User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Untitled

Dear Mr Alan Liefting I am writing to you about the Wikipedia article Amram Aburbeh, I translated it into English from the Hebrew original Wikipedia value , i also added explanation in English to Hebrew words terminology as Footnotes at the end of the article. If you have additional question or comment please write to my e mail. sincerely Carmel Avivi-Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.119.49 (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It is currently being discussed for deletion but it is likely to be kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amram Aburabeh for the discussion. You can add you comments there. Regards. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

About Modification in my Home Town.

Respected sir,

              Why Are you Removed my Town which was Added by me on Annur block Image ,Annur Busstand Image in Annur wiki.

also you are changed the route compos in downstairs. Why are you doing like this kind of work what is the problem in there. how to rectify this problem.

with Regards,
Mymelody143(Prakash)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mymelody143 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC) 

• The edits that I have made were to remove redlinked images (those that don't exist) and to fix the broken interlanguage links. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange new-article phenomenon

Based on our interaction on several recent Afd's, I thought you might be able to give me some insight into this.

I've noticed a surge of unattributed poorly-translated pages arriving here from the Hebrew Wikipedia: some machine-translated, some not; some almost perfect but with odd formatting issues—but all by different editors. Have you noticed> Do you have any idea what might be behind it?

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not think anything of it but now that you mention it I guess something may be happening. Is there a promotion of article creation by a group of people who speak Hebrew? Are the accounts sock or meatpuppets? Is it worthy of a deeper investigation?

• A case of sockpuppetry is not likely; there is a very broad range of English proficiency among the various article creators:

• Herzl family by Gigi2002 (talk · contribs) was, before retranslation, a terrible machine translation whose quality completely escaped its creator's notice. Besides for the unsightly translations of template code, Herzl's daughter Trude's name was consistently translated as "busy". Even the lead was completely unparsable.
  • Gigi2002 has just machine-translated another Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מבשרי הציונות to Precursors of Zionism. As it happens, there is already a high-quality translation of the same at Heralds of Zionism, so I {{db-a10}}'ed it.
• Pinhas Kopel's creator, פארוק (talk · contribs), probably knows English as well as Gigi2002, but seems to have had better luck with Google Translate—only one sentence and a phrase or two are badly mangled.
  • Have a look at User talk:פארוק, especially User talk:פארוק#Please stop your editing in other language wikipedia.; he/she has been reprimanded for mass machine-translation already.
• Amram Aburabia's creator, Carmel avivi-green (talk · contribs) has a reasonable command of English, if my impression is correct.

(IP-user/Carmel Avivi-Green above mentions the "original Wikipedia value". This is a common error among Hebrew speakers, even among those with a good working knowledge of English, that often perplexes native English speakers. ערך, Hebrew for "[encyclopedia/dictionary] entry", is also the Hebrew for "worth" or "value".)

From the general editorial behavior in each case, I think meatpuppets are also unlikely.

I do think Articles for Creation needs closer attention—on more than one occasion recently, an AfC article was nominated for deletion with obvious problems that should have kept it in incubation until they were resolved.

• I have another particular concern here: almost all of these articles are unattributed translations of the corresponding Hebrew articles.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am getting worried about Wikipedia as a whole. There is so much work to be done and at the same time we are loosing a lot of experienced editors. Have a read of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Guys_won.27t_be_seeing_much_of_me_around.2C_either... for example. It seem Wikipedia is falling apart at the seams. This should not happen. We are all working to build a valuable resource. Or am I getting jaundiced by the stuff that I am working on at Category:Articles with missing files? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is another Hebrew language related editor: Hadassah.web (talk · contribs). This person has only recently created an account. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all—please cheer up! I think the 2012 phenomenon has gotten to you...

Second of all—here comes another one! Menny Rabinovich, by Jacobrubinovitz (talk · contribs), found at AfD. Most of the article is comprehensible, but the section on his work in writing encyclopedia "values" (i.e. entries) has a sentence turned to gibberish: the original listed the volumes in said encyclopedia in which his contributions appear, numbered in Hebrew numerals which are well known to bamboozle machine translation.

הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So we have at least five editors, all who have created an account recently, that are related by language and are causing disruptive editing. I think it needs a wider investigation but I am not sure how or where. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove the paper

Hi! Do not remove the nosratollah khakian paper. The paper is reliable and well-known and reputable sources and references. Thanks2.185.199.212 (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2012

• From the editor: Wikipedia, our Colosseum

• In the media: Is the Wikimedia movement too 'cash rich'?

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation fundraiser a success; Czech parliament releases photographs to chapter

• Technology report: Looking back on a year of incremental changes

• Discussion report: Image policy and guidelines; resysopping policy

• Interview: Interview with Brion Vibber, the WMF's first employee

• Featured content: Whoa Nelly! Featured content in review

• WikiProject report: New Year, New York

• Recent research: Wikipedia and Sandy Hook; SOPA blackout reexamined

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bicholim conflict

I apologize for not informing you about the AfD for Bicholim conflict. Because your only edit was a relatively minor one, I didn't expect you would have particular interest in the article. But yours was the most recent edit, so I should have included you in my notifications. Best, --ShelfSkewed Talk 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. I think my only edit was to try and get it speedily deleted as a hoax page. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Michael Kelso

I've done some work improving Michael Kelso. If you put the article against WP:FICT / WP:MOSFICT and take a look at other fictional character articles you may see that the article is notable enough for inclusion albeit in bad shape as far as format. Mkdw^talk 21:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Great work. Good to see all the new refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Redlinked images

Hello, Alan Liefting. Regarding your removal of redlinked images from articles I have been working on, please see my comments here and here. Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Got it. I guess I am being overly enthusiastic in clearing the backlog at Category:Articles with missing files! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Alan. Regarding the additional information I added today on Terrance Clark - references now added. Thank you also for your offer of any help. I'm new, so will read tutorials and help pages suggested. Cheers Sarah Sarah Delatour (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Breakdowns revert

maximized, four columns of refs, white space minimized

unmaximized, two columns of refs, white space minimized, no scrolling

Hi. Mostly it comes down to semantics. Semantically, there is no reason to break the references into two columns—the whole reason we break them into columns in the first place is to kill excess white space, rather than for any meaning behind the columns. On a particularly large monitor, there will still be tons of white space if the refs are set to two columns. On a particularly small screen (like on any phone), the hard number of columns will force readers to scroll offscreen to see the second column. By setting column widths, the browser can automatically set the number of appropriate columns—a larger number for larger screens, or a single column for vertical screens like on phones. At home, I read Wikipedia on three devices: the family desktop, with its 20in widescreen, my ThinkPad Edge with a 13in screen, and my cell phone (as of yesterday an HTC J Butterfly with a 5in screen—until then, an HTC Desire with a 3.7in screen).

Semicolons are not semantically correct for bolding headers. The semicolon is used to create a definition list, but a section (or subsection) header is not a headwork in a definition list. We should be using either ===Header===, or if we really don't want it to show up in the TOC, we could use '''Header'''. Maybe there are other semantically correct ways—I lean towards the first one, as the semantics are most clear there. The semantics affect things such as the way machines parse the text—as when a blind person uses a screen reader.

These are things I've picked up from having articles reviewed. I'm far from being an expert in these things, and I may not have explained what I know in the clearest way, but I hope I've been helpful. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 12:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at some of the featured articles that have passed through the Main Page and there is no consistency with the name of the Notes/References/Bibliography/Sources sections or how they are separated, but one thing they all have in common is the the colon is not used. They are always use a bulleted list. I don't know what the MOS says about it, if anything. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You can read about the hanging identation at Template:Refbegin#Option 3: Hanging indentation. I don't know how it affects accessibility—I honestly never thought about it until now. I have had two articles promoted to FA that have used this style, however: Louis Riel (comics) and Dream of the Rarebit Fiend. If I ever found out there were issues, I'd change the style back to bullets, though. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess there are three things: accessibility, consistency, and readability. I am not sure about the accessibility issue but for consistency and readability bulleted rather than unbulleted is better IMO. Indenting is nice but not necessary if bulleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend it too strongly–like I said, I'm more than willing to change it if there are issues—but, like spelling and many formatting issues, consistency within the page is all that's required. If there really is an issue with the indenting, though, it should be brought up at the Refbegin talk page, rather than on individual pages that use it. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 23:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, its not a biggie. There are more important things to work on. But it would be good to get consistency across WP as well as within an article. It will save us a lot of time. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

From an HTML semantics point of view, the colon syntax is supposed to be paired with the semi-colon syntax: the semi-colon is used to indicate a term being defined, and the colon is used to indicate the term's definition. Since the list of works is a list, marking it up as a list is semantically appropriate, which is helpful for screen readers and search engine bots. (On a side note, the initial paragraph in this section does a great job explaining the relevant accessibility issues.) isaacl (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But the wikicode is turned into HTML for browsers so using colons or semicolons should not affect HTML semantics? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The semi-colon wiki markup is turned into a <dt> HTML element (dictionary term), and the colon wiki markup is turned into a <dd> HTML element (dictionary definition). A <dd> element is supposed to be paired with a <dt> element, since semantically, it needs a corresponding term to define. isaacl (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Which means we can choose whatever is best for page layout. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It means you should use ; and : in pairs, and not : alone, in order for screen readers and web crawlers to interpret the page correctly. isaacl (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But they are used singly all over WP. They are a part of wikitext. They are in the Wikipedia:Cheatsheet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize that; it would be nice if one day the backend could be changed to emit more semantically-correct HTML code. But I'll concur that it's not likely to happen. Nonetheless, just looking at it from an accessibility point of view, the semi-colon / colon syntax results in HTML code that should be paired together, and not used alone. isaacl (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@Isaacl: So, if I'm using the colons & indenting syntax, I should use the semicolon for headers, and if I'm using the asterisk, I should use "==" etc? Is it semantically correct to follow one semicolon with dozens of colons? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 05:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

From an accessibility standpoint, as you noted in your paragraph, using the semi-colon for a header is inaccurate, since the list of reference works is not defining the header. If you were defining a term, you can use multiple colons afterwards to list multiple definitions, as a dictionary does when a word has multiple definitions. isaacl (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just to be make sure I understand, but it seems you're saying that semicolons shouldn't be used as headers for subsections in the reference section, right?

Also, do you have anything to say on "===Header===" versus '''Header'''? It seems to me that the first would be semantically correct, whereas the second wouldn't have any semantic meaning. Would that be correct? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as you noted, using the semi-colon results in starting a definition list, with the text following the semi-colon marked up as a term to be defined. Thus the semantics are not correct for a general section that is not a definition list. (That being said, as Alan noted, Wikipedia's help text ignores this, and although I'm sure there's an exception somewhere, I haven't seen a case on Wikipedia that uses definition lists as intended.)

A plain block of text is marked up like a paragraph; text surrounded with equals signs is marked up like a heading, and thus screen readers and so forth can treat them accordingly. isaacl (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hackensack Christian School

The facebook reference is from the school's own facebook. Dplcrnj (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source of information. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's from the school.Dplcrnj (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The stuff was from facebook but it was about the school so they are it is sort of a primary source. Also they were only photos and the text added did not relate to them. THe prose in an article should be based on the prose in the reference. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And to you :)

Belated season's greetings to you, too! All the best for 2013! Grutness...wha? 22:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Category-related edits, January 2013

Because your restriction against category-related edits outside the main namespace is still in effect, and because you have made such edits since the previous block [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], I have again blocked this account from editing. The previous block was for two weeks, and following the usual system this block is for one month. I was very sad to see the category-related edits, because you also make many constructive edits to the main namespace and I wish that you could continue making those. However, there is no way to block you from specific namespaces with the current software; there is only a complete block of an account. As always, I am in no way offended if you wish to contest the block. The discussions from the previous block are located at User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_19 — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

CBM - you said - "the issue is not about whether it is "right" to remove the categories, the issue is with collegiality and how to handle disagreements"

In the interests of collegiality (though I find some of the above edits surprising on their face) could you consider either a a warning for being in breach, or avoiding this rather draconian exponential increase in punishment.

Rich Farmbrough, 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

• Being draconian is obviously better. I'm confident a one month block will do the trick where a two week block wouldn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia has become unfortunately. One admin constantly watches an editor and personally blocks them at their own discretion at anything that they determine to be a violation. Personally I don't think these last few category edits were a violation. I think they were exceptions to his editing pattern and it appears to me that he just did it in between other edits as needed. This is what happens to the most active editors. The more edits we do, the more we get beat down. This is just one of the reasons I have stopped editing articles here. It was only a matter of time before I was blocked indefinately by some overzealous admin. Unlike Hammersoft I do not feel that a block will stop a productive editor who wants to participate in the project. It will only mean that good edits aren't getting done. Kumioko (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also add that this block isn't to protect the pedia its as punishment for violating his sanction. There was a time when the general rule was that blocks should never be used as punishment. I guess those days are gone and things have changed. Kumioko (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming another case history of just how unskilled and knee jerk the Wikipedia admin system can be, instead of aiming at optimal and sensible outcomes. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Why not indef block Alan and be done with it. </sarcasm> Unfortunately, Alan has shown he can not abide restrictions; whether those restrictions were justified (I think they were, but reasonable minds may differ), Wikipedia cannot reasonably survive people who are allowed to violate its principles. I have been prevented from making changes which I consider obviously helpful, because of an apparent consensus otherwise. I'm frustrated, but I follow the consensus. The restrictions were put in place because Alan has shown that he cannot follow consensus, and that he needs specific rules to follow. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• What are you trying to say Arthur? It's not clear. Are you saying you want Alan summarily pushed off the project with no further attempt to accommodate him? Or are you saying something else?--Epipelagic (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm saying it's still possible that Alan can become a productive Wikipedia (which includes not creating disruption), but it's unlikely. I'm not saying that "we" should make any further attempt to "accommodate him"; if he fails agaub to abide his restrictions, he should be blocked indefinitely, although he should be given a short time to self-revert if it's inadvertent. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well I for one think that Alan is more useful as a productive editor that the drama he creates currently. I think he had some issues in the past that led to his restriction, which I still have some reservations about because he had some good points. I don't think that an occassional uncontroversial edit to a category though is a violation as long as it isn't on a large scale and as long as he doesn't become abusive in discussions as in the past. I still think this is an unnecessary knee jerk reaction and I also think it suspect that CBM is the only admin that blocked this user 4 times. If the problem was as bad as CBM makes it seem then there should have been others ready to do it. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am sure I have NEVER been abusive in any discussions. I have been disruptive in an unrelated incident (which led to my first block and which I am embarrassed and ashamed of and have since apologised to the involved editor) and for a short time I was using expletives but it was not targeted at individual editors. And, you are right about this latest drama. We are all wasting our time. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Some admins would block indefinitely already at this point, but I prefer to use the standard of block lengths presented in the block screen. In either case the same ways of appealing the block are available. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that since Alan makes so many edits when he gets going, sometimes he'll not really click that he's violating his topic ban. It would probably be beneficial to allow him the benefit of the doubt by at the least warning him and allowing him to undo his topic-ban-infringing edits before giving him a substantial block. Speaking purely speculatively, I imagine Alan has made 1000 good edits for every couple of "bad" ones lately. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of good edits was the reason I was sad to see the bad ones. I appreciate the viewpoint about warnings, but I personally think that the previous two-week block (after the ones before it) was enough of a warning. Moreover, excessive warning before blocking has its own drawbacks. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As I hinted at above I think that Alan has abided to his topic ban for the most part by not doing wide scale changes to categorization as he used too. The rare exception now as I see it are the ones that most of us would deem uncontroversial. I realize that there is an edit restriction in place but I think we need to apply some common sense to these scenarios as well. Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as can be seen from my editing history I have moved away from the area that I was heavily involved with editing prior to my topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Carl, the last four blocks have been done by you. Step back for a minute and think about this. Just maybe you're getting too far down in the weeds on this one? Maybe, just MAYBE, taking the chance of talking with Alan might have yielded a different result? Instead, Alan's walking around in a minefield personally operated by you. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't post a long list of links to previous discussions in the block message because Alan is already familiar with them. Perhaps you should trace back through the prior discussions, including several discussions on ANI before the edit restriction was even proposed, in order to have an appropriate context for the current block. If you have a concern with the validity of the block, please raise it at WP:ANI. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Personally I'll let Alan request unblock if that's what he wants. I just think that the block is unnecessarily severe for arbitrary and non intrusive edits. The ANI posts and the restriction were based on large scale category changes and argumentative discussions, neither applied to these edits. Had they I would have simply ignored this whole situation and went about my day. As it is it appears to be a classic case of Wikikneejerking for no reason other than you taking a personal interest in it. I also find it a little funny that, you seem to be the only admin that took the time to block this user 4 times. As a mathematician I am certain you are familiar with the Law of averages and the term statistical probability. Both of which seem to apply and come to mind in this situation. Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support but it is a real shame that we have yet another drama involving some of my edits. Another mountain being made out of a molehill as pointed out above. Carl, I see you are torn in you application of the block but why can you not overlook them? They are constructive edits and most of them have nothing to do with the original topic ban. Also, the topic ban I am under is cast wider than that of my contentious edits.

Lets put the reason for my topic ban in context: it was claimed that some of my edits were scaring away newbie editors, and a handful of editors objected to some of my categorisation edits. The first claim is of dubious veracity and the objections to my categorisation editing is not based on any sort consensus. There is no consensus for a lot of the categorisation work I was doing. The edits I did were based on convention and on what I considered to be the best option for readers. So I now have a topic ban, and one that covers edits for which there was absolutely NO objection.

It is true, as pointed out above, that my topic ban is a knee jerk reaction. I have avoided doing categorisation work but I occasionally come across a category edit that is needs fixing So I fix it. If my detractors were serious about this whole issue they would set up guidelines so this whole drama can be avoided in the future for all editors. I tried to do something about resolving it by proposing a Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Categories but it went nowhere. It seems that editor bashing is more important!

Incidentally, with this current block in place I cannot defend myself against false accusations. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome. I hope we can get this whole situation resolved fairly quickly and get you back to editing. Too many veteran and high contribution editors are getting blocked and losing interest these days myself included. Seems a shame to lose you over something so petty. Kumioko (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I had tried retirement a few times because of these petty dramas but the wikiForce is strong! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Me too, I think its akin to the Dark side....very seductive. I'm slowly getting there though. I went from 10, 000+ edits a month to under 200, mostly discussions. I'm trying to get under 100 a month soon. Kumioko (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the crap in question. I've also requested a modification to your topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive244#Modification of Alan Liefting's topic ban. Ryan Vesey 23:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for doing that. It gives me a renewed faith in Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem, do you have an "opening statement" of sorts. I've hardly been involved in previous discussions so I'm sure you know more about it than I do. Ryan Vesey 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(our edits crossed paths) Just link to this thread but I am concerned that I cannot defend myself against statements made by others. I see that Andy has already put in a comment. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a pity I cannot defend myself at the WP:AN discussion. I am quite curious to how it will proceed given that there are two new editors who have joined the fray. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It is common for blocked editors to comment in AN discussions by proxy. Just make a note here and request that your statement be included in the discussion. Ryan Vesey 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See above. Andy and I go way back... I think he wanted a really wide ban put in place in the initial discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've linked the section. I'll be away so if you want to comment at the thread, I suggest you use {{Help me}}. Ryan Vesey 00:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd always favoured a wider ban (although still pretty narrow overall). I'm right against blocks though. I see no call for that and I've no personal animosity that wants to see editors (apart for the trolls) hounded off the project.

If you've any comments for ANI, I too would be happy to cross post them for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does it say January 2012 in the section title here? NE Ent 02:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is a typo. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a typo; I have changed it now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

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

---

Request reason:

In order to participate in a WP:AN discussion that has been started that relates to this block and to my topic ban. See the thread above. I promise to be a good little boy and not do any other edits apart from in the WP:AN thread. Better still, unblock me completely by virtue of the thread above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted above, you can post messages here and other editors will post them to WP:AN on your behalf. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

---

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

You should consider shooting King of Hearts an email and asking if he'll give you one of his signature AN-only edit-filter/unblock combos. (See Special:AbuseFilter/history/201/item/10390, for instance - you're technically unblocked, but disallowed from editing any pages other than your talk page and AN.) — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that was necessarily supposed to happen. I'm planning to initiate an AN unblock request soon, but I feel that getting the editing restriction modified first is a necessary step. Ryan Vesey 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think getting the edit restriction lifted is impossible. Abstractly; once an open ended restriction is put on somebody on Wikipedia, it is a rare thing for that restriction to later be lifted. There is a culture here of once bad, always bad and never to be trusted again. I would be more in favor of a community wide discussion about time limiting editing restrictions to a maximum of one year, with first instance of the same restriction on the same editor only having a maximum of three months. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree strongly in this case. Alan has made many good edits with the very rare bad one. If he had many those thousands of good edits without a single bad one, and had patience, e.g. three/six months, he'd have the topic ban lifted immediately. Because he transgressed the ban many times despite being repeatedly blocked, that's why alleviating the topic ban is unlikely right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• As of this point, there seems to be primarily support for modifying the restriction. Unless I misread something, the only opposition is Andy. My only worry is that it is editors like Andy, who make a lot of noise opposing a modification like this, that can keep beneficial changes from happening. Ryan Vesey 17:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well perhaps start by stopping the marginal personal attacks and get on with proposing a solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hardly a personal attack. Not even marginal. It is a fact that Andy is doing a lot of work to oppose any change to the topic ban. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Damn right – because when you're allowed to play with categories, you break stuff, deliberately and repeatedly, until such a point as you're topic banned from doing it again. If your category edits were so "beneficial", as Ryan claims, then you wouldn't have been banned in the first place. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is utter rubbish! I defy to to give me proof that I have broken something deliberately and repeatedly. I doubt that you can dig up fact to support that argument. Also, you don't seem to realise that the topic ban suggested because of a small number of my category edits, and it was a petty reason as well! I monitor my edits. I have a javascript tool that lets me see which of my numerous edits have changed. I use it all the time. I have observed that my edits are generally kept (there is an exception, namely images and some templates). Also, the CfDs I instigate generally pass in my favour, and the ones that I !vote on usually go my way. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• If you weren't editing "deliberately and repeatedly", then I hardly think you were doing it randomly?! Nor would you have received a topic ban if it had been a one-off. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes of course I (did) edit categories "deliberately and repeatedly" but I did not "break stuff, deliberately and repeatedly". Give me just one example - if you can. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alan, at this point we could relocate the part where you were blocked and said in your unblock request that you'd deliberately do the same thing again just to prove a point. I'm sure you remember that. That's breaking stuff, deliberate and a repeat of your block/ban-inducing behaviour. Things have changed, but your original attitude to all this was less than desirable. I'm happy to go back and dig out those diffs where you said you'd deliberately edit in a way to get blocked again. Your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well you go and find it. I can't locate it any more. I vaguely remember it and I should have been more circumspect - and probably more accurate in what I was trying to say. Anyway, as I make clear at the very top of this page every edit I do is for The Reader. I would never disrupt WP, let alone to make a point. (I don't want to talk about the one case where I was disruptive in non-article namespace which led to my first block). So judge me on my actions not my inaccurate words made in the heat of the moment. And can you give me any examples of where I "[broke] stuff, deliberately and repeatedly"? Andy can't seem to find any. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• No Alan, I can't be arsed to find them again. There's a difference. Your topic ban was clearly just the unjustified work of a secret cabal who all hate you.

But you're safely blocked for a month, and now I also get to stop feeling sorry for you. Result! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you feel sorry for me? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A few replies for the AN discussion

All I want to do is help build the best encyclopedia in the known universe, but here I am blocked from editing and having to defend myself! I would rather not have to carry on with this interminable discussion but I want to defend myself against false and scurrilous claims.

Some comments to be added to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Modification_of_Alan_Liefting.27s_topic_ban:

• Carl, why not turn a blind eye to my uncontroversial edits.

• Andy, what aspects of my categorisation edits were you dissatisfied with? Or are you making sweeping generalisations because we had a difference of opinion in the past?

• gadfium, the embarrassing edits I made was a separate issue.

• Monty845, I have steered clear of the controversial category edits.

• The Rambling Man, it is not whether I am seen as a victim or not, it is a matter of having a good process and making decisions that are in the interest of The Project. As you point why penalise me when only a small percentage of my edits come under the poorly thought out topic ban? And uncontroversial edits at that.

• Andy, if you were to follow up on Ottawahitechs claims about me you will see that many of them completely false and the rest are trifling. Please check the facts before blindly believing another editor. Edit histories are there for all to see.

• Andy, how many of these so called "well founded criticisms" of me are there? Or are you telling tall stories again?

• Andy, yes I am a regular at AfDs but to call me a deletionist is a bit odd. Have you checked to see how my !voting fits in with the rest of the community? (there is a tool for it) Are you aware of all of the pages that I have created? (easily obtainable info - toolserver struggles a bit because there are so many ) Get back to me once you have done some fact checking. As WP editors we should be big on fact checking.

Hey, I have just realised (ok, so I am a bit slow in the old brain dept) I could do the category edits when I am logged out! It would save all this hassle. Anon editors can get away with all sorts! Just kidding. I have never edited as an anon and probably never will. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing on behalf of a blocked user is explicitly forbidden. On an unrelated note, the block is for you personally, and editing while not logged in would be considered block evasion and might even see you indef-blocked or banned if discovered. I don't think even joking about it is a good idea while blocked. Huon (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think copying his comments to WP:AN is fine, it's relatively standard to allow blocked users participate in discussions about their blocks by doing that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Carl, just mentioning that I have left comments here would be good. Also, fix the link so it goes to the section that you renamed above. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty stupid that I am treated as a common vandal for doing completely uncontroversial edits. Not sure why I bother wit it all! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Per Carl's comment I've added a link to this section to the AN discussion: [7] Huon (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Editing on behalf of a blocked user is explicitly forbidden"? Link to policy, please. NE Ent 12:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

My mistake, I cofused it with editing on behalf of banned users. Huon (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Alan - of course my comments here on your de-categorisations are a "sweeping generalisation". It's a waste to time to do more than that, and the detail is back at the original topic ban discussion, should anyone want it. Probably on your talk page too – I've an unusual surname and it's in my .sig, so it's not hard to search for.

I would even agree with you over most of what Ottawahitech's written in reference to you. I'd even support a deletionist position on Nortel or Avaya product articles (where I think you have past history with them) because those have got completely out of hand and we're down to listing the cupholders. However in this case, when you express a very good point over the side effects of deletions on new editors, yet your actions are at some variance to your words, (Killer toys AfD just yesterday, a fine example of duckspeak deletionism) they were quite right to challenge you over it. I have no wish to penalise you, I just want to stop you making Alan-style removals of categorisation (those that the topic ban discussed and recognised as a problem). I thus support a narrow topic ban, but not blocks. Even if you make some reasonably appropriate passing edit to categorizations in the process of other edits, I'm not going to start shouting "breach of topic ban!" about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how it makes sense to support the topic ban, but not support the use of blocks to enforce it. If there were no consequence to violating the ban except for further discussion, things would just go around in circles, with endless discussion. The point of a topic ban is that the community feels that there has been enough discussion and draws a line in the sand regardless whether the person under the topic ban is convinced. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the use of blocks as far as they're needed to make the topic ban stick, but I'm not going to rejoice in the fact and consider it broadly harmful to have Alan blocked – so solutions that remove the block, whilst leaving the ban and even the threat of future blocks, would thus be an improvement. Of the recent category edits, they were outside the ban (and so the block was justified), but not so bad as to be like those that had caused the ban. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and his statements are inline with the ones I made above. This is exactly the types of situations where common sense needs to be employed by the admins doing the blocks and where I have frequently disagreed with you in the past CBM. Using the admin tools is a lot of gray area, its not all black and white. Frankly I don't even think that the edits he made to the catgories, that you blocked him for, are even in the spirit or intent of the topic ban and I think most reasonable people would, and seem too, agree with that. Kumioko (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alan, I will be happy to unblock you on the condition that this freedom is to be used only for participating in the AN thread. If your participation there is deemed disruptive or unproductive, or if you edit outside that thread, any admin can block you and kick your dog. If that thread does not lead to an unblock decision, then of course this particular unblock is temporary. I don't see why you'd be disruptive there (I don't know you but I have no reason to doubt your good faith), so just treat it as a legalistic disclaimer. Good luck to you, Drmies (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 January 2013

• Op-ed: Meta, where innovative ideas die

• WikiProject report: Where Are They Now? Episode IV: A New Year

• News and notes: 2012—the big year

• Featured content: Featured content in review

• Technology report: Looking ahead to 2013

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

KrioRus

Hello, please read this comment. Thank you. --Antonu (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello. Thank you very much for assissting in the AFD. I am curious if you agree with how this AFD was closed? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punkcast Also is it strange that he refers to himself in 3rd person? Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion on the AfD. I came across it in passing, and as pointed out my !vote was not a very strong case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it is weird to close it with only one real keep vote since the other was the person the article is about, but maybe that is how it is here, MarioNovi (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There was two keep !votes and it did close as no consensus. If you are unhappy with the outcome you can take to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Deletion review for Punkcast

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Punkcast. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MarioNovi (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification but I am blocked and currently limited to editing my talk page and a WP:AN discussion (I seem to be a no good wiki-criminal according to some!). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Look at my contributions I might get blocked too, thank you, if you have any advice you can put it here, MarioNovi (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My advice would be to heed the sage advice that some of the editors have given you, especially Stalwart111 and Sjakkalle, and I think you should ask for the DRV listing to be withdrawn. It looks like consensus is going against you anyway. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I've posted this. Assuming your goal is simply to resume editing, I highly recommend you make the requested statement and nothing else. This is Wikipedia -- anything you say will be used against you, sooner or later. NE Ent 23:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it and thanks for that. I also want end this whole time-wasting exercise. My goal is not to simply resume editing but also to get clarity on the categorisation issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Per my caveats at the AN thread, I've converted the unblock to a "regular" unblock, but had to briefly block you first to modify the block log. If this caused an autoblock (it shouldn't have, I unticked the autblock box, but you never know), then (a) sorry, and (b) let me know here. This is in reponse to your agreement to abide by the topic ban, even though you strongly disagree with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• • One more thing; NE Ent appears to have interpreted your comments at AN as saying you didn't want to argue about the scope of the topic ban at AN anymore, and closed the whole mess. That's what you meant, right? If not, I could reopen the topic ban portion of the discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And the close was undone by Ryan. I certainly want to get out of the AN discussion but there are unresolved issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Floq, do you think there is consensus now to modify the topic ban? There's quite a bit of support for it. Ryan Vesey 00:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Ryan, I'm going to need to log off for quite a while, possibly the rest of the evening, and I'm not going to make that call in a hurry. I've archived the portion related to the block, and left open the portion related to the topic ban. If it's still open when I get back, I'll see if there's a clear consensus. But I'm less likely to be bold in determining consensus than I am in unblocking, so it would have to be really clear for me to make a call. Otherwise, I'll leave it to those who are more active in doing that kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• As Alan has already returned to deleting categories from articles, can someone please point to the current wording for his topic ban, or has it been removed altogether? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were aware that I can remove categories from articles. Have a read of the WP:AN discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you can remove categories from articles, you can even start edit warring over their removal.

You strip categories from articles on the basis that these are implicit through the eponymous category. Strangely you then went and removed Conservation of painted turtles from that genus parent category Category:Chrysemys, but who am I, a mere troll, to question the mighty Liefting? This removal, against a clear consensus for the categorization of eponymous lead articles, was a cornerstone of your topic ban, a topic ban that you now claim no longer exists.

I would also question your repeated decategorization of Map from Category:Hiking equipment. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

And now you're simply stalking and trolling. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No, not trolling. Maybe stalking but it was more of a chance discovery when I checked your edit history. And it is a bit rich to call me a troll and a stalker when you are doing exactly what I had done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You know we don't see eye to eye on categorisation so we should leave it up to a third party to decide. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm an uninvolved non-admin third party who has been following the discussion here and on AN from its start. I'd like to butt in and offer my observations:

• Alan's topic ban, as logged at WP:Editing restrictions is this:

  Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted.

• I believe that in lifting Alan's block Floquenbeam suggested that everybody back off and give the dispute a bit of time to die down and let everyone cool off if necessary. I think that was a good idea, and suggest that Andy not pay any attention to Alan's edits for a while.
• On the other hand, I suggest that Alan should also leave Andy alone, not go digging through his contributions, and do any mainspace categories in the most conservative manner possible. That is, I think Alan should ask himself before every category-related article edit "Will this edit be the cause of concern to another editor, even though I think it's OK?"
• I don't suggest that these protocols be permanent, they should just last long enough to reset everyone's dials to 0 so that the editors involved can engage in a collaborative and collegial manner.

In effect, I'm asking for the parties here to act like they respect each other even if they secretly don't, because often our point of view can be altered by our behavior, and because acting respectful is better for the community than behaving in an unrespectful way.

Anyway, that's my opinion. It and $2.50 will get you a ride on the subway, but perhaps it might be useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

By "cool down", do you think four rapid AfDs and a swathe of category removal is reasonable behaviour? I certainly don't think that "act like they respect each other" goes as far as a blocked user being unblocked (quite rightly) to argue his case at WP:AN, told specifically that he's only there to argue his case, and then using it as an opportunity to abuse other editors and describe me as a troll. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So what? My edits seems reasonable to me (but I have to say that!). I have a backlog to sort out. And besides, the recommendation is how the editors involved in the WP:AN interact rather than my editing pattern. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I had said "I think you are trolling" and I think there is a good case for that stance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy, given your behaviour so soon after the WP:AN discussion closed, which went against your will, and your unproductive edits here on my talk page, I am very tempted to ask to to refrain from any further comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)OK, obviously neither of you is interested in doing anything constructive about this dispute. Alan, if you keep on like a bull in a china shop, you won't be topic banned, you'll be indef blocked. Andy, if you don't pull back a bit, even if there isn't a block in your future, you're gonna make yourself very unhappy.

That's my bit, I'm outta here, back to the sidelines to watch the carnage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

TOC

It looks unorganized, and I don't see any use for it.

It cuts out excessive white space. What about {{TOC left}}? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 January 2013

• Investigative report: Ship ahoy! New travel site finally afloat

• News and notes: Launch of annual picture competition, new grant scheme

• WikiProject report: Reach for the Stars: WikiProject Astronomy

• Discussion report: Flag Manual of Style; accessibility and equality

• Special report: Loss of an Internet genius

• Featured content: Featured articles: Quality of reviews, quality of writing in 2012

• Arbitration report: First arbitration case in almost six months

• Technology report: Intermittent outages planned, first Wikidata client deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

STOP EDITING MY CITY CHARSADDA

THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.142.136 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaelscoil na mBeann

On 15 January you nominated the above article for deletion, could you explain why please? Eog1916 (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaelscoil na mBeann. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice of impending closure of this discussion

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Liefting.27s_imposition_on_WikiProject_Philosophy

I have made a report to WP:ANI concerning this proposal, and I will be closing the discussion because the template notice interferes with the actual discussion on that talk page.Greg Bard (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And as seen from the resulting discussion your proposal (or rather an attempt to stifle discussion) is roundly rejected. Also, it does not appear that the page in question was constructed by members of the Philosophy WikiProject as you claim in the ANI discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 17:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

In appreciation of your work creating Cats in New Zealand. Don't worry, it's already spayed!

gadfium 19:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

Hi Alan, when delsorting an AfD there are two steps, you cared out step 2 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of birds by common name adding the Science & Lists delsort tags. But you forgot step 1 added the AfD to the Sceince & Lists delsort pages, I have completed the delsort on your behalf. Please remember to complete both steps in the future. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks for the reminder. It is not a task I often do and I end up forgetting to add the first step. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I think it's best to message users on delsort errors as some people (not necessarily yourself) are under the impression that adding the tag automatically sorts it, seems to be a common misconception. Best wishes ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

		The Environmental Barnstar
		In appreciation of your many and continuing contributions to WikiProject Environment. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. And good on you for dong the same. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 January 2013

• News and notes: Requests for adminship reform moves forward

• WikiProject report: Say What? — WikiProject Linguistics

• Featured content: Wazzup, G? Delegates and featured topics in review

• Arbitration report: Doncram case continues

• Technology report: Data centre switchover a tentative success

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Incruit for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Incruit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incruit until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Alfy32 (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Global Research Alliance logo.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic substances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biotic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Mr DPL bot. I have fixed it. I promise it won't happen again. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index.
Message added by Theopolisme at 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion nomination of Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. 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.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Jeffro77 (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the AFT5 Request for Comment

Hey Alan Liefting - this is to notify you that there is a discussion starting on the Article Feedback RfC talkpage that has ramifications for the RfC itself. Your input is much appreciated :). Thanks! and apologies if I've missed anyone Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 January 2013

• In the media: Hoaxes draw media attention

• Recent research: Lessons from the research literature on open collaboration; clicks on featured articles; credibility heuristics

• WikiProject report: Checkmate! — WikiProject Chess

• Discussion report: Administrator conduct and requests

• News and notes: Khan Academy's Smarthistory and Wikipedia collaborate

• Featured content: Listing off progress from 2012

• Arbitration report: Doncram continues

• Technology report: Developers get ready for FOSDEM amid caching problems

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeffro77 (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not move article appendices to separate pages; these are standard sections that belong with the article, where they should be directly relevant to the scope of the article. Readers have no way of knowing there is a separate non-standard appendix in a different article. See also MOS:APPENDIX.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I should have put a link to the new page. More extensive reply at the AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you should have left the article's own Further reading section intact, irrespective of whether there is a separate list of sources for a different scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ so I guess we need further input to break the stalemate. Some of the new enries added to Bibliography of Jehovah's Witnesses are actually far more suitable than the list that you restored to the JW page.Anyway, love to stay and chat but I am on holiday and it is bedtime. Might be able to give more reasoning tomorrow. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

At least one other editor has already indicated at the AFD that other articles' Further reading sections should be retained, irrespective of whether the other bibliography remains.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Revising the nominations process at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

I'm seeking wider input on a proposed redesign of the nomination process over at TAFI. The current method could benefit from some streamlining and usability tweaks. If you feel so inclined, I'd like to hear your opinion on the matter. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Length, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metric (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Cheers me old bot.... 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

• Special report: Examining the popularity of Wikipedia articles

• News and notes: Article Feedback Tool faces community resistance

• WikiProject report: Land of the Midnight Sun

• Featured content: Portal people on potent potables and portable potholes

• In the media: Star Trek Into Pedantry

• Technology report: Wikidata team targets English Wikipedia deployment

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

• Op-ed: An article is a construct – hoaxes and Wikipedia

• Featured content: A lousy week

• WikiProject report: Just the Facts

• In the media: Wikipedia mirroring life in island ownership dispute

• News and notes: UK chapter governance review marks the end of a controversial year

• Discussion report: WebCite proposal

• Technology report: Wikidata client rollout stutters

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:File_namespace#Revert.
Message added 07:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Help navigation

Did you take the time to view what the template contains - pls note the template contains all types of help pages including those for our readers and for our editors. Thank you for your time.Moxy (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that but, given the number of editors vs the number of readers, the reader help pages should be as uncluttered as possible and be solely focused on the needs of the the readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me - should we remove them from the templates as well? Do you think it may be confusing?Moxy (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean from Template:Help navigation ? No, I don't think that is necessary. Readers don't need editing help stuff but editors need reader help stuff (for newbie editors especially). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Tourist accommodations

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

Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Although your topic ban has not been amended [8], you have continued to violate it by editing in the category namespace, e.g. [9]. The previous appeal ended because you wrote, "I am willing to have the current topic ban remain in place and maybe it can be revisited at some point in the future." Because the last block as for one month, and your appeal of the topic ban was not successful, the next block would be for two months. Please avoid any further category-related edits outside the main namespace while the topic ban is in place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Winter storm naming

I just wanted to make you aware of this discussion I started at Winter storm naming. I have no intentions of making any changes to the article myself, but was just hoping to get input from editors previously involved in the article (or recently-closed AfD) in an effort to improve the article and clarify its purpose. I will leave any changes to the consensus of other editors who decide what's best. Your participation would be welcome, regardless of your views on the issue. Thank you. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Rlcwil

You talked to BernsteinBot about the sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia:Database reports/Red-linked categories with incoming links. Just as an example of why not to sweep these things under the carpet - I took a look at what was needed, realised that it was trivial to do it by AWB or a bot, and BattyBot has now filed a BRFA to do this automatically. So that will be ~200 cats removed from this report at a stroke. Le Deluge (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. There is quite the discussion at the BRFA! Once again there is endless discussion on a trivial issue (relatively speaking) while the important work goes undone. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

• WikiProject report: Thank you for flying WikiProject Airlines

• Technology report: Better templates and 3D buildings

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation declares 'victory' in Wikivoyage lawsuit

• In the media: Sue Gardner interviewed by the Australian press

• Featured content: Featured content gets schooled

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Need a category

Can I get you to create Category:Wikipedia:Reference desk? There is a bit of a need for it. There is eight pages and a subcat in Category:Wikipedia help forums that can go into it, and it should also have Category:Reader help. Thanks -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(Above comment copied from User talk:CBM by CBM.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC))

I prefer to interact with your topic ban only as an administrator, because of WP:INVOLVED. At the same time, you have continued to edit categories since my previous warning. Any additional violations will result in a block. The letter of the topic ban is that you are not allowed to make particular edits. But the point of the topic ban is that you should simply ignore categorization issues of non-articles, rather than asking other people to make the edits that you are not permitted to make. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So shall I revert my category edits? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see why WP:INVOLVED would prevent you from creating and populating a category at my request. Surely it is a completely uncontroversial edit? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Carl, prior incarnations of topic bans on various editors have never precluded asking questions. Alan isn't out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not so much asking the question that Carl is concerned with but more to do with the implications of WP:INVOLVED. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• He's threatening to block you for asking questions. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, he is threatening to block me because of the intent of the topic ban. Carl seems to want to block me regardless of whether my category edits are constructive or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well, he seems very bent on blocking you. 4 blocks since October. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I know. It is irrational and unreasonable. Greater good and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alan asked CBM to create a category, and CBM said he preferred not to do so in order to remain uninvolved. It is a separate matter from the warning regarding violations of the topic ban, which are based on actions Alan has taken (which he implicitly agreed to forgo), presumably such as this one. Last time when CBM blocked Alan, a number of people asked if a warning could have preceded any action, and so that seems to be what CBM is doing this time. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• When my arch nemeses (is that how u do plural) and my talk page stalkers decide not to get the boot in I KNOW that I have a consensus for what I am doing!! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you're trying to respond to; I was only replying to Hammersoft's comment regarding being threatened with a block for asking questions. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Which indeed he was. Why else would he receive a threat? He asked a question regarding a category. The response is a threat to block from a person who has blocked him four times since October. It's not an idle threat. -Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • See User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 20#Category-related edits.2C January 2013, where it is suggested that warnings could be given. CBM has now given two warnings (see my earlier comment for a category related-edit outside of the article namespace that took place between the two warnings; there are others). Perhaps you have some suggestions on how to word the warnings differently? isaacl (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• My suggestion is to stop warning people they are going to be blocked for pursuing lines of questions. There's nothing Alan's restrictions that constitute a gag order. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that Alan's response to your comment on that matter started with "No," I don't believe he has the same interpretation of the warning that you have. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps, and granted. Carl could be more clear. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative of further damage. Requesting changes or asking first also prevents any such damage. I see no need for a "belt and braces" attitude. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that I seem to have everyone attention can SOMEONE please create the category that I requested? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So where do you think it's needed? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly where you put it, as well as in Category:Reader help. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished (from my talk)

Shouldn't it be Category:Wikipedia Reference desk rather than have double colons? I've never seen a category like that.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

See User_talk:Alan_Liefting#Need_a_category

Technically, it's not a problem. It's a colon after an explicit namespace, so MediaWiki doesn't mind. However now we can have a nice argument over Category:Wikipedia Reference desk vs. Category:Wikipedia reference deskAndy Dingley (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The colon should go. It is a typo in my original request. Convention dictates no colon. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Reference Desk archive now needs removal from Category:Wikipedia help forums. I daren't remove it myself... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And the contents of Category:Wikipedia reference desk needs removal from Category:Wikipedia help forums. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

What a fiasco! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Made in the Midlands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)