User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.

A little over a year ago, you created the article Corruption by country and worked on the category Category:Corruption by country. Any objections to deleting the article and just keeping the category? --Banana (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• In its current state it is not worthy of an article. A country ranking would be a good addintion for the page but we already have the Corruption Perceptions Index article. Yeah, feel free to put it up for an AfD and we will see what comes of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Banana (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Corruption by country is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corruption by country 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 good 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. Banana (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Conundrum Press (Canada) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PKT(alk) 01:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the Prod and added some references to the article, along with expanding it a bit with a history section. Silverseren^C 01:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. Dropping you a note as a courtesy that I have removed the PROD template from Croydon Aircraft Company and replaced it with a proposed merge to Mandeville Aerodrome. I am not very experienced with all this so if I have gone against normal procedure please let me know. Cheers. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and it is all sweet. I have done a bit of a merge and set up a redir for the Croydon Aircraft Company. However, I don't think the company even deserves a redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. You cite WP:PROD in your edit summary. Now follow it. There is no case for speedy deletion here. There is also room for improvement in the article. Give opportunity for that. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I never put the article up for speedy deletion. Also, an article may not be notable even if it can be improved. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

No, worse than that: You just wiped the content, then redirected to another article in a supposed merge, but you did not merge the contents. Please stop doing stuff like this. Please take a step back: Is what you are doing in cases like this constructive? Ask yourself! Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion places article info out of reach of all but admins. Turning an article into a redirect is able to be undone by any editor and is therefore not as "bad" as a speedy deletion. Also, I will carry on with edits of this type since I very rarely encounter opposition. This would suggest that my editing style has a wide consensus. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That is disingenuous at best. The readers of the encyclopedia, including any editors not involved with the article in question, would have no reason to suspect that the redirection had blanked an entire article. Even if an editor came to the subject of the article anew, with additional material that may sway even your deletionist heart as to the value of the article, he would have have to be a regular Hercules Poirot to suspect that the redirect hid what others thought was a perfectly good article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You allege your actions have popular approval. No. Simply because many editors remain silent about your actions does not mean they approve of them. There is objection after objection here. I believe many regular experienced editors of WP would object if they had a look at what you are doing. They're not looking. You are operating by stealth, blanking articles without entering into proper discussion or using the proper mechanisms. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You cannot speedy delete because you do not have that power. Good! Just as well! But you are using a technical measure to do the same thing. Blanking by replacing an article with a redirect has the same effect. The only difference is that your improper actions can more easily be undone if detected. People watch for improper speedy deletes. There is no easy tool to monitor blanking by replacing an entire article with a redirect. As if under the cover of darkness pages are being torn out of this encyclopedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

A way you could demonstrate good faith when blanking one article and re-directing it to another would be by merging the content of the two articles. But you make no attempt to do that. Any good content just gets lost. Stop now! Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled. Since when has burning books been a good idea? Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not needlessly hurry to delete content from Wikipedia. To contribute is so much more difficult than to destroy. Unless you know something is not notable you should not treat it as if it is. You should assume good faith on the part of contributors, you should give articles the benefit of the doubt. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot delete anything since I am not an administrator. I can only suggest a deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But you did, blanking out an entire article with a redirection. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia policy is that the onus of proof is on the person wishing to add or keep material. In other words unless you know something is notable you should not treat it as if it is, not the other way around. We do not "assume" things are notable: evidence has to be provided. This sort of mistake is common among new editors, but I am astonished to find it from someone who has been a fairly active editor for seven years. Also, assuming good faith on the part of contributors is a completely different matter from assuming notability of subjects where no evidence is provided. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is somewhat a biased simplification of WP policy. And there is no policy that an article can be blanked without notice, without opportunity to defend the contributions of editors. And, I guess, that is not something you are in favour of. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to disclose my bias here first. I feel New Zealand can only pay it's $250 billion in debt by mineral extraction in Zealandia (5% above the water is New Zealand). The Haast-Hollyford Highway was my recent contribution to wikipedia. Teaching an expert to publish in wikipedia. I stopped editing wikipedia because of deleters! Deletion is the ultimate vandalism. Ignorance drives most deleters motivation. Now I find a green biased person a serial deleter as brazen as the Bush/Cheney WMD invasion of Iraq neo con thinking. I do not exaggerate as this expresses the level of hurt deleters have inflicted on my sensibilities. Now I come face to face with a delete on a matter of putting a toll road in a world heritage park. Interesting polemic. RoddyYoung (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that you tagged Kingdom hearts 3 (video game) for speedy deletion. Unfortunately, however, it does not satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria, so I have taken it to AfD instead, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom hearts 3 (video game). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, please stop trying to cull the encyclopedia down to a size which suits you. WP is not paper, we do not have a fixed number of pages the publisher has allocated us. In what way is a published video game not notable? Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerning [1], I can understand removing the category Individual sports as being a parent of the category. I would however expect to find Martial artists under the category Combat sports. Could you share with me the reasons for the Combat sports deletion? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alan, as an experienced wikipedia user, could you advice if it is possible to keep the wikipeia article about MHG Systems? The article is claimed to lack notable links, but I believe that the links that I have provided are notable enough. Could you take a look/advice/tell your opinion? I think that MHG Systems article should be kept, and given a chance to be improved by the users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpisarenko (talk • contribs) 14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the prod tag you placed on Vebnet Limited, as it was undeleted on 12 November 2008 (log) and therefore cannot be prodded. I have no prejudice against nominating this article at AfD. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Double opps? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you are doing mass edits to empty Category:2010 by country and other years of country articles which are in a subcategory named after the country. Is this based on a discussion or guideline somewhere? WP:EPON says: In any case, an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I doing it based on convention. The guideline is not often followed. From a usability point of view, which is some thing we should always consider, it is better to have a lower population in a category even if a reader has to do one more click to get to a desired article. I think the guideline has been debated in the past. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link pointing to evidence of such a convention? Guidelines are supposed to show convention. I support the guideline and think it should take something significant to do semiautomated mass edits for the sole purpose of making changes against a guideline. If you don't like the guideline then you can suggest a change at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I see you are continuing to do this with AWB after I pointed out the guideline. If you don't stop or give a more satisfactory answer then I may suggest your AWB rights are removed. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a link but I do recall it being discussed somewhere. If you look the categories by country you will find that the vast majority do not adhere to the guideline. That is what I mean by convention. Also, there is not always a guideline for what is convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#Categorization of years by country. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan. I had originally deleted the above article, but realized only later that another admin had already declined a speedy deletion request for it earlier. After reviewing the article again, I'd have to agree that it's a "borderline case" which would be better off sent to AfD. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Agriculture and the environment is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agriculture and the environment 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 good 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article Water and the environment is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water and the environment 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 good 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Picis, Inc., a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 20:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Acemark, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: The company may not be notable, but the article says they have the "biggest auto parts range in China". That's an assertion of importance, and it's enough to pass A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its because I'm a new editor, but I'm wondering what the reason for these tags are? Seems well organized, structured and certainly has nobility (Nazi protest, challenging Beth Din gag order, and etc) and is very well sourced with over 18 cites including from the NY Times, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and other reliable secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMelder (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of SQL Star, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting! The Punjab Juvenile Justice System Rules 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Rules have been made by the Government of the Punjab, Pakistan in 2002, for protection of juveniles in conflict with the law. The article does not include the original text or any copyrighted material of these Rules that may make this article a candidate for deletion. The article can be expanded by including (e.g.) material about the following:

• What change these Rules have brought about regarding treatment of juvenile delinquents as compared with the adults?
• What are the shortcomings of these Rules?
• What are the international instruments involved e.g. United Nations' conventions on the juvenile justice?
• Comparision of these Rules with similar statutes of other developing and developed countries?
• Have these Rules proved to be helpful to convince the law enforcers to go for Restorative Justice instead of Retributive Justice in case of Juveniles?
• Implementation issues?
• Etc., etc.,

For the above reasons, this article shall not be deleted and indeed expanded in scholarly manner.--182.177.145.81 (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So I started writing an article you requested a long time ago somewhere, but at my current rate it may take about 6months, so if you wanna help write it feel free to contribute. Passionless -Talk 03:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of PartnerUp, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of PVI Virtual Media Services, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I declined it as someone was attempting to contest the PROD and was unclear on the proper procedure to do so (or was as near as I can tell), I've pushed the article to AfD here. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Alan, I reversed your edits to the Cobb Hill Cohousing page, in which you deleted the categories "Intentional Communities" and "Agriculture in the US". Cobb Hill is an intentional community practicing sustainable agriculture and is located in the United States. Let me know if you have an argument for deleting the categories. Phil Bush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philip W Bush (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The former category may be appropriate but the latter is not. Category:Agriculture in the United States is a very broad category that should not contain any articles of a very specific nature such as Cobb Hill. I am very dubious of the notability of the article and will put it up for AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

Just realised that I deleted Category:Intentional communities since the article is in the ecovillages category, which itself is a subcat of intentional communities. Also, since it is already in Category:Agriculture in Vermont is should not be in Cobb Hill. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan

The piece of Portuguese legistation you asked me to translate/ summarise is enormous. I've gone through the bill and looked for the information that you require for your article. I've also googled relevant sites to check for recent developments. 1. Helmets are not compulsory in Portugal for conventional bycicles. However, they are required for motorised bycicles, three-wheelers, four-wheelers. 2. Helmets are required to be worn by children being transported by a cyclist. Let me know if you need further assistance - I've saved all the material that I consulted, so it will b e easy for me to go back to it. Um abraço, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Computers and the environment is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computers and the environment 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The article Printing and the environment is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Printing and the environment 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Bill Subritzky.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Slon02 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Its starting to shape up. Looks to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to let any other editors who were as worried as me know that Alan's safe and well (he lives in Christchurch, hit by a massive earthquake earlier this week). Grutness...wha? 21:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the post. I was worried.-gadfium 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I was actually out of town when it happened. We are in good spirits and our property has not suffered from much in the way of damage. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Electronics and the environment 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/Electronics and the environment 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Environmental issues with shipping 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/Environmental issues with shipping 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 good 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. Yaksar (let's chat) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reverting the blanking/vandalism to my user page. Take it easy. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This article, which you deleted as an A7 speedy, is now being discussed at deletion review-- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 28. You may want to comment. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am not an admin so I cannot delete pages. I did request a speedy deletion but another editor put it up for deletion review before the page was actually deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Blasphemy by country, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Rare-earth mine radioactive contamination. Any interest? FYI, as starter of the page where my most recent call for help landed; and as closer neighbor to mine. Swliv (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:CATEGORY#Eponymous_categories In particular:

In any case, an article should not be excluded from any set category on the grounds that its eponymous category is made a "subcategory" of that category.

The bolding is original.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

So should we follow the guideline or convention? The convention, where the eponymous article is not included seems a better approach. This is because:

• The 250 page limit to categories sometimes means we have to be conservative in assigning article to a category to avoid having to spill over into having more than one page for a category.
• Having a subcategory and page of the same name in a category may be confusing to readers.
• The guideline is just that, a guideline. It does not have complete support from the editing community as some past discussions show. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The convention is as described in the written guideline. Otherwise show some evidence for your claim.

The 200 page (not 250) limit isn't a limit, it's a paging boundary. It arises when there are a great many leaf articles within a category, not for intermediate categories within the tree. How many pages are there in the categories under discussion here?

How does having an article and a category within a category confuse readers? The real problem is that readers don't know how to navigate categories, and only know how to find too little, not that they're finding too many sorts of page.

"some past discussions" is just a vague handwave to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no more. I've already cited the relevant written guideline for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Convention is probably not the right word but if you peruse the categories you will notice that it is rare for the guideline to be followed. What do we do? Follow the trend of the vast majority of other editors (consensus - which is how WP works) or do we follow the guideline? As for the 200/250 page number, I had requested that the limit should be increased to 250. I cannot find where I my request or anything about the changes to the MediaWiki software but it is interesting to note the Category:Agriculture, which has more than 200 pages, now renders differently to what I have seen in the past. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop removing categories from articles. The rationale employed for removing these categories appears to be faulty and not based on guidelines or policy. Furthermore, it appears that a bot is being employed for removing categories from articles wholesale. This is not an appropriate use of a bot - probably AWB. In particular the wholesale removal of Category:Ecotourism from articles is disconcerting. Please stop. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No I will not stop removing categories from articles since WP has many articles that have too many categories or categories that do not fit in with guidelines or unwritten convention. Yes, I do use AWB to remove categories on occasion. This is not inappropriate. What makes you think that it is inappropriate? If you have issues with my editing, and I fail to see what the problem is, please take it up in any of the other forums that are available. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please continue to remove categories where this is useful, but the issue here is that you're removing categories that still belong. Where "belong" is agreed by the community, and described on the guides cited above. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

First, of all there is no unwritten convention on Wikipedia. The "convention" is either reflected in guidelines and policies, or explicitly communicated in the guidelines and policies. Second, claiming the use of AWB to remove categories "on occassion" is misleading. The frequency appears to be more than occasionally, and the number of articles that have categories removed seems to be on a large scale. The scale of these removals does not seem trivial.

Third, it appears to be inappropriate to download a category of articles for only the purpose of removing that category from those articles.

Fourth, there is no mention in the edit summaries of using the Auto Wiki Browser bot. Use of a bot for editing is supposed to be explicitly stated in the edit summaries. It seems that a correction of this editing behavior is appropriate.

Finally, this editng behavior has become controversial. Please see Rules of use for the AWB bot, which states the following:

• Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding.
• Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices.
• The Wikipedia tenet "be bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale. ----- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with my editing behaviour. If you have any concerns raise it in the appropriate forum. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a form of vandalism, as makes no difference. Provided I can get a second there's an RFC coming your way. I do not want you removing any categories, ever again, you're clearly not competent at doing that, you're making consistently non consensus changes that remove what is generally considered to be useful information from the Wikipedia.Rememberway (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is rather rude to accuse my category removal edits as vandalism. I am doing them in good faith, they are of little consequence and are generally supported by the wider editing community. By all means instigate an RFC. I think that would be a rather churlish move and I don't think there are sufficient grounds for an RFC. To say that my edits where I remove categories, of which there are probably many thousands, do not consistently have consensus is laughable. I make a point of monitoring my edits as much as possible and it is rare for my edits to be reverted. This would suggest that my editing is acceptable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think that removing somebody from a category that they are extremely well known for, and conversely they are highly notable from the category topic, and you do this without them being in any subcategory, and you try to revert war it through, and afterwards you still claim that this is acceptable editing then there very clearly is a problem.Rememberway (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

You had moved Equitable Tourism Options (EQUATIONS) to Equitable Tourism Options on 1 April 2011. The name in parenthesis is important to the title as the non-profit organization in concern is recognized and referred to by both names, the complete name and their acronym in parenthesis. More importantly, the organization is also legally registered by the name "Equitable Tourism Options (EQUATIONS)" under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 ^[1]. Could you revert the Title of the article to "Equitable Tourism Options (EQUATIONS)"?

Best,
I Eqs (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tx for closing the splitting discussion. I hate it when we waste our editorial resources with interminable !voting, where the snow close would save us that time. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan, you deleted a draft of a modified version of the core policies in my talkspace. This had been discussed at the WP:V talk page several weeks ago and was recommended by SV as an alternate way to approach rewording and reorganizing. You didn't leave any note after the deletion so it's unclear what the reason was. I'm going to put it back with {workpage} and {noindex} tags and a note that it's not the policy and a link to the actual policy. Ocaasi ^c 08:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It was showing as a page in Category:Wikipedia policies. I was going to only delete the link to the category but had decided to delete the whole lot since that version had no indication that it was only a draft. I note that it now has the appropriate warning. It was a little heavy handed of me to blank the page but since the page history is still there nothing was lost. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess the {pol} template automatically adds the category. I added nowiki around it. Blanking the page wasn't a big deal, and edit commenting would have helped. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 18:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since I did not know whether you were an established editor or a couldn't care less, drive by editor I chose to blank the page and, knowing that there would be an automatic edit summary stating that, I decided that I need not add a reason. I have seen a lot of user namespace pages that are simply a cut and paste of WP or article namespace. They turn up in content (or WP) categories where they do not belong. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have navigation WP:POPUPS enabled in preferences? It makes for mouse-over summaries of pages as well as editor rights, account age, and edit count. I like to check first. I don't really consider automatic summaries enough, since though they got the point across of what happened, they don't say why. Ocaasi ^c 20:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have used popups in the past but stopped using it since I found it a little cumbersome. I may have another play with them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New version: Navigation popups (experimental version). Minified and served through ResourceLoader. Does not work with Firefox 4.

It's in right under the old option in the Gadgets menu, but I haven't tried it since it's not FF4 compatible. Ocaasi ^c 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm, FF4!? I am still on FF3.6. I could try try popups I guess. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

FF4 is still in beta, but it has a very nice, slim interface. Lots of room for the actual pages. I just thought the 'minified' version of popups might be better. Ocaasi ^c 22:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're going around, essentially randomly taking people out of categories of things that they're highly associated with?

Do you, or do you not expect to get blocked for this?

Because in my opinion, that should get you blocked, and I doubt that I'm going to be alone in thinking that when I point this out to people.Rememberway (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not randomly taking people out of categories - it is a calculated, and generally a systematic process. And I do not expect to get blocked for my editing behaviour. I must remind you that editors should assume good faith. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

My suspicion is that you've misunderstood the categorisation system.Rememberway (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you were simply making mistakes occasionally, that would be perfectly fine. But in the case of Gerard K. O'Neill not only were you not doing the edit accidentally, but you tried to edit war it through and even now you still state that this removal was correct and fully justified; but it seems pretty clear to me at least that it was a really bad edit. That together with the fact that you've clearly made highly controversial recategorisations before gives me cause for concern.Rememberway (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Rememberway (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not receive notification of the proposed deletion of the page. I do not monitor the page so I missed the 7-day window. I refute the claim that this company is not notable. DG3 was publicly owned, it has won several awards including one from the EPA, and it is international. How is it not notable? Backburnercomics (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is odd. I use Twikle for PROD nominations and the default is set to notify the article creator. I cannot recall the details of the article but it may not have met the criteria at WP:CORP. If you wish you can contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The original User that deleted restored it. Thank you for your assistance. My e-mail is up-to-date, but I will review my junk folder to see if it redirected there. I am still new to writing articles; I tried modelling it after similar printers. Backburnercomics (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I suggest that when you remove stub tags (as with Around the Mountain Cycle Trail), you could also usefully reassess the article as start class or whatever else is appropriate at the same time. Schwede66 00:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Good point. I will remember that for the future. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

I've responded to your post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I've uploaded the book for you but would like to remove the link once you've successfully downloaded it.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Quick work! Cheers for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Corruption in the United States 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/Corruption in the United States 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 good 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. Student7 (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EPA logo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to comment on the potential splitting of Gun laws in the United States (by state) at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Splitting up the article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

I noticed that you reverted the merger of Environmental issues with energy and Energy and the environment. As you left the merge tag on Energy and the environment, I have not started a new discussion but have extended the pre-existing one. I would be glad to discuss the merger further with you there.

Neelix (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Will do. Give me some time to mull it over though. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

It has been more than a week since I contacted you about this merger. Have you been able to find time to consider my comments?

Neelix (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I would like it to remain open until we get a wider discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

G'day Alan. Not in any way related to Conservation in Australia. - Never say never!
Some other time I will put the required effort into it. For the moment, I'll let it slide.
But in saying "Not in any way related", I'll point out that you appear to be basing your POV on incomplete information. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Conservation in Australia is about conservation biology and the conservation ethic relating to it. Martindale Hall is a building. It is located in a conservation park but that is too tenuous a relationship to justify adding it to Category:Conservation in Australia. Categories are really for things that are cut and dried, black and white, yes and no,chalk and cheese. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your response contains inaccuracies. I don't have time to explain. I repeat:

Some other time I will put the required effort into it. For the moment, I'll let it slide.
But in saying "Not in any way related", I'll point out that you appear to be basing your POV on incomplete information. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
P.S. As a courtesy for your information: I won't be replying further anytime soon. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We all have a POV. We all have to put up with having incomplete information. But I have been doing quite a lot of categorising on WP over the years so I like to think that I have a fairly complete understanding of the category system. Therefore my POV is likely to be a similar point of the majority of other editors. And thats what WP is all about - getting consensus amongst editors. Can you give a hint as to what range of information is incomplete in my understanding of categorisation? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a hint as to what range of information is incomplete in my understanding of categorisation? - No. I have no idea about your knowledge/understanding (or otherwise) re categorisation.

My comments are/were about your POV re Martindale Hall. My apologies if my statements were/are ambiguous. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Letalab. sonia♫ 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The article Grownupgreen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Long unreferenced Non-notable charity with no significant secondary coverage

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I have put it up for speedy deletion. I should have done that when I first can across the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean to leave Isaac Newton in that category? I wasn't sure if you're simply removing all individuals, or if you think Newton has better right to remain than Pascal and Nicholas of Cusa. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I had overlooked Newton. I have now removed the article form that category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Persistent Systems definitely isn't an A7. It was previously kept (narrowly) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persistent Systems, is listed on the National Stock Exchange of India and has several hundred GNews hits which even establish notability under WP:CORP. I've looked at some of your other tags and they seem pretty reliable, so I'm guessing this was a one-off error, but please be a bit more careful. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the category "Religion and Science" was removed from the Oxford scholars. Notice that the ones remaining are creationists, Dawkins, a science writer with uneducated opinions about religion, Einstein, the same. There is no reverse: the priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang, for example. Not sure what the criteria is here. If the subject is religious and and has well-regarded scientific opinions, he is omitted. But the reverse is not true. Why is this? Student7 (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed all the bio articles from Category:Religion and science for two reasons: they water down the more pertinent articles that are there, and as a PW category religion and science cannot be directly attributed to a person. Do we need a Category:Religion and science philosophers or Category:Philosophers of religion and science?

Not sure what you mean by "Notice that the ones remaining are creationist". I removed all bio articles. Creationists do not belong in the religion and science category since creationism is not a science. Also there is a separate category for intelligent design. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the category should be identified as "being reserved for scientists, untrained in religion, but who have decided opinions about it, nonetheless, and excluding people of faith who have credentials in both religion and science." I am not suggesting the creation of categories of unrelated material. But this one already exists. Student7 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Such a category description highlights the limitation of categories. Categories are black and white, cut and dried. It is better to have people related to the topics in the associated article or as an annotated list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Cut and dried. Right. Then why is the Big Bang developer, Father Lemaitre, (a scientist and a man of religion, not contained in the category? Why are not the Oxford scholars, priests and scientists not there? They prayed, according to their breviary/office, six times (or so) every day. Is that not religion? Did they not perform science? They were trained theologians BTW. With credentials, unlike bestselling but amateurs (and amateurish) Dawkins and Einstein. Why are unaccredited pretenders in the list, and professionals eliminated? Why is theology considered fertile ground for amateurs and science a field for educated people? More importantly, why does an encyclopedia make this distinction? It is my understanding that Dawkins is a science writer, not actually a practicing "scientist" per se. Student7 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean Georges Lemaître when talking about Father Lemaitre. By removing the bio articles I am not making a judgement on the importance of the work of these people. It is just that the category is not for bio articles on people who work on the juncture between the two. Adding them to the caegoery does not do their work any justice. If it is notable enough their work would be in the Relationship between religion and science article and it can then be dicussed in that context - something that cannot be done in a category. By the way, is a scientist always a scientist regardless of whether they actually "practice" science? Finally, given the notability of Richard Dawkins in the discourse ofscience and religion his work is applicable regardless of his academic history. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about the question whether a scientist is a scientist when not practicing. The Oxford scholars diligently said their breviary every day and doubtlessly assumed that their finds were "uncovering the mysteries of God." They were clearly "practicing their religion." I don't know that Lemaitre may have had questions now and then though with his background in astronomy red-shifting, etc. he pretty much knew where that was leading. Catholics haven't been literalists for centuries. He, too, said mass daily and was clearly "practicing." Stanley Jaki too, while we're on the topic.

None were religious nor scientific dilettantes looking for publicity from outrageous "observations" which, if tried by an editor in Wikipedia, would be termed WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just discovered List of participants in the dialogue of religion and science. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. That list tries to be focused by using the word "dialogue of..." I think the main problem here (as in other topics) is the use of the word "and" thrown about at random "Religion and macrame" or "Wool-gathering and science." The topic itself is at fault. They should really be more focused. "Religious opinion of science" or "Scientific opinion of religion" or whatever so that ambiguity is diminished. We've tried to discourage "and" topics in articles and (I believe) subtopics with some success. Perhaps the same should be done to categories. Student7 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan,

You recently put Kern precision scales up for deletion. I have moved the page as suggested by another user.

He also found other historical sources (scientific publications) using Google books that verify Kern & Sohn's notability.

I have added these as references in the article.

Hopefully that helps - let me know if there's anything else I should do.

Kind regards and thanks for your help,

James —Preceding unsigned comment added by James nester (talk • contribs) 13:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for creating Category:Christianity and environmentalism. Good idea. ("',) 99.43.138.160 (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the tobacco categories. C. C. Little was a very important tobacco researcher. Should we create a category for that profession? if not, then maybe he could go into one of the other tobacco categories.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think creating a tobacco researcher category is the best option. I think it is best bunged in as a See also link in the Tobacco in the United States, article unless there is a tobacco research article that I have not yet come across. By the way, I am about to start a series of Smoking by country categories to complement Category:Drugs by country and Category:Tobacco by country. Free free to help. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well he ought to be in some tobacco category - he was a central figure. If we can't find a more specific one then he should go back in the general category. He was the head of a research institute, so he could be broadly considered a tobacco executive. Maybe that category should be renamed to something more inclusive, like "people employed in the tobacco industry".   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any tobacco category that is appropriate for the article. I have place C. C. Little in the See also section of Tobacco in the United States article. That article does need a "Tobacco research" section given the shenanigans of Big Tobacco in the US. I would love to write it but I have neither time nor expert knowledge on the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

How does one determine WP:Notability for Planetary boundaries? 99.119.128.129 (talk) 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It seeeems to be notable since it meets basic notability guidelines. There are more refs out there than the one it currently has. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be trying to clean up categories, a commendable and needed exercise. I have a problem with a series of Transport categories. Editors appear to have focused mainly on article quality, ignoring, for the most part, categorization.

CSX 8888 was an interesting incident (formally named by the NTSB) on which an adventure movie Unstoppable was based. Quite fascinating. Anyway, it is categorized, quite wrongly, as Category:Railway accidents in the United States and an allied one as well. This, in turn, rolls up into Category:Transportation disasters in the United States, which it clearly was not. The train was stopped after everyone sweated quite a bit. And so forth, up the line into "disasters." This seems wrong and "hype" to me. I have tried to change it, without success. Student7 (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You raise a point about categories that I often ponder. When an article is added to a category it should only be considered to be relevant to that category and not sub- or super-categories. agr raises a good point at Talk:CSX 8888 incident. Maybe it should be an "incidents and accidents" category. Categories are yes/no, in/out so they cannot be used to categorise when there are shades of grey of maybe/maybe not. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

People categorize articles for various reasons. Transport people appear to "like excitement." Thus, overcategorization.

I failed to mention (!) that Transport is rather dedicated to this principle, and any effort to change it is met with considerably resistance! I thought I was correcting a minor problem and found that it would take considerably more effort than I was willing to invest to "cleaning up Transport." One of the very few otherwise serious topics the encyclopedia contains that is truly and rather deliberately categorically hyped at nearly every level. Student7 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind! Click on my user page and you'll see what I mean!Curb Chain (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh-heh!! I don't mind at all!. Cheers -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind normal environmentalism; what i hate is the extremists and the attention hogs in the movement; when i said the list before I was referring to the attention hogs. I love a normal environmentalists that can accept outside ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.6.169 (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

6-02-2011

Alan:

Please forgive my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia protocol. I noticed that you deleted the categories which I assigned to the above article. I don't understand why.

--Greg Allegretti Trout7000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC).

The categories that I deleted are not for individual structures. Have a read of Wikipedia:Categorisation for info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Energy rating label.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I originally closed this as "delete" back in Feb but I've undeleted the article and relisted it per a request on my talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I declined the CSD as the article asserts significance, a lower standard that notability. She has an article or two on Galenet, so may actually be notable. Dlohcierekim 18:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This seems cut from the same cloth. Should we nominate it as well? The author seems to have fired off a salvo of big history articles and left. Dlohcierekim 19:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does not seem to pass the prof test. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your most recent edit, most especially moving the "calumet" picture up (from where it was to the left of the "See also") creating some awkward-looking white space in the article??

Also, I would make the case that "Category:Smoking cessation" is relevant because for some smokers reduction-- reducing the dosage from a 700-mg.-every-smoke cigarette to maybe 25-mg. per hit in a one-hitter-- can be a step toward getting rid of the overdose habit (cigarette) which, rather than tobacco per se, really causes most of the 6 million deaths per year (WHO, May 30, 2011).

Some tobacco-related categorization would help smokers benefit healthwise from discovering one-hitter technology (considering the alternative: allegedly 94% of all tobacco users worldwide are cigarette addicts). You will note in the article that the midwakh (UAE) and kiseru (Japan) are historically tobacco utensils. Please revisit and give this some thought. Cheers,Tokerdesigner (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Yeah, I struggled to get a decent layout at my screen resolution (which may be a commonly used resoultion). I was going to - and maybe we should - delete some of the images and point the reader at Commons. As for the category the article ia more about a type of smoking than a type of smoking cessation. If it is relevant it could be a mentioned or at least a See also link in the smoking cessation article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Alan, the article may be more about a type of smoking than a type of smoking reduction but the benefit of one-hitters to the latter issue remains important.

You have reduced the number of pictures to 3-- this seems to me unbalanced in that Smoking pipe (tobacco) is allowed to run on for over 23,000 bytes (all drawn from only 3 notes, 3 references, 5 external links) with 11 pictures compared to One-hitter (smoking) with under 4000 bytes and 3 pictures. Factbase: I should google this first, but I think I saw an article stating that only 1% of the tobacco smokers worldwide use a pipe (compared with 5% cigar and 94% cigarettes); if 1/10 as many persons used cannabis as tobacco and 10% of cannabis users used a one-hitter, on that basis alone-- besides there being ethnic one-hitters used for tobacco too-- the articles should have equal length.

I think the value of the article depends partly on some information (particularly history) which is conveniently presented in picture captions; so how about I look into using the "gallery" approach which posts the pictures at the bottom of the article, smaller than the regular thumbnail kind but enlargeable.Tokerdesigner (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a gallery is a good idea. The article is too short to support many images unless in a gallery format. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please check this out since you contributed to the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor).Steve Dufour (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you are removing Category:Slavery by country from 3 articles. Please see WP:EPON for direct information on this subject. The category should not be removed. Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:EPON is contentious and is not universally applied. Have a look at the subcats of Category:Categories by country. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If WP:EPON is contentious, it is to be discussed on its talk page; contention does not mean editors can ignore guidelines at will. If there are articles anywhere that do not follow the WP:EPON rule in their subcats, then the articles should be fixed, not held up as counter examples. Hmains (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I could of course ignore all rules but I don't. Guidelines are just that - guidelines. They don't have to be followed in every situation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the edit conflict over at Return to El Salvador, I'll take a pause and return to it later. jonkerz♠ 21:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh! I did not realise there was an edit conflict. I will leave the article for you. Am busy with other WP stuff. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Le Peuple Migrateur.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Should this be in [[Category: Banks based in North Carolina]] if the bank no longer exists? The name disappeared after a merger of equals with BB&T.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

When it did exist it was based in North Carolina. I don't think there is a need for a Category:Former banks based in North Carolina. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to make sure.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Foo Go, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: It may not be well expressed but the innovative product design and 'zero waste' environment policy is a claim of notability. Thank you. Fæ (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pollution in China , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)