any other parent categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. The category is for the company and the fact that it has people in that category does not preclude it from being in Category:Truck manufacturers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Earth Charter Initiative.png

Thanks for uploading File:Earth Charter Initiative.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Was corrected in a prompt manner Mr Bot!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Adrienne Roy

Remember to check the page history for articles before you tag them for speedy deletion. Adrienne Roy was vandalized by an IP. If this happens again, just revert back to the last clean version. Keep up the good work in getting rid of pages that don't belong on Wikipedia! Best, Cunard (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Missed that one. Looked like a new page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo redirect Solar Cells pubs

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Solar Cells pubs, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Solar Cells pubs is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Solar Cells pubs, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

False positive. tagged as implausible typo by me. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine McBride-Chang page

I would like to try to improve page so it meets your criteria for more links. I am a doctoral student in a Literacy Research class at USF, and we are trying to build a base of famous literacy researchers into Wikopedia -but we are all new to using Wikopedia and the formatting.

Can you hold the page open until end of April, as we will be doing more work on this in class.

I dont know how to ask other Wikopedia people to help me build the page. I wish I could have some help.

Liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie555 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I had tagged the page as being a non-notable subject. Another editor determined it was notable and removed the tag. It is tagged as an {{orphan}} which means no other pages in Wikipedia link to it ( you can use the "what links here button on the left). My suggestion for you is to read Wikipedia:Community portal and the Manual of style. Also, have a read of the guidelines on what constitutes notable people. Any articles that are on non-notable people will be deleted. Don't worry too much about the page formatting. If it is not up to standard it will be fixed by someone else. The most important thing is to have a neutral point of view, add references and do not add any original research. By the way, I have no idea what USF stands for. When writing Wikipedia articles you must assume that the reader does not have the same level of knowledge as you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Precision Viticulture

I'm curious about why you removed the category "Agriculture". Pmrich (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Precision viticulture is in Category:Viticulture and that category is in Category:Agriculture. It was therefore a redundant category in that article. Also, if all articles in the subcats of Category:Agriculture are in Category:Agriculture the advantage of using categories for navigation is lost since there will be large numbers of articles in the higher level category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like Viticulture needs to be added to Category:Agriculture. :) Pmrich (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Viticulture article is in the Category:Viticulture which is in Category:Agriculture. Therefore the article itself does not to be in the agriculture category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability categories

Hi Alan. I've been busy working on the Sustainability article for some time now and eventually hope to have time for something else! One thing I had in mind was developing a "hierarchy" of categories and subcategories for sustainability (inevitably a subjective process) - essentially breaking up sustainability into a number of sub-topics. You are an old hand at Wikipedia and I need your advice on whether this would be worthwhile ... or even possible. The current system is distinctly un-intuitive? Granitethighs (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Category:Sustainability does need a cleanup. I have got back into removing unneeded articles from it. It often has articles on "Unsustainability" added to it such as Consumerism and Peak coal. I think the category can be easily kept within the 200 article limit with no sacrifice to navigation and use. It will be a matter of creating suitable sub-cats and/or culling out the articles that are too far removed from the topic of sustainability. So, yes - it is a worthwhile exercise and it is possible. Make sure you have WP:HOTCAT turned on.-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wine and Viticulture templates

Hi Alan. Please reconsider category change for Template:Viticulture. Original categories seem appropriate and are consistent with Template:Wines and related templates. Pmrich (talk) 12:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Templates are part of WP administration and as such should not be in article space categories. They should all be in Category:Wikipedia templates and its subcats. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I see your reasoning. I am not attached to "Sustainability" being the Category regarding WiserEarth. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. rkmlai (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ali Moeen Nawaz-ish

Just a friendly note on Ali Moeen Nawaz-ish. I declined the speedy because passing so many A levels is definitely a claim of importance. (And having articles about him in The Telegraph and The Daily Mail, as well as a BBC bit, are a good claim of notability.) If you think this needs to go, AfD would be the route to take.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Catherine McBride-Chang page

Hi there

Have I improved the page more now? I have put in several links, and hope it is better.

I have also written to Bride-McChang to ask her birthdate for the page.

I dont know how to make blue lines which turn to links, so put in the links people have to click on.

Can you reply to my email address?

thanks I really appreciate your work and help and advice and hope this page is getting better - I know you want more than just CV 's up there.

I see someone else from our class has pasted RED6747 under jking.pbwiki.com the password is RED6747

So I dont know how this differs from other Wikepedia pages.

Lizzie

Thanks again

The orphan tag is indicating that no other pages link to the article. Wikipedia works at its best when all articles are interlinked. See WP:EDIT for editing info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

usf

Hi Alan,

thank you so much for all your explanations

USF is University of Southern Florida

Lizzie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixie555 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Agha Shujah

I have nominated Agha Shujah, an article that you edited, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agha Shujah. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ray (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SmackDown All-Star Kick-Off

An article that you have been involved in editing, SmackDown All-Star Kick-Off, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmackDown All-Star Kick-Off. Thank you. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Resilience (ecology)‎

Hi Alan, the article you once created seems to have degenerated, cf. the talk page there. Perhaps you might be interested in having a look at it. I don't have the knowledge myself Power.corrupts (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Responses to your postings on my Talk page and on Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants.

Alan, you asked me (on my Talk page) to review your re-write of Pollutant, which I did. See my Talk page.

You also posted a "conflict of interest" tag on Aqueous Wastes from Petroleum and Petrochemical Plants. See that article's Talk page for my response to that action of yours.

Regards, mbeychok (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Conservation category from Hunting

Hi. I noticed that you removed Conservation from the Hunting page. Can you explain your reasoning? Thanks. Zonedar (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hunting is generally the opposite of conservation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Conservation reliant species

Alan, I appreciate your constructive suggestions. You said "I would prefer to see the graph redrawn using R (programming language) or some other program". Unfortunately I have no idea how to do that. If you or someone else can do, that would be great. This graph is the best image possible to support the hook and most notable fact of the article. I agree a sharper graphic would be preferred. Reply in article discussion. Regards.--Marcus (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of infoboxes on Ecocentrism page

Hi Alan how about using the discussion page to explain why you removed the infobox and pic on the ecocentrism page? Why? "I could get real upset!" Granitethighs (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Ecocentrism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Andy Bowman

I have removed your speedy-deletion tag from this article, as it clearly indicates notability, i.e. a professional footballer who won 2 cups and a league title. I don't think this one would even come close to deletion at AFD.--Michig (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability lists

Why remove the category sustainability. This is distinctly counter-intuitive and is especially annoying with no explanation on the discussion page. ...otherwise I will get real upset. OK!! Granitethighs (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I created a Category:Sustainability lists and placed all the approp pages into it. I thought this was a good idea and not in any way contentious. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Categories

Thank you Alan for taking the time to comment - I'd appreciate your further input - see my question in response on my talk (I make a point of NOT getting upset, just want to improve the project!) Red58bill (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, mostly what I felt, but definitely not the common practice! I'll check with WP:projects when/where I think those templates should be addedRed58bill (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Brian Giovannini

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not verified. All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due"" appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or self-published sources such as wikis. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date: 2003...

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Edcolins (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Selected environmental anniversaries

Does this template serve any purpose? I'd like to delete it. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is for a project which I have yet to complete. Thanks for the reminder. It will be for Portal:Environment and is based on the List of historical anniversaries used on the Main Page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well - perhaps you should move it to user space until it's ready to be used? bd2412 T 07:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is an orphan at present so it will not be stumbled across by WP users. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I stumbled across it! I have no great objection to it staying where it is, but its orphan status is precisely the problem - well, that, plus all the redlinks generated in template space. bd2412 T 07:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have userfied it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Getting "under construction" templates out of the system substantially simplifies the work of figuring out what in Wikipedia:Templates with red links needs to be addressed. Cheers again! bd2412 T 07:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Antecedent

Is there a significant difference between deleting vandalism and undoing vandalism? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

With that particular edit you had removed the text entered by the vandal but not replace the text that was removed by the vandal. This is the vandals edit and this is your edit. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I should definitely have checked that better before trying to fix it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Brian J Smart

Hi

I created the smart page, and am the lead investigator on this case. I see that you marked it for editing and I was wondering what more you would like done to remove your tags? [[4waldopepper (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)]]

The tags I have added have links in them that give recommendations for how to improve the article. Follow those links to find out what needs doing. Once the improvements have been made the tags can be removed. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I have made the requested changes and removed the tags. I assume this is what you were looking for.. [[4waldopepper (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)]]

It probably could do with some inline citations. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

understood, I will work on it after a bit.

[[4waldopepper (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)]]

Image copyright problem with File:WiserEarth logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:WiserEarth logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Adnan Sarajlić

Hello Alan Liefting. I removed your deletion request of Adnan Sarajlić. He plays in the topmost league, this is enough notability. Additionally he is the captain of the club. --Ilion2 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

List(s) of environmental topics

I have also expanded Lists of environmental topics, and updated Template:TopicTOC-Environmental.

Regards —G716 <^T·_C> 03:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's a CfD here on which you may like to comment. —G716 <^T·_C> 06:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Royal Society for Protection of Nature logo.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Eiilogo.gif)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Andrew J. Hamilton (1960) by Clifton Harrison

The reason cited for the deletion was due to lack of indication of why the subject is important and should be included in an encyclopedia. I have obtained additional information about the gentleman and feel that, when added to my previously submitted article, will result in its acceptance on Wikipedia. I cannot find the article I submitted, however. Can you direct that text to me so I may add the new information and send it back to you for consideration?

Thank you for your help in producing what I hope will be a successful effort.

Clifton Harrison (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not an administrtor so I cannot retrieve text from deleted articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Before you CSD A7...

Before you do an A7 in future, make sure you check the article history for vandalism or page hijacking. Daniel Nicholls had been hijacked from a barely, but definitely, notable footballer (played 1 senior game in the AFL) to the non-notable scriptwriter. The page size change from 1500 to 200 bytes is always a good indicator of hijacking or vandalism. The-Pope (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. I generally check for vandalism if it has the appearance of an established article but that one slipped by me. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robert V. Gentry

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robert V. Gentry, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert V. Gentry. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Borock (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

speedy deletion

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

Sorry for breaking up the conversation in two different places, but following the remark you made at my talk, and other notes about speedy deletions on your talk page, something struck me. You seem to be doing a lot of hard work in anti-vandalism and newpage patrole. That is invaluable work, and you seem to be doing it very well. However, I'd like to ask you to be a little more careful with speedy deletion. Speedy deletion is a powerful tool for articles that need to go NOW. At least half of the articles you have proposed in your last 500 edits seems to have been rejected. Incorrect speedy deletion is able to do a lot of damage to the project. If you are unsure about either CSD, or if an article meets the criteria, it's always a good idea to choose for PROD or AfD. If there is anything else I can do for you, just let me know! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

National Development Act 1979

The brief article on National Development Act 1979 begs the questions - what did the act do and why was it controversial? I don't think we can say that it was controversial without answering those. Presumably there are sources. (Actually, almost all the stubs on NZ legislation suffer from {{tl:primarysources}} issues! Cheers, dramatic (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be expanding it. I could not find anything online to use so I will have to get some refs that are in dead tree format. Yeah, all the NZ legislation stubs need work alright. As for suffering from {{tl:primarysources}} is don't think it is too much of a big deal. They are stubs based on info fom the legislation itself - which is pretty authoritative! Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment

Hi, your map of the H1N1 flu, wehere you asked to, is ready!
i used that google maps H1N1 outbreak map as source.

I am not able to place it in a article obout the flu because i am a new user and these pages are protected.
I like making maps in vector scale, if you need one for a (important) article, just ask!. Allstark —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC).

Excellent! And quick work! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Categories

I don't understand, what articles that I made didn't have categories? Bugboy52.4 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked a couple of these:

I assumed you had created a whole serice of these. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I have created a lot of articles sense then, but I have to say that I did add categories to most of the newer ones that I now of.

Speedy deletion

I noticed that you tagged the page Certain Chapters (Film) for speedy deletion with the reason "it is non-notable per WP:NF". However, "it is non-notable per WP:NF" is not currently one of our criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. You can use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if you still want the page to be deleted. Thanks! Stifle (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a speedy deletion criteria for "non-notable per guidelines" should be instigated. Has that been discussed as hinted? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love it if it were, but my attempts to get one added weren't accepted. You can propose it at WT:CSD. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Certain Chapters (Film)

Please keep the page. I had done some edits that had to be undone. HougangVeera (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether the page is kept or not is up to the AFD outcome. Leave you comments at the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certain Chapters (Film). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004

Bit of advice with this - you haven't actually explained what the act does. It might be helpful to write up an intro doing that. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You are on the ball! Yeah, I should not have saved it prematurely. Am still working on it. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Allan James afd

Just to let you know, I didn't create the current version of this page. You may wish to contact the person who re-started the stub. CJCurrie (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Allan James

Hi Alan I removed the prod tag on the above article as he seems to have some degree of notability with the award win. Maybe you should take it to Afd if you still feel it fits deletion criteria best. BigDunc^Talk 19:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A Question regarding an A7 Speedy Deletion

My article on Charles Lyman Flint can't possibly be irrelevant. I chose to write about him simply because of how notable he is, and if you look at any of my citations---then you will surely know. This man dedicated his life to the history of a tri-state region and was on the board of directors for historical reservations / locations.

Could it be that I just did not write it well enough? I can rewrite it. Why must all of you delete my work? It seems counter productive to me and I would like to have an opportunity to improve legitimate work instead of having it cast into the fire over and over again.

I read so many articles on the rules and regulations of wikipedia, and I have seen pages worse than mine remain untouched. Why am I getting this special treatment of having my work destroyed. Doing this to people like me is not going to bring contributors in, its going to chase them away.

I realize you must get a lot of mail like this, and I by no means am trying to give you a hard time. However, I would really like to resolve this issue and move on to my next article instead of playing games with all of the people here who keep taking my work down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrandallant (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I put the article up for speedy deletion since it did not meet the notability guidelines set out at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Wikipedia has to have a cutoff point for the inclusion of articles otherwise all sorts of irrelevant articles would be created. As I recall the article was about someone who did a lot of stuff of interest and the article may have been well written but still did not meet the notability criteria. Don't take article deletion as a personal affront - it is just that the content of Wikipedia requires a consensus for inclusion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No offense taken, but this article is supposed to be more about the committees and services which he has had extremely important roles in, which contributed to the history of the area. The interests were included because almost all Biographies include those. If the readers are not understanding this I could take the normal parts out so we may focus on the original purpose of the article. If writing important publications, being director of multiple historical societies / facilities over a long period of time, etc etc etc is not good enough, than how come musical bands manage to be listed on this site? For the love of g-d, good sir, are we not overlooking something? I am willing to rewrite it. This is definitely being misinterpreted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcrandallant (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot do anything about the page now that it is deleted. The fact that the page was speedily deleted confirmed my suspicion that it was not notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Have a read of the notability guidelines. Pages are included, regardless of whether it is about a person or a musical group, if they are notable. Also have a read of Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Beaton Squires

Hi. I have beefed up the Beaton Squires article that you tagged earlier today. As one of 11 players to be designated as an All-American in the years before professional football became a major sport, Squires reached the highest level of competition in the sport of American football and was selected as one of the 11 best players in the game in 1905. His role in the debate over the proposal to abolish the sport of college football further supports his notability. If you could take a second look and consider eliminating the tag, I'd appreciate it. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the prod notice. You have made a good case for retaining the article. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a second look. Cbl62 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Help with Apple Valley Inn page

Hi, it looks like you marked my new article for deletion. I appreciate the help. I didn't realize I was taking the wrong approach.

I'm a little confused though. Maybe you could help me by pointing out the flaws that prompted you to mark the article for deletion.

I haven't written very much on wikipedia and would like to learn to be better.

Thanks, Willis Whitlock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwhitlock (talk • contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The page appeared to meet speedy deletion criteria so I marked it for speedy deletion. Another editor did not agree and removed the deletion tag. It is now only marked as needed wikifying. For help with contributing see Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AC Moore

I think it's starting to snow... (And like I said, 99% of the retail articles on Wikipedia suck rancid pond water.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Good catch. That was an early experiment with the automatic category tool. I didn't catch my error - glad you did. Thanks! Williamborg (Bill) 05:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

DESQ (company)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of DESQ (company), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: DESQ. 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. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

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, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

False positive. Article was split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Crop diversity

Great work - I've had that on my to-do list for some time but have always felt daunted by the sheer volume of work required to fix the referencing. I'm not really into barnstars, but, if you like that sort of thing, consider yourself as having received one. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Yeah, it was a really fiddly one. Had use all the tools to do it: the find text tool, the ref tag button, revision history etc. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Eduardo Parra's bio

Alan

I'm aware that I was rather naïve choosing parraed as a password and then creating an Eduardo Parra bio -- but then, it was the first time and I didn't know better. I did however think that I was entitled to a mention, considering that I wrote the first Spanish "Diccionario de Internet" back when the whole thing was new in the Spanish world. I mean, Wikipedia is a product spawned by the Net and it should give some credit to those that helped disseminate it at its conception.

Maybe I overdid my life's background. Should I try an abridged version keeping to the basic facts that I'm a prolific dictionay writer and that. . . well, you know?

Maybe we can communicate better by email?: eduardo@carivan.com

Eduardo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parraed (talk • contribs) 11:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot recall the details of the article that you mention or how I was involved. Perhaps you could read the notability guidelines to help answer your questions. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WPIndonesia

Simply does not have the numbers to create any of the greatideas that come out of wp countries - we have lost more eds than we have gained - and most remaining have very narrow fields of expertise or focusor spare time - wpcountries ideas might be great for big thiving ptojects with plenty of spare eds -sorry we are unlikely to be able to help Satu Suro 02:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have not made myself clear. I am not suggesting the creation of WPIndonesia. If your message is regarding my comment at Talk:Indonesia#Ecology section then what I was mainly trying to do was to trying to highlight the reversion of one of my edits and the need to have some sort of consistency over all of the country articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Good luck to you then -my sporadic ventures into countriesother than my immediate focusoes suggest great variations inmany things - sorry for the msunderstanding at Indonesia articleSatu Suro 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I should have been off ages ago - and did not wish to enter into a protracted discussion about the merits or negatives of the current framework of the Indonesian project articles and categories - you are discussing in the wrong pace for a start - go to the project noticeboard - and state your issues - if you are going to re arrange articles or categories in the project it would be appreciated if you did a good explanation there - and as for what fits where - please do what your fellow south islander Good Olfactory does - show some good precedents for the proposed changes - at least that way the very haphazard Indonesian project has a central record of what is going on - taking issue with myself or merbabu at the indonesia article is pissing in the wind - we are not the project - there are others - but they are much more irregular at the project. I am not available to respond after this post for today at all - have a good day! Satu Suro 03:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This all started with a minor edit that has had plenty of consensus elsewhere on WP. Also, if you were to follow the links that I supplied you will find that I am working to get consensus across two separate WikiProjects. I am far from being bold or failing to get consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies - the conversation at the Indonesia article is sufficient that you are obviously on track - and I was off the mark - sorry about that Satu Suro 13:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No sweat. No apology needed. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. Lucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.67.129.120 (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

re History of Scientology

I don't think I'll have much time to focus on that particular article, but thanks for taking the initiative to create it! If, however, you need help with research and sourcing for something specifically, please feel free to let me know. Cirt (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I appreciate your wanting to create an article on this, but I think it is a bit premature to put main-article templates linking to what is at present a stub into various existing articles that already contain more information on Scientology history than the History of Scientology article. Could I ask you hold off until the article link adds value for the reader? At present, they are more likely to be disappointed if they follow the link. Thanks. JN 466 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken but am hoping it won't remain a stub for very long. I am working my way through the Scientology articles and have been adding it as I go. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Ecology of the United States

I have nominated Category:Ecology of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Scorched-earth defense

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Scorched-earth defense, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Scorched_earth. 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. See our copyright policy for further details.

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) 07:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

False positive. Mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NAWAPA WPs

NAWAPA is primarily an engineering proposal for major energy development; why do you feel those were less appropriate categories than the mere national categories; it's not on the political radar, at least not publicly, and there are engineering aspects of the concept that need addressing (instead of just parroting from its promoters)....So at least one of the three - energy, energy development, or engineering seems at least needed, as it's not really a geoggraphic or "national" article....Skookum1 (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Aurora

I was checking on what you wanted changed with the Aurora (Book) article. It's free to be deleated if it just doesn't belong on wiki but if it just needs changes tell me what needs to be added and I can find them and the sources. Just comment on the talk page on the Aurora page or deleate it if you feel it shouldn't be up at all. I wasn't sure if books are supposed to be on wiki so I'm sorry if I placed an article that shouldn't have been made. 68.231.4.183 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for books. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

wrong

Hijacking WP assessment for a POV over what is important is totally missing the point. You might have in your head a criteris of what is important - well go and write it out at the environment project page and see if anyone joins in - but to hijack a template is just silly and wrong - whether something is important or no is some particular epistemology is irrelevent in the template and project perspective. If you have a mission - place it squarely in the project noticeboard and ... wait and see if anyone joins in - frankly I see the importance thing as a sideshow and misreading what wikipedia projects and templates are about - and I would see a good dose of WP AGF and patience to see if anyone else has the same opinion before you merrily march off with what you might want to see would be worth it in the long run. Satu Suro 05:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you think I am highjacking the WP assessment. The importance scale is used an a lot, if not all, of the other WikiProjects so why not for WPEnvironment? And as you can see I am willing to get wide feedback by placing a not on the relevant talk pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK It wasnt necessarily you personally - but for a project to carry a template that excludes wp assessment is weird for s start - like confusing and copnflating categories of internal project assessment with issue assessment is quite worrying - and if i read right in the first message at the template discussion you are encouraging reintro of the assessment for wikipedia project purposes - Satu Suro 05:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I want to see the use of the importance assessment for wikipedia project purposes - and as far as I know it was never instigated. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

But - I am concerned that a discussion is started at a template talk (hardly a place for that sort of stuff) rather than the project page (even if it is flagged) - Satu Suro 05:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters where it is discussed, as long as a wide number of editors are made aware of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - once again my apologies - if I get my possible confusion out of the way - you are trying to reintroduce the standard wikipedia project assessment criteria into the template, or something else as well ? Satu Suro 05:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to see the use of the standard wikipedia project assessment criteria. Nothing else. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I never seem to get it right in this department - apologies as ever Satu Suro 08:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Totally-chlorine-free ecolabel.png

Thanks for uploading File:Totally-chlorine-free ecolabel.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi, could you explain why you moved the first effort to construct something (it happened to be the Presidency section at the moment) in a sandbox (Barack Obama/Sandbox) to an article solely about that section? A secondary question, why did you move it to the talk section (Talk:Barack Obama/Presidency section) as opposed to the article section (Barack Obama/Presidency section)? Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not an allowed use of article namespace per guidelines at Wikipedia:Subpages. Fell free to rename it but it must be in User or Talk namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand you to be telling me there must never be anything posted at Barack Obama/Presidency section or Barack Obama/Sandbox. But then couldn't we just move it all back to Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox? Abrazame (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox already exists so it needs an administrator to do it. See WP:RM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It already exists because we had just created it. Another editor appropriately started the sandbox on the Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox page. As that is illogical, a talk page being the logical place for discussion about Sandbox edits and a main Sandbox page being the logical place for those edits, I (erroneously I now understand) thought that editor to be in error and switched the material from the Talk page to the Article page ("creating" that page myself) and began a talk section on the Talk page. Subsequently, the editor who first created the Talk page deleted the Sandbox material from the Talk page, as per my post there. (Note the edit history.) As we're the two editors involved, and it was my mistake, can't I, who created the Article page, or the editor who first created the Talk page fix our own error? Isn't he allowed to create the page he created in the first place? Respectfully, wouldn't this confusion have been best cleared up by contacting us on that Talk page (if not our User pages)? Abrazame (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a page move which creates a redirect therefore editors will see that change. I see no need to notify editors of page moves if it is uncontroversial. Note that you can name subpages with whatever you like (within reason!!). A title such as Talk:Barack Obama/Draft would be a good name. If it is only being used in the short term the page name is not important because it would probably get deleted eventually. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The content of the Talk page of the Sandbox had no edit history but one minor edit of my own which the creating editor saw, so I simply re-added that material to the head of the Sandbox page without deleting the contents there or altering its history. (In fact, the page now has a more complete history than it did in the Article space, as its original version still remains in the original Talk page.) So now everything's back to where it was in the first place. Can we delete the Sandbox article page, and allow the talk page to remain? Should we redirect the Sandbox article page to its own talk page? Abrazame (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotjawal forest

Hello Alan,

Thank you for your commenting on the article of Gotjawal Forest. You mentioned about footnotes, so I improved it. Can you please check the article again, and see if the article still needs footnotes? Yongchangjang (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The footnotes are fixed. Follow the links on the tags at the top to solve other issues. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

global peace index update

HI Alan, I noticed you updated the Global Peace Index page with 2009 data. The indicators have slightly changes this year, as has the methodology. see http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/about-gpi/methodology.php. will you make those updates as well? cheers, Camilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camillaschippa (talk • contribs) 03:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits are still work in progress (I should have marked the page as such). A change in methodology for 2009 must be noted since this makes yearly comparisons in accurate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand map

hi, i'm already started with the map, but right now i'm busy with exams on school so it will take a while maybe.
however, i'll do my best
can you reply on my talk page?
--Allstrak (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

List of countries by ecological footprint

I reverted you here, because I do not think the user was vandalising. I think the user was improving the article, all-be-it without inline citations, but certainly not "vandalism". Jolly Ω Janner 20:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Looks like I was a little hasty. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of rivers of Brazil

A tag has been placed on List of rivers of Brazil, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Salam32 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Spacing

I saw your comment on WP:AWB: I find that adding two lines between he end of the External links section and any following template gives a nice bit of white space. I don't use AWB, so I can't help you with that, but I did want to comment that I agree entirely with you, and often add that space as well. There are two ways to do it. If there is no image or boxed item in he way, simply add {{-}} just above or just to the left of the topmost navbox, like this:

{{-}}

{{top navbox}}

or like this:

{{-}}{{top navbox}}

This will add the additional space you desire. If, however, there is an image, an infobox or some oher impediment at that point it the page, the space won't be added until the bottom of the obstruction. In those cases, what I do is leave a hidden comment above the top navbox, with a blank line above it and a blank line below it. (Two blank lines themselves will also do the trick, but they are often erased by the Wikipedia system when it's rendering the page, or by various bots doing battle against whitespace. The hidden commen "anchors" the two lines in place.

Good luck with this, just be aware that some people are very touchy about this practice, even though it helps tremendously to uncrowd the page. Feel free to point people to a short essay in my userspace, User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing which explains my reasons for doing it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 06:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Putting in two blank lines also does the trick. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of History of Scientology

I have nominated History of Scientology, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Scientology. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. RUL3R (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil Rivers

Just wanted to let you know I'm hoping to take on the list of rivers in Brazil soon, I'd did most of the other South American countries and put off doing Brazil as it's a somewhat daunting task. I'm thinking of organizing it the way the list of U.S. rivers is done, with a separate list for each state. Kmusser (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am also putting it off since it is quite daunting. I have plenty of other WP stuff on my plate so you are most welcome to it. The orig version that was deleted had been usified at User:Alan Liefting/List of rivers of Brazil. Not sure what the best way of organising then would be. Doing it by state complicates it since some would be in more than one state. Alphabetical like the US would be an idea. I prefer, if possible to have them all on one page. See List of rivers of New Zealand to see how it can be done for a large number of rivers. If the list is just a link to the river name without any sort of annotation it may fit on a page. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Hello! You´ve asked for more precise citations on the article about Emperor Pedro of Brazil. What exactly you desire? What is missing? - --Lecen (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I was doing an AWB run to change occurrences of "passed away" to "died". AWB moved the {{nofootnotes}} tag to the references sectrion. See the edit here. It is actually not required and I will remove it. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Merging reorganization

Hi. I noticed that you did some page reorganization around WP:Merging. Would you like to discuss your thoughts on how the WP process description and the how-to instructions should be separated, beyond what you've already done? If so, I suggest Help talk:Merging, as it's most likely to have watchers. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Official

I agree with your comments on the page Template talk:Official and think it could be improved, I'm just not sure yet how to do it or to get a response from the people who are able to change it. I welcome your comments on it. -- Horkana (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

Do you have a sensible reason for preemptively removing the timeline in Fishing industry in New Zealand. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Very few entries were relevant to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Such as which entries? --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The ones that are not relevant to the article. I will restore a culled selection from the timeline that I think are appropriate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so high handed and non-collegial? I thought the values party didn't like authoritarianism. There is a talk page where you could have discussed this in a less confrontational and more friendly way. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, take a step back here for a minute!! What do you mean "high handed and non-collegial"? I was being bold and carried out an edit that seemed justified. Every single edit does not need to be discussed and to call me high handed is a little uncivil. On closer inspection the timeline has some relevant stuff which I am in the process of restoring to the article (once I get a chance and not interrupted with talk page messages...). And where is the confrontation coming from? I don't think I am doing it and since it takes at least two for a confrontation.... :-) Also, what does the values party have to do with all of this? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A single edit that removes 6K of text and citations does need discussing. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Says who? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay :) I give up. No point getting steamed – after all it's only Wikipedia. Some entries are not about fishing, that's true. But they are there to give context. The first three are simply providing background for readers who are not New Zealanders. Then I interposed a few other context entries, such as the establishment of the Green Party. Maybe I put in too many background entries, but to wipe the lot out, as you did, is plain silly. Normally I let you crawl over articles I write and do your thing. Like editing all the images to add periods to the captions that are just phrases, in violation of MOS. But this time you have gone a bit far, don't you think?. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, grow up and stop spouting standard wiki guidelines at me, like a pathetic wikilawyer. It's nothing to do with ownership - its to with basic courtesy. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a policy not a guideline - there is a difference. As a WP editor that is an important distinction to be aware of. But we can always be BOLD!! The other page I would suggest you read is WP:Civility. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Lets do it your way, and leave it there, as a fraught and totally unnecessary antagonism. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather this whole conversation never happened. It is a waste of time. Why did you not simply revert my edit? That would have given me a pretty good message that you did not agree with it. Instead, you have got yourself all wound up and accused me of all sorts of behaviour which I feel is totally unjustified. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Williams, American counterfeiter

I removed your nomination for deletion of Arthur Williams, American counterfeiter. Please see my discussion on the discussion page of that entry for my reasoning behind removing the nomination. Please reply there. Alexandergreenb (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It has to go through the AFD process before the notice can be removed. I have reinstated the AFD notice. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hugh O'Neills

I've proposed Hugh O'Neills, an article you edited but didn't create, for deletion. --I dream of horses (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the msg. Deletion seems like a reasonable action. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Death of Michael Jackson

Not very important, but bolding is not what the MoS recommends in the case of descriptive article titles (see Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Boldface, see also WP:BOLDITIS). 78.34.202.69 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)