User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Facebook_groups#criteria. KarlB (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh! Thank you. I feel special. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I just pinged everyone who was in that discussion. Frankly I'm still confused about the close, but I'd like to see if we can at least come up with some good criteria since the cat is still there. --KarlB (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Carnivorous plants of Australia

Possibly! It's certainly a good article topic—there are several hundred CP species from Australia (mostly Drosera and Utricularia)—and it would complement the existing carnivorous plants of New Zealand (which I now see you created!). There are some good recent sources out there; I'll see what I can do. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well here's a start: Carnivorous plants of Australia. Bourke and Nunn's Australian Carnivorous Plants was printed not three months ago, so there was no problem finding a complete and up-to-date list! mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice. How bout a bit of prose, eg distribution, ecology, conservation etc. Not that I can talk with my stubby NZ article! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Article of Vijaya Lawate

I do feel that she is notable. She was the first of her kind of lady who worked for upliftment for sex workers in India. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

While the work she does is admirable and you personally think she is notable, that is insufficient grounds for an article in Wikipedia. Have a read of the extensive notability guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Its fine if you think that she is not notable. If you will simply google her name you will find that she is notable. I request you to rethink about the decision of deletion. Maybe i was not able to provide the necessary references but i request you to provide it in proper format. Thanks Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

One more thing i would like to being to notice is - I think there was no need for speedy deletion. We can have a deletion discussion where we can involve other people to discuss on this issue. I would like to get guidelines as how to improve the article with proper references Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I googled "Vijaya Lawate" and came up with 85 results. That does not bode well for her notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think she is not notable then its fine. Lets not have the article now. Maybe someday somebody will feel and then we will have the article. Anyways. Have a nice day. :) Abhijeet Safai (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal rights cats

Hi Alan, I've been concerned a few times about some of the things you've done with animal rights categories, and now I see you've created a new one, Category:Animal rights organizations. We already have Category:Animal rights movement. Is this new one not simply a duplicate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No, they are separate (but linked) and I was surprised it did not exist. The animal rights movement is the (sort of) amorphous whole. The organisations are apart of it but are distinct. There are sufficient organisations to warrant their own category. Also, with Category:Animal rights organizations in existence I can clean out Category:Animal rights movement to make the latter more useful. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind stopping to let me know what you're doing? I'm seeing massive changes made without discussion, some of which make no sense (at first glance). So I'd appreciate a discussion before continuing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What part does not make sense? It is mostly a straightforward re-categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not clear whether you're simply renaming "Animal rights movement," or whether you're creating a separate category of "organizations." You said above that the movement was something separate, so I'd be interested to know what you mean. Also, how are you going to tell the difference between the ad hoc set ups, and the organizations proper? (I chose the word "movement" when I created the cat so that people would not have to make that distinction.)

Also, I've seen you add then remove Animal Liberation Front cats in the last few months, including today, so I'm curious to know what your intentions are there too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My intentions are to make the animal rights categories useful to readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Would you please stop now, and discuss first? Please say what distinctions you are making with the new categories. Also, my understanding is that editors are not supposed to carry on using a bot over an objection in this way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, for the purposes of categorisation the animal rights movement is distinct from an animal rights organisation and a slightly more subtle distinction from an animal welfare organisation. And by the way I am not using a bot for the re-categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It says rights at the top of the movement category: "Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights—for any questions or proposals regarding animal rights categories, please contact the WikiProject talk page. Please do not change the categories without discussion." The point of requests like that is so discussion takes place before massive changes are made with a bot, because they are not easy to correct. Editors who use bots are supposed to respect this. (You are engaged in some kind of automated or semi-automated actions, which is what I mean by "bot".)

The distinction between an AR group and an AW is not subtle; it is stark. Alan, if that is one of your beliefs, please do not engage in any more categorization in this area. Also, please give me some examples of groupings that would be in the movement cat but not in your new organization cat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You are yet to actually outline what your concerns are. Which edits don't you argree with? And HotCat is not defined at a bot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

First, are you willing to stop and discuss first, because if not I want to escalate this before more damage is done. We may end up agreeing, but I would like us to have the discussion first.

Second, please explain what distinctions you're making exactly (this is about the third time I've asked this, so please respond). Third, what are you doing with the ALF cat? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Is it not clear that there is room for a movement and an organisation category? There is no "damage". I am improving WP. I know that is an opinion but I like to think I have sufficient experience to carry out this work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

On the AWB page, it says "If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale." So that is what I am requesting.

Can you please explain:

(a) what difference you are making between animal rights organizations and the animal rights movement -- with examples? YOu wrote: "The animal rights movement is the (sort of) amorphous whole. The organisations are apart of it but are distinct." I don't know what that means, so I am asking for examples.

and

(b) what you are doing with the ALF category?

SlimVirgin ^(talk)

I am not using AWB for the re-categorisation. This all smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP to me. I will move on. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Why won't you explain your edits? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:43, 7 May 2012 (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. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• Alan, PLEASE stop for now. The wiki won't break while you explain at ANI what's going on. I have no dog in this fight, and I'd rather there not be a fight. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean animal rights related pages. Well I have stoppedWell I have already stopped. The task is now left half finished. And I don't want a fight either. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you much. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Spacing

Thanks for your comment, you understand perfectly the purpose of the spacer. Unfortunately, there are people here who can't seem to fathom it, and are quite vehement in their attempts to irradicate it. I had one fellow follow me around undoing my edits until an admin told him to cut it out. (He's active now in the silly discussion going on at Talk:Reach for the Sky.) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I would dearly love to see a half or full line spacing as standard above the first footer template. It cannot be done on a per template basis since there are often multiple footer templates. Need to do an RFC or something to get it added to the WP:MOS. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it could be done in the style sheet. --79.223.4.134 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is beyond my ken I don't know much about CSS, but is sounds a bit tricky to implement. To many unknown variables. It will also add two lines if there is an existing space. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 May 2012

• Paid editing: Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes

• News and notes: Hong Kong to host Wikimania 2013

• In the news: What does Wikipedia call an expert; and untruths in biographies ... again.

• WikiProject report: Say What?: WikiProject Languages

• Featured content: This week at featured content: How much wood would a Wood Duck chuck if a Wood Duck could chuck wood?

• Arbitration report: Proposed decision in Rich Farmbrough, two open cases

• Technology report: Search gets faster, GSoC gets more detail and 1.20wmf2 gets deployed

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN or ANI

I believe you meant to leave this comment at WP:ANI, and not WP:AN. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. The talk page for WP:ANI is the right place to discuss the WP:ANI page itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

But you left your comment on the AN page, not the ANI page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, talk page for ANI redirects to talk page for AN...my head hurts...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 06:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, I see that there is a no archive until 14 May request for 278kb of the postings. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

HI Alan can you send me a copy of my deleted article Air Safaris (NZ) to my userfy space so I can work on it.I asked for an administrator to do it but nothing happened. Thanks in advance(CHCBOY (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC))

I am not an administrator so I cannot retrieve deleted articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Vaalu

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Vaalu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And herein lies yet another problem with my beloved WP. I cannot remember what was in an article that was deleted. I am not an admin so I am not privy to the contents of articles that have been deleted in the past. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ref columns

Why have 2 ref columns, you asked. It makes sense, if entries are short and don't fill the lines. Someone - not you - regularly changes some of "my" articles to 2 columns, I don't like it, but don't fight it, more important things to do. - I watch here to find out what you think, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what article this is in, arrhh, reference to but I fully agree with the convention that if there are more than three or four references then the two column layout is used. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you point me to a guideline that says so, please? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That says what? That I fully agree with the convention? Ha - am being facetious! I assume you want to know where the guideline for using a two column layout is mentioned. I don't know if there is such a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There isn't one. Also, please point out why, after I explicitly asked to take this to the talk page you continued reverting, for the 3rd time? Is it normal to carry out discussion in edit summaries instead of talk pages, especially after a request is made? Two and three columns only look better if a shortened footnote style is used. PumpkinSky talk 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The way I see it is that the burden of proof is on you to establish why an article should not follow convention and therefore you should start the discussion. Also, I see no point in discussing something that is both trivial and ~obvious. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

If it's trivial why are you trying to enforce personal preference by rv warring? It's not obvious. See my stmt on columns above. I'd expect someone that's been editing since 2004 to know about this and to know about not violating WP:3RR. So your argument is basically "it's my preferene so I can rv war as long and often as I want". Uhhuh. So it's okay if others rv war like that too?PumpkinSky talk 21:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Please understand that my English is limited. I don't know what facetious means. I wonder if there is a guideline that says that "if there are more than three or four references then the two column layout is used". It doesn't make sense to me, so I would like to know if that is a general rule or your personal POV. I don't like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you are unsure of the meaning of a word can suggest you look up a translation. The two column ref layout is convention as well as my preference. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can look up a translation, but I enjoy the help of others, putting words in context, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no such rule. Ref styles are aplenty and it's up to preference. He's trying to enforce a preference by continual rv's. Facetious means sarcastic. PumpkinSky talk 20:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Facetious does not' mean sarcastic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

An attempt at humor with a sarcastic tone.PumpkinSky talk 21:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Thanks, but I don't know sarcastic either. If there is no rule I would prefer to have "my" articles to "my "liking, 1 column that is, obvious for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

sarkastisch auf Deutsch. PumpkinSky talk 21:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Don't worry, I was trying to make a joke but it obviously did not work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE go and have a look at the ref style a wide selection of well maintained and/or highly edited articles and then come back to me with the results of your survey. I will not make any more replies until that information is posted here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

PLEASE answer the questions asked. If your version of logic were true ALL wiki articles would have the same style, but there are many and preference is allowed. You're basically saying "majority can enforce its will on all", which is WRONG. You can choose not to answer, choice is yours. PumpkinSky talk 21:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had answered the questiones posed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's take an example, Weinen, Klagen, Sorgen, Zagen, BWV 12, 2 columns (not my idea, as you can see in the history), all titles are broken, one even between the 2 columns, I don't like it, OBVIOUSLY it makes reading difficult, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I think there's a established rule not to change the reference style of an established article without discussion, and certainly not to make multiple style changes in articles without discussion if they are complained of. We don't have rule whether to use single or double columns in general, that i know of. Personally I prefer single column, others don't; I could argue in either direction indefinitely. I just accept whatever I see there; there are enough articles that need better refs regardless of style to keep both of us busy for years the rest of our lives. And reference popups will make it all even less important. (what I myself use is a second window, but then I always work on a large screen.) DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

DIFFUSE

I'm aware of WP:DIFFUSE. I created the shortcut, in fact, and have been working in diffusing the documentary films to topic and country categories for years. What is your point? Why are you doing this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

{{diffuse}} is only neede when articles need moving to subcats. Category:Documentary films has one article therefore {{diffuse}} is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• • There is only one article there because I have invested hundreds of hours diffusing them! New articles are nevertheless added there each week, and I do continual clean up. If you insist on removing the diffusion tag, then {{Container category}} most definitely applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This is a wiki so I cannot "insist" on anything. But think about it. Why have it there? Since you have it under control it is not needed. There is only one article so it is not needed. And why suggest {{Container category}}? All these big ugly banners don't do a lot and just get in the way of readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Actually, I still think you're wrong: I see the lead of the tag you'd removed reads: "This category contains categories that require particularly frequent maintenance to avoid becoming too large." Which is exactly the case. There would be hundreds of articles here if I and a few other dedicated editors weren't continually subcategorizing them. It is not the same as {{Very large}} because we've been doing the work. But I don't like the use of {{Container category}} because, in fact, the list of documentary films main article does belong there. I'm reverting to the previous tag and we can take this discussion to an appropriate wikiproject if you like. But the lead to Category:Categories requiring diffusion suggests to me that it is entirely the right tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
        • But to keep the ugly, glaring templates thrown up at WP readers and to keep Category:Categories requiring diffusion to a manageable level that is for the worst case situation we should a little restraint in the use of {{diffuse}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffusing album cats.

Containers Subcategories of Category:Albums by decade, (e.g. Category:1960s albums) can contain articles if the date of release isn't known, so strictly speaking they aren't {{Contain}}-styler containers, but they should be diffused if possible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffusing can apply to most categories on WP. That does noy mean they should all have a big, bad, ugly banner stuck on them. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Ugly, glaring templates?" That's your rationale? I've taken this to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Use_of_Category:Categories_requiring_diffusion. Please make your case there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

No it is not my rationale. That is an assumption that you have made. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Diffusing By definition, diffusion cannot apply to most categories on Wikipedia--that's impossible. I'm interested in you explaining how that could work... Also, the template acts as a tracking mechanism for such categories, allowing easier maintenance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Category:Documentary films. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Okay, TWO editors have now objected to your deletion of diffusion tags for not meeting your own personal tastes. Please stop and discuss! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there is guidelines on not throwing generic templates at long standing editors and you will find that you are incorrect about "TWO editors have now objected to your deletion of diffusion tags". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care a fig for WP:DTTR at this point. You seem utterly uninterested in anyone's opinion other than your own personal aesthetic about "ugly" diffusion tags, regardless of how useful they are to other editors. That said, you're right about my interpretation of Justin's comment above. Please make your care at the discussion page and for the love of god, stop edit warring. Please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Template:Category diffuse, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The fact that a template adds articles to an administrative category does not give you the right to unilaterally change the template to hide its appearance on category pages. Stop this nonsense now, please. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Depend

Howdy back atcha (in response to your Giday). You recently AfDed the article Depend; it appeared that your main objection was the use of a common English word as the article title. The article has now been retitled to Depend undergarment. Also, the article has been completely rewritten to eliminate its promotional tone. Given all that has happened, I wondered if you might want to take another look at the discussion and see what you now recommend. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

• Special report: Wikimedia and the "seismic shift" towards open-access research publication

• News and notes: Finance debate drags on as editor survey finds Wikipedia too bureaucratic

• WikiProject report: Welcome to Wikipedia with a cup of tea and all your questions answered - at the Teahouse

• Featured content: Featured content is red hot this week

• Arbitration report: R&I Review closed, Rich Farmbrough near closure

• Technology report: Cross-wiki watchlist controversy; and is "go file a bug" really a useful response?

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Category:North East England. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Wikipedia:Categorization clearly states "it is helpful – to both readers and editors – to include a description of the category, indicating what pages it contains, how they should be subcategorized, and so on." Your refusal to discuss this at the categorization talk page is noted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Category:Information technology, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Per ongoing discussion about your arbitrary actions at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Use_of_Category:Categories_requiring_diffusion Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User talk:Shawn in Montreal, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012 block

I have blocked you for 31 hours. Attacking other editors is not acceptable, nor is engaging in "vandalistic" attacks, like this one. Our guidelines and "rules", so to speak, apply to you as well as everyone else, so please try to work within consensus in the future. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A side point

This issue is not why you were blocked, but it is a recurring issue that I don't think I have mentioned to you before. This time is as good as any——it is not appropriate to manually empty a category and then immediately nominate it for deletion based on the category being empty, as you did here, for instance: [1], [2]. A category should be tagged as empty under C1 only when it has been empty for a minimum of four consecutive days. If you want to nominate the category for deletion, that can be done immediately. I have observed you do this a number of times, but it shouldn't be done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Samuel Gitler

Hi, re this edit, wouldn't it have made more sense to correct the curly brackets to square brackets rather than simply removing the incorrect transclusion? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• If the mathematician was described as a topologist in the article that would have made sense, but that wasn't the case. A variety of other reasons led to my decision to remove the incorrectly assigned and coded category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012

• From the editor: New editor-in-chief

• News and notes: Two new Wikimedia fellows to boost strategies for tackling major issues

• WikiProject report: Trouble in a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

• Featured content: Lemurbaby moves it with Madagascar: Featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: No open arbitration cases pending

• Technology report: On the indestructibility of Wikimedia content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Theorem

I believe that your edit [3] changed the reference style of Theorem; the rule per WP:CITEVAR is that the established style should not be unilaterally changed. There is no convention or style guideline that two columns of references must be used; one column is a perfectly acceptable style, and was the style with which the article was established. Given that I have disagreed with your change, the rule is that "if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor". — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in my edit summary I omitted the point the WP:CITEVAR is for the ref style in the body of an article rather than how they are displayed in the ref list. I think WP:CITEVAR is outdated. Consistent style is better than a "first in, first served" basis. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

CITEVAR applies both the the citations in the body and the way they are shown at the end. In particular it applied to changing the number of columns that the references are formatted with. Regardless whether you think it is outdated, it is the consensus-based rule that we follow. You could discuss removing that rule at WT:CITE, but as it stands uniformity of referencing from one article to another is not a goal that we aim for, we only aim for consistency within each article.

I view your edit as a bold change; I am going to revert it per BRD, and you are free to seek consensus on the talk page. There is certainly no style guide that requires a certain number of columns for references, and thus no rule that you can refer to in order to justify the change as a matter of convention. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I am looking at the Manual of Style and WP:CITE as we speak type. All the new and well maintained article use a two or three column layout. This has highlighted another case where guidelines do not match convention. Having prescriptive guidelines avoids any disagreement on contentious. edits. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

If we had a prescriptive guideline of that sort, I would follow it. The guideline that we do have is prescriptive in a different way, it says that the style originally established should be used in case of disagreement. The motivation behind CITEVAR, like ENGVAR, is that there is no "right" answer that is best for every article, and so as a project we do not try to have consistency between different articles. Of course consensus about the lack of a house style could change, but this choice not to have one has been the rule for some time and as such is quite deeply established. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Poster at Help:Help desk

You have a poster at Help:Help desk. I'm not sure what the plans are for that page and whether to remove, ignore or answer questions there so I will leave it to you. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is a draft that is on the back-burner and it was not even plumbed into the rest of WP. I'll see what I can do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI

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. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I see you're repeating the same behavior for which you were previously blocked. I suggest that you restore the category diffusion templates to all the categories from which you removed them, before making any other edits to categories. Otherwise, I will suggest (at WP:AN) that you be banned from editing categories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the spirit, Arthur. Always threaten the editors who are actually improving the encyclopedia with a ban. What would we do without you? Oh, that's right, we would have a more accurate, more usable site. Carry on... Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Those editors who do not understand why their <redacted> actions do not improve the encyclopedia, after it's explained to them, are exactly the ones who need to be blocked. You are often in that category, yourself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You are speaking of yourself and your own actions, Arthur. After all you can't provide a single example supporting your allegation. Your extreme POV is once again interfering with your judgement. Tell me, Arthur, which articles are you currently working on and improving? Think long and hard about that one, Arthur. What is it you do here again? Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Michigan Kid has been stopped, I've been primarily removing vandalism and people writing articles about themselves, and removing violations of WP:RY and WP:NUMBERS. Unfortunately, that's a full-time job. <redacted personal attack against V, even though justified>. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Michigan Kid, you say? Tell me, Arthur, which topic area did you find the Michigan Kid writing in, primarily? And Alan Liefting? And, what about me, Arthur? In what topic area did we primarily interact? Starting to see a pattern, Arthur? I know you love numbers, so feel free to explain that pattern, because I think it says more about your editing habits here. If I'm not making myself clear, then I'm sure you can extrapolate. Viriditas (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur, you are spectacularly unhelpful in so many of your edits. You target anons and teasers, and feed them in such a way that they grow with the modelling and energy you provide, and then mirror you with the same obsessive and unhelpful behaviours. This would be harmless enough if you didn't bring these frivolous wars into the article mainspace, where content editors try to work. For example, on planetary boundaries you appear to be a principal author, with 114 edits, most not marked as minor. In fact you were merely crawling all over the article in pursuit of a basically harmless anon who I could have accommodated quite easily myself in two or three minor edits. In this and other ways, you obstructed, in the most absurd manner, every effort I made to write that article. Now I see you suggesting blocks on Virididas. The Wikipedia administration structure seems dedicated to the arbitrary destruction of content editors, so perhaps your behaviour is exemplary as an administrator here. The Wikipedia tradition seems to favour clowns as administrators, who flounce about performing dramahatic productions, generally obstructing editors attempting to write the encyclopedia. I know royal courts in the past appointed clowns to entertain the court. But the standard of entertainment set by such administrators here is not not up to standard. In fact it's not entertainment at all, it's abuse. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

"The wolves were circling with more arriving after smelling the blood from the older wikimale, injured after being attacked by the pack," whispered David Attenborough in his distinctive English accented voice. "Soon the wikimale will leave for good, as has happened with his kin so many times before. Sadly, they are on their way towards extinction, the toxic atmosphere of the wikiecosystem also attributing to their decline". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

More or less, yes. But put all that crap aside for the moment. The real, underlying issue here is how we use categories, and that discussion needs to happen. Speaking only for myself, I was a heavy category user who navigated categories for information on a daily basis until User:Hmains began his ridiculous "refine cat" campaign, which IMO, destroyed the hierarchies on every level. Since that time, I do not use them anymore, and many other editors (while not blaming or naming Hmains) have said that they have stopped using them as well. So, as far as reader navigation goes, I am sorry to say that the category system in place right now is no longer conducive to human use. However, it may be very helpful to bots, and I suspect that it is currently used more by non-humans. For me, this is the (H)main(s) problem; in other words, the categories have become unusable for readers, and your arguments for removing the ridiculous templates and other category-cruft are spot on. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do a lot of work on the categories but I did not chance across the "refine cat" campaign. Can you point me at some links or something? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That's Hmains' edit summary and rationale for diffusing categories. What's behind this is an obsessive, compulsive need to "rid" Wikipedia of any duplicate articles that appear in more than one category (parent or child) and this contravenes our most basic guidelines on categorization. The fact of the matter is, the people who are most active on categorization have no plan or goal in mind. The questions still need to be asked: what are categories for, how do we use categories, and how can they help readers? As I said above, I suspect that more bots are using categories than readers, so that fact alone tells you that there is no need for category templates. If their sole argument is "because it tells editors to help diffuse the category" then they aren't paying attention. The only editors we want doing that are people working on categorization or specific, topic-related project members. In that case, there's no need for a template, because we can identify such categories with a hidden cat, and then notify a maintenance or project page requesting help. Their arguments for keeping such templates ignores the fact that most people don't use categories. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:

I pressed the wrong button... I though I explained in my revert of it, but I was on my iPod and it places the 'undo' button under the 'Rollback vandalism' button. I didn't mean to do it and reverted it per rollback policy. Sorry for the confusion. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• No sweat. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

George Gardiner (politician)

Where is the discussion that led to the removal of the "find an image" placeholder? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Here. Seems like a good idea to me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012

• News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation endorses open-access petition to the White House; pending changes RfC ends

• Recent research: Supporting interlanguage collaboration; detecting reverts; Wikipedia's discourse, semantic and leadership networks, and Google's Knowledge Graph

• WikiProject report: Experts and enthusiasts at WikiProject Geology

• Featured content: Featured content cuts the cheese

• Arbitration report: Fæ and GoodDay requests for arbitration, changes to evidence word limits

• Technology report: Developer divide wrangles; plus Wikimedia Zero, MediaWiki 1.20wmf4, and IPv6

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Uranium

Please reconsider your deletion, Rosie and I have moved it to Uranium mining in Namibia and removed most of the essay. Best solution would now be to delete the capital letter original title and close AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the night shift has been busy! The Afd is now closed and the original article name is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

rm File:Replace this image male.svg per discussion using AWB

Hey Alan, can you point me in the direction of the discussion to remove the "Replace this image male" pics. Don't have a problem with it, just interested in the discussion! Ta. Mattlore (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is over here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just after I asked that I noticed that link up in your earlier George Gardiner (politician) conversation. It looks like a conversation from 2008, so I'd be a little careful as using it as justification, especially as the conversation looked like it didn't end in a consensus. There is also a warning against using AWB to do these edits as they may be controversial. Like I said, I don't object to the changes but food for thought. Mattlore (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I was coming here with the same question (and remarks): could you, if you intend to continue with these edits, at least link to the discussion in your edit summary? Thanks. Fram (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been linking to the file which has the link. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather a user-unfriendly way of linking. Why not a direct link to the discussion you believe suppports these removals? Fram (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused why Alan wants to suddenly implement a proposal that gained some level of consensus over four years ago. And why, if he's so confident that it's what the community still wants, he doesn't request a bot to perform the changes rather than spend hour after hour making these changes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tag moving

Hi, please can you explain a couple of aspects of this edit? Specifically, the moving of the {{more footnotes}} maintenance tag and the removal of the {{clean up}} tag. I recall seeing a discussion regarding whether the latter should be binned but have no idea of the outcome. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved the footnotes tag to the references section so it is less intrusive and removed the cleanup tag because I did enough of a clean-up of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah. For India-related articles, experience tells me it is better that tags are as intrusive as possible, otherwise they almost never get improved and indeed often slide further backwards. As far as the clean up goes, yes, I noticed that you removed a lot of images etc. One of the problems with that tag is that it is pretty vague but in this instance the article probably needs to be stubbed. The tag was placed as a "shot across the bows", given discussions on the talk page and elsewhere. I may stub it later today because nothing has really improved since my efforts, other than your own, and I rather think that the major contributor has given up due to the extensive failure to comply with policy etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In my experience tags are ignored on all but the most watched pages on Wikipedia, regardless of topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Not by me, they don't! ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. You need a consensus to start summarily removing maintenance tags where they clearly still apply. Your opinion ("my experience") is entirely irrelevant. Leave the maintenance tags or cure the problems, don't just remove the tags. You should know better. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

space in line line with articles

I do not know why you added a space, but I've removed it here.Curb Chain (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I helps with sstyle and readability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't. Please do not do this as the vast majority of pages do not have this idiosyncratic formatting. If you have an issue with the style of the article please bring it up at MOS.Curb Chain (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It does. It is not a big issue so I probable won't follow it up. There are other editors that agree with my "idiosyncratic formatting." BTW, the fact that the vast majority of page do not include such spacing is not an argument to not add it. If we took that stance we would still be using CamelCase! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a MoS style issue. Bring it up on the talk page so you can determine when it should or should not be used. The majority of pages don't have it so, simply, it is inconsistent and until I see a consensus on it, the prevailing style should remain.Curb Chain (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it is not a big issue in the overall scheme of things but it does need to be looked into. Yes, it is a MoS issue but I get enough shit kicked out of me without starting a new discussion! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are concerned about inconsistency in page layout you would surely be pulling you hair out by now! A space at the bottom of a page is nothing compared to some of the random stuff that I have seen and no doubt you have also seen. A few examples:

• references
• reference column layout
• reference fonts
• ext links
• category pages
• location of the pages and subcats in category pages
• etc

I also like having consistency but trying to decide on a consistent style amongst Wikipedians is like herding cats. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your rational arguments, but a space is should not be used as it also makes the article unnecessarily long on small screens including cellphones.Curb Chain (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Category TOCs, etc.

What good reason do you have for removing helpful features such as tables of contents and category trees from large-ish Wikipedia categories? Your recent campaign to remove these features is not helping to improve the encyclopedia, and your edit comments at Category:Real estate even suggest that you are trying to make war. Please cease and desist -- all the better if you would self-revert your unconstructive edits. --Orlady (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. These are consensus supported. If you have a valid reason criticism of them, start a discussion somewhere centralized, but simply mass-removing it (particularly without an edit summary) is not acceptable. postdlf (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing TOCs is completely unnecessary. Just because you "like" it that way. I'd like to see a consensus on removing TOCs before you continue to blanket remove them with your mass edits. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I might reply once I recover from my fit of gasping disbelief. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure. Gasp away. But "your" version of Wikipedia needs people to believe in it. So far, so bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So why do I need consensus to do something that is a blindingly obvious improvement to WP? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Because, as I'm sure you know, your version of "blindingly obvious" isn't necessarily the same as everyone else. You have this weird tendency to find "something to correct" and go at it like a tramp on chips. It'd be better if you went with caution and when asked to stop or explain your actions, do so, rather than react petulantly with no regard to the project, other than your "interpretation" of what is right or wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Add me to the chorus. Alan informed me on my talk page that the cut-off for using Template:category TOC is 400 articles, which I disagree with. It makes more sense to me to use it when you have the category contents span more than one page, which is more like 200–220 in most cases. I trust there is no consensus on the professed 400-article "cut-off". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"So why do I need consensus to do something that is a blindingly obvious improvement to WP?" - At what point will it become "blindingly obvious" to you Alan that what you feel to be "blinding obvious" is actually merely your self-asserted opinion?

But to answer your question: Now. You should start seeking consensus now.

At this point, after several WP:AN/I discussions, talk page discussions and the like, your opinions on these things are clearly contrary to prior consensus. And though consensus can change, you repeatedly have had it shown to you that consensus has indeed not.

In the not so distant future, someone may suggest that you continuing these arbitrary edits, the innumerable XfDs, and the like, may be considered disruptive.

I sincerely recommend that you refrain from future WP:BOLD edits along these lines and look for future consensus. - jc37 10:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan lay battered, bruised and bleeding in his own wikihome, weakened to such an extent that he was unable make even a single click of the mouse button. He had strayed into a wikihood inhabited by wikicrims who then followed him home and over a number of days proceeded to collectively dole out a sound thrashing. It was not the first time that it had happened, and Alans strong desire to fix Wikipedia means that it will no doubt happen time and again.

The wikigoons are unorganised but proficient in making their way around Wikipedia. They are not the Mafia or a cabal. They are a motley collection of childish editors, thugs, agitators, trolls, vandals, and others. Some are quite lucid in making their pathetic demands but others are hardly able to string together a line of wikicode. Others have been seen deleting content and doing other damage with that stereotypical goggle-eyed, drooling look of the wikivillage idiot. Some of the other editors meant well when they first settled in the wikicity but they saw the attractions of carrying out wikicrime.

The wikiethics of these crims are in complete contravention to the Five Pillars, and the goal of creating Wikipedia is of no interest to them. They have their own priorities. It is mostly of self-interest. The sense of power or having a bit of what they consider to be fun is what they want. Their anonymous usernames means they can wikioffend without fear of reprisals.

Wikipedia is no longer the Garden of Eden that it once was. Back in those halcyon days edits could be made with gay abandon, and the thrill of creating an online encyclopaedia was the ultimate and only aim. But sadly this no longer the case. As with the outside world the overpopulated wikiworld had a dark side that was slowly but surely devouring itself from the inside. The effects on Wikipedia content is beginning to show. The time taken up by admins and wikijuries and the valuable wikitime that editors wanted to use to make contributions was increasingly being taken up with unnecessary defensive actions.

Alan was one of the few a knights in shining armour in the project (many had already left), although his modesty would prevent him for seeing it that way. He would probably see it as an important volunteer job that needs doing at any cost. What kept him going was the satisfaction of a job well done, the hope that the good retired editors will return, and that a wikiarmy of good new editors will turn up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. Where in your vision laid out above do you place me? - jc37 23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no intention in making judgements of you or any other editor in this discussion. Note that it is a work of wikifiction (not my "vision") based on my wikiexperience. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

K, well, I suppose, just as we appreciate those who present their editorial bias when presenting it on their userpages (such as with userboxes), I suppose we should thank you for illustrating your personal bias (and seeming confusion concerning Wikipedia policy, such as WP:CON or even WP:AGF) through (as you call it) this "work of wikifiction ... based on [your] wikiexperience."

Though I will say that I find it a shame that with your seeming motivation to want to do positive things, that you don't seem to understand that self-asserted "truth" doesn't matter and MUST bow to consensus. I sincerely hope you eventually come to that understanding sooner than later. - jc37 00:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is so full of it. He feels victimized? I've largely resigned from here because of Liefting and his disregard for the views and work of others. And I will not diffuse categories anymore because I have no doubt that, eventually, he will wear down all resistance and blank the bloody cat diffuse template, as I know he still intends to do. After which I'd only have more work to do. So why do it? When I brought this matter to ANI, it was made clear to me that I was the problem, with one veteran editor even going so far as to say that Liefting has "Wikipedia tenure" and can basically do whatever he likes. I came to WP to create an encyclopedia, not edit at Liefting's sole discretion. Fuck it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Liefting. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Request for help concerning energy...

Hi,

I noticed your name mentioned on the Energy WikiProject page in connection with the development of energy articles.

There are a couple articles I'd like you to look at if you don't mind...

There are 2 new outlines in this area that attempt to consolidate Wikipedia's coverage of their respective subjects, gathering and organizing the articles about them into one place and including descriptions for convenience. The purposes of these outlines are to make it easier for readers to survey or review a whole subject, and to choose from Wikipedia's many articles about it.

The new energy outlines are:

• Outline of solar energy
• Outline of wind energy

Please take a look at them, and....

if you spot missing topics, add them in.

if you can, improve the descriptions.

add missing descriptions.

show parent-offspring relationships (with indents).

fix errors.

For more information about the format and functions of outlines, see Wikipedia:Outlines.

Building outlines of existing material (such as Wikipedia) is called "reverse outlining". Reverse outlines are useful as a revision tool, for identifying gaps in coverage and for spotting poor structuring.

Revising a work with multiple articles (such as Wikipedia) is a little different than revising a paper. But the general principles are the same...

As you develop these outlines, you may notice things about the articles they organize. Like what topics are not adequately covered, better ways to structure and present the material, awkward titles, articles that need splitting, article sections lacking {{Main}} links, etc.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines.

Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: see also Outline of energy

Tasmania wilderness battles

I didnt see the afd/sd - was it a long time ago or recent? SatuSuro 01:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

when? on what basis? SatuSuro 01:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The log can be seen at the deleted page: Tasmania's Wilderness Battles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

there is no log just that it was an expired prod... SatuSuro 01:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That is the log. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

did you prod it? - SatuSuro 02:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

AGF prevents any further comment SatuSuro 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, but the notability issues as stated can be determined after the fact. I was not aware of it at the time I PRODDED it but there were possible contributor copyright issues as well. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20120412 02. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

...hmmm... in view of the fact that it was probably a self promo - by buckman or one of his mates might be one thing - the lack of notability of any published book about the south west of tassie is b-s as there are so few books they are all notable - but your notion of a history of env issues in tas will never happen - there are not the interested eds around - so you are clearly howling/barking up the wrong tree on your mission SatuSuro 02:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

it would be one thing to prod an article on copyright issues - another to see it deleted - but you dont even replace references to it in the article anywhere - that is where my doubts start what you are up to - i have my copy of the book in front of me and the notability issue is truly rubbish - the gee/green/lea and buckman books actually are all significantly notable in the different angles that they take - and to get an understanding one has to actually go back to the thompson book of 1981 and then over to the hydro side books like ticklebelly tales - and even then there has not been a single author who has adequately covered the issues - each part is an important link and buckmans was - notable - SatuSuro 02:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, have a read of WP:NB. Notability of a book is not related to how few books are published about a particular topic. As for a Environmental issues in Tasmania article I am confident that such an article will eventually be created as will article for the other states of Aussie. An Environment of Tasmania should be created first given the hierarchy of the topics. The Category:Environment of Tasmania already exists.

What do you mean when you say that I did not "replace references to it in the article anywhere"? There is no connection (roughly speaking) between a book that has its own article and being used as a reference within an article. If you think the book is notable why not create an article for it, or maybe have the PROD nomination overturned. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

As SS's half of this conversation reads like a contest of the prod, I have restored the article. LadyofShalott 00:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing images from categories

What is the point of removing images of locomotives from the categor:locomotives, like you did here and on 6 other pages? WP:Categorization advises to move such files to a new subcat (e.g. Category:Images of locomotives, not to just remove them from the category without adding any other useful categorization instead. Fram (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The relevant section of WP:CAT starts with "Whenever possible and appropriate, files should be uploaded and categorized on Wikimedia Commons.". The seven or so images of locomotives that I removed categories from would be a small subset of the total and, coupled with the guidence of WP:CAT deletion seemed the best option. I quess a .g. Category:Images of locomotives is up to the rail WikiProject. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they can perhaps be uploaded, and until then, these files should be categorized here. What is the point in making them harder to find? Fram (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect uploading before uncategorising would have been better option. I have learnt something. Isn't WP so damn complicated!! Am trying to upload them now but the bots are asleep. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts.

First of all, WP policy (if such exists) is just wrong here. There's no virtue whatsoever in splitting categories by namespace - MediaWiki doesn't require this, nor benefit from it. if the category is a simple topic-based one, such as locomotives, than have Category:Locomotives and place articles, sub-categories and media files within it all together.

Secodnly, it's not an improvement to question a category over some subtle detail and to answer this by removing all categories and leaving it entirely uncategorized and adrift. These edits didn't even then tag the pages as "uncategorized", which at least would have fed them into workflow for others. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why are you (AL) still removing images from categories instead of creating an 'Images of' subcat? Clearly an image of an artwork in a particular museum should be categorised somewhere in the museum category. Oculi (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The guideline states, and I have quoted it above reads "Whenever possible and appropriate, files should be uploaded and categorized on Wikimedia Commons." While there are image categories on WP I see no need to create a new one from a small, random subset of images that I come across. If an editor or a WikiProject decides to create such a category I can live with it, although I see it as unneccessary duplication of the more extensive material at Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The image files which you removed in the link I cited above are non-free and thus cannot be placed in commons. The guideline you are fond of quoting continues: "On Wikipedia, category tags can be added to file pages, but a category generally should not mix articles and files. Instead, a separate file category should be created, typically as a subcategory of the general category about the same subject, and a subcategory of the wider category for files, Category:Wikipedia files." Oculi (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken and I will take that into account whilst editing image files. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan, suggest you stop your mass editing once again, and form some kind of discussion. If you've been asked multiple times by multiple editors to desist, then you really should. I would hate for your good work to be laid to waste by being blocked for disruptive editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• If the files are not on commons yet, I see nothing in the guidelines that suggest a prohibition on files being in a WP category. It doesn't make sense to make the files less accessible while they are on WP, as opposed to commons. In many cases, there are not enough to justify a subcategory for images, so it makes sense to simply house them in the "regular" category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the guidelines and your vision of what WP shoupd be differ to mine. Please stop the edit warring until it is sorted out. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I'm putting the images back in so that I can create image subcategories where appropriate, per the guidelines. (Not to mention that it's also establishing the status quo ante if we really are going to have a discussion to "work out" the issue.) But judging by the recent history here on your talk page, I would suggest that it looks like your view is a minority view—in fact, you seem to be the only one advancing it. That's usually a good sign that you might be on the wrong track, at least if we define "consensus" as where the right track lies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Good Ol'factory. Files such as File:Uruguay Switzerland Locator.png should not be left uncategorized unless they can be found in Commons, in their appropriate category (ideally linked from the corresponding wikipedia category). Otherwise they will be difficult to find. mgeo talk 00:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Alan Liefting has agreed above, regarding free images, "In retrospect uploading before uncategorising would have been better option", and, regarding fair use images, "Point taken and I will take that into account whilst editing image files". It is my view that (a) Free images should not be removed from categories at all until moved to Commons; (b) fair use images should be left where they are or put in a new images subcat. We all seem to agree with Good Ol'factory. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You have now removed the cat from seven images, e.g. here, despite the category being logically connected to the image, and no other content cat being used on the image. I can understand the cases where you remove mainspace cats from images only used in userspace (to avoid cluttering, self-promotion, and so on), but it makes no sense to remove correct and helpful categories from images. If you con't want these to be in the main cat, create a subcat for that cat containing only images, and move the files to that subcat. But please stop removing categories from files that are (correctly) used in the mainspace, like in these seven cases of today, and in the earlier cases discussed above. Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Images are essentially project pages rather than content so they shouldn't be "exposed" to readers in content categories. Now that Good Olfactory has added NOINDEX to Category:Ministry of Environment, Housing and Territorial Development they are even less useful in that category. Note that the images are categorised in the (admittedly rather broad) non free logo category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Images are content, expressed in visuals instead of in words. They aren't "project pages" at all, and should be exposed to readers as much as articles are. If I want information on a certain locomotive from a category, I want the words, and I want the images (and other files). I don't want the templates, the projects, etcetera, since these are backgournd, processes to help the readers and editors, but not giving any information. What is the benefit from hiding these? Fram (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure an image is content but a WP image page is not. Same goes with templates. The template is content but the template page as a standalone entity is of no use to readers. Thats why they are not categorised in content categories in the more fashionable parts of Wikipedia. Also, the images that are categorised tend to be a random selection that do the topic no justice. Category:Locomotives is case in point. It is unneeded clutter and of next to no use to readers. I am currently trying to pluck up the courage and energy to do an RFC on image categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"A random selection" being "what we have", just like it is with articles. It is not "unneeded clutter" in the opinion of most people, as evidenced by the discussion here. Please stop removing them (e.g. File:Time-magazine-cover-charles-kettering.jpg) and start the RfC. Fram (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the commons for images though? If I want photos of locomotives I look in the wiki commons..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't the commons for images though?" No, it's for free images. There are also non-free images within the broader Wikimedia scope, and we have to have ways to work with them too. If your interest is in a 1940s or 1950s topic, then you may not have many free images available to you and working with non-free images could be equally important. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Show by date

Template:Show by date has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alan, I thought you would want to know that there are several reasons not to use this template. Something about ugly articles. :D JJB 14:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012

• Special report: WikiWomenCamp: From women, for women

• News and notes: Editors want most funding for technical areas, while widespread ignorance of WMF board elections and chapters persists; voting still live on Commons best picture

• Discussion report: Watching Wikipedia change

• WikiProject report: Views of WikiProject Visual Arts

• Featured content: On the lochs

• Arbitration report: Two motions for procedural reform, three open cases, Rich Farmbrough risks block and ban

• Technology report: Report from the Berlin Hackathon

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions vs subheadings

Hi Alan, I thought I'd mention this here, rather than expecting you to read my edit summary. As part of this omnibus edit to Coffee, you changed the headings for the subsections of "Notes" to dictionary definition terms. I assume that you didn't want those subsections to appear in the TOC. However, although using the ; markup may produce a similar visual effect to you, it produces very different HTML: a <dt>...</dt> tag rather than <h3>...</h3>. That would result in an entirely inaccurate and unexpected output from a non-visual user agent, such as a screen reader. I've restored the level-3 headings in the article as I judge that the minor effect of excluding those subheadings from the TOC is outweighed by the problems caused for some readers. I hope that, on reflection, you'd be content to endorse my action. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct that the edit was to remove the lvl three headers from the TOC. I did it because that is the convention and it does nothing for the reader. It is a minor issue but it would be good to get a definitive style established on how it should look. Have a read of the "space in line line with articles" thread (currently at the top of this page. It is a similar case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no convention that I'm aware of that suggests removing level 3 headers from the TOC. Perhaps you could point me to the guidance that documents that consensus? The thread at the top is interesting in that there is a very good reason to include the {{-}} template before any navigation templates. The {{-}} markup produces <br style="clear: both;"> which is exactly what is needed to ensure that any floated elements do not intrude into the space for navboxes, etc. It does have the additional effect of keeping the last line of references or external links spaced away from navboxes. Quite useful for numerous articles, I would think. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is an unwritten convention that is used on the majority of articles. If it is not documented as a MOS guideline it should be. I added {{-}} primarily for spacing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An unwritten convention is no convention at all, so perhaps you should seek to get it added to MOS. That should be easy if it is used in the majority of articles. I can see from the debate above that you added {{-}} for the spacing, but the other editor in that thread didn't think that was a particularly good reason. As you could get the effect of a single space with a simple carriage return, he probably had a point. --RexxS (talk) 23:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

An unwritten convention is still a convention.

I am not interested in pursuing changes to the MOS for such a trivial issue.

Convention and consensus is more important than the opinions of three editors.

I did not use a carriage return because it would probably be removed by a bot or another editor. A {{-}} has more permanence. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing articles from categories

Hi Alan, I've just noticed that you've been using AWB to remove articles from animal rights categories -- that is, not placing them in another cat, just removing them. Can you say, for example, why you removed Speciesism from the AR cat (without including the removal in the edit summary)? [4] It's one of the key articles in that category. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would have removed the categories because they were not relevant. Some editors treat categories as if they are tags and place articles in irrelevant and tenuous categories. In the case of speciesism I will not quibble about the animal rights category. Speciesism is tangential to aninal right rather than a hard and fast part of a subset of animal right. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The concept of speciesism is central to the concept of animal rights, practically identical with it. Can you please restore the AR-related categories you removed? It's causing me a lot of extra work to find and restore them, and as you're not using accurate edit summaries and have made a lot of edits, I don't even know where to look. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, you've removed lot of images from categories too, which has left them uncategorized. I'd appreciate it if you would revert yourself on those too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Images only belong in image categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not correct. Uploaders can add to them to article categories if they choose, which is what I did, and I'd appreciate it if you would respect that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I will rephrase it: The convention - at least on well maintained and visited categories - is to place images in there own categories. Why can't you follow that convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You're being provocative now. [5] Alan, the bottom line is this: you can either develop a reputation on WP as someone who largely makes good edits, or as someone who wastes his own and other people's time. The choice is yours. As things stand, you're not making good choices. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not being provocative. I am trying to edit WP according to how it is conventionally done. Please make yourself familiar with convention, guidelines and other editing good practice. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I don't think you're fairly representing what a "convention" is and whether there is one in this case. Categorizing images is not a popular activity on Wikipedia—so it is true that a vast number of images on WP remain uncategorized—but it does happen, and I've seen enough of it to know that you are not correct that by convention images are only categorized into image categories. It is true that this is commonly done when there are enough images to justify it, but when there are just a handful of images, it is in line with the more general principles of categorization to include them in the applicable more general category—which in this case is a regular, non-image-specific category. You've been opposed on this point by at least half a dozen editors now—how many would it take to convince you that what you are saying is not necessarily the accepted convention? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan is a disruptive editor. He seems to specialize in deletion. Including removing categories. I suggest banning him. Category deletionists are one reason why I stopped adding categories to articles, or editing categories for articles. It is total waste of time nowadays. Especially when there is no effective content dispute resolution. Disruptive people can ignore multiple editors all while claiming their own personal conventions as real conventions. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He's not even doing it carefully; he said his intent was to remove non-image categories from images, but he's removing "images of..." categories as well.[6] postdlf (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I obviously agree: I found the whole cat diffuse thing with Leifting such a massive and pointless time-waste, such a galling disregard of consensus and the work of others, that I've dramatically scaled back my involvement until I see what if anything is ever going to be done about Leifting, who was described by one veteran editor at my failed (and sloughed off) ANI as possessing "Wikipedia tenure," and therefore beyond the reach of us mere plebes to ever do a thing about. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Free Theatre Christchurch

Hi Alan, have you ever heard of Free Theatre Christchurch? I haven't, and either I'm ignorant or that group just isn't notable. Schwede66 04:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not heard of them but I am not particularly familiar with the arts in Chch. Does not look notable. It is mainly self-reffed and the editor who created it has done no other edits apart from on that article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN

You have a number of comments that you may wish to address at the section you created at the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're back to work. Please revisit the DRN you started to provide responses where appropriate. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Giday (",)

• Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down 99.181.150.169 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Why thank you. Got the kettle on the boil as we speak. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Gliding New Zealand

Hi. Just to let you know that this article, which you WP:PRODded, has now been restored by user request. Cheers - Whouk (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to this message. I am more concerned about the process of this deletion than the article itself. It should not be possible to delete an article without contacting the creator. Incidentally the organisation covers 27 gliding clubs and schools with a combined flying membership of about 900 pilots and about 360 aircraft. JMcC (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT/Afd-mergefrom report

I see you tried to remove some of the items from the "Redirected" list at User:AnomieBOT/Afd-mergefrom report. Unfortunately that won't work, as the bot will see they're still wrong and will just add them back. You need to do one of the following instead:

1. Move the {{afd-merge from}} from the current talk page to the talk page of the article where it was actually merged. For example, you might move {{Afd-merge from|Al B|Al B|14 November 2009|date=April 2010}} from Talk:Left Behind to Talk:List of Left Behind characters.
2. Change the redirect to point to the "right" place. For example, you might change the redirect Al B to point to Left Behind rather than List of Left Behind characters.
3. Manually change the {{afd-merge from}} to {{afd-merged-from}}, if the merge was done right and then the redirect was changed to the new target or something.
4. Just remove the {{afd-merge from}} from the current talk page entirely.
5. Undo the redirecting, if the merge wasn't actually performed.

Then the bot should automatically update the table to remove the row next time it runs, or you could remove the row manually if you don't want to wait. HTH. Anomie⚔ 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was checking the redir for {{afd-merge from}} rather than the current page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This category is too long

I think the name of this category is too long: Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.)‎‎, I think it should be named Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) just like Category:Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), we have to consider that there is other Sierra Nevada in Spain: Sierra Nevada (Spain)--Noder4 (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree with the suggested change. None of the other categories and article tack "region" on the end. It is superfluous and region is not used when describing the Sierra Nevada. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I have listed it at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_12#Category:Flora_of_the_Sierra_Nevada_region_.28U.S..29 for renaming. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012

• Special report: Springer's misappropriation of Wikimedia content "the tip of the iceberg"

• News and notes: Foundation finance reformers wrestle with CoI

• WikiProject report: Counter-Vandalism Unit

• Featured content: The cake is a pi

• Arbitration report: Procedural reform enacted, Rich Farmbrough blocked, three open cases

• Technology report: To support or not to support IPv6, and why knowing when this report was last updated might be getting easier

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Alan.

I just requested that the regular closers at CfD take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Category pages. I'm hopeful that this will lead to a good project page which reflects consensus and common practice.

But that's not the reason I'm dropping this note.

I'd like to discuss categorisation of items in various namespaces with you.

From what I can tell (and please feel free to clarify), you feel that pages in a particular namespace should not be categorised with items in another namespace.

While this is clearly contrary to current common practice and guidelines, I do think I understand how this misunderstanding came about.

There has been an emerging consensus that categories which related to the maintenence of the Wikipedia project should be named to clarify that they are not categorising content. And also that categorisation of user pages are to be clarified that way as well, and further should all be subcats of Category:Wikipedians.

You seem to have taken this idea and ran with it. And for one thing, seem to have confused Wikipedia project maintence-related pages with pages in Wikipedia: namespace.

And then taking that idea to its logical conclusion, you've started to assert that pages in each namespace shouldn't be categorised with each other.

As I've mentioned recently to someone else, I'm concerned about how things are progressing.

Your attempts to find consensus at various pages and noticeboards has been against your assertions, and you continue to edit following your belief about this. That's the classic definition of disruptive editing.

So anyway, with all of the above in mind, I'd like to try to talk with you about the above. in the hopes that we can salvage the situation.

For one thing, you really have made several decent points in the various discussions, but due to your other edits/assertions, I think that they are getting ignored and dropped by the wayside.

(For example - though this is something that will likely be discussed at the MoS page - I would agree (and i thinkmost would) that usage of template:seealso and template:main and the like are indeed common practice.)

So, returning to categorisation of pages, to start off with, please clarify the above. Anywhere that you feel I may be misunderstanding, or which may need expansion/clarification, and so on.

I sincerely look forward to your thoughts on this. - jc37 14:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not making attempt to re-categorise based on the page namespace and categorisation and discussions on related guideline is to ensure that there is separation between project and content. I am here to build an encyclopaedia for The Reader and I do not treat WP as if it were facebook. WP is not a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game.

Categories have not been edited as well as articles in maintaining the project/content separation and I am trying to tidy it up. There will always be grey areas and they need discussion but patently obvious transgressions such as user pages in content categories, and unexpected and unneeded project links in content categories (a la Category:Animal rights should be able to be removed without interminable discussion.

I don't know what documentation there is on maintaining a distance between project and content but to me it is an obvious need and the vast amout of editing and current structure reflects this need. . Cluttering page up with a jumble of project and content links makes it harder for a reader to use WP. Editors often do not see the distinction and blur project and content. SlimVirgin is one of these editors. The rationale of trying to attract new editors is often given as a reason to have project links in content pages. This is a tenuous reason in my opinion. Sure, we need editors (actually we need good editors) but they will find their way in through the numerous avenues on offer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that there is an "emerging consensus that categories which related to the maintenence of the Wikipedia project named to clarify that they are not categorising content". It is not emerging - it well and truly hatched and is widely implemented.

...etc... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Before I respond to the above, a thought just occurred to me. Are you editing wikipedia using a computer or a mobile device? - jc37 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what relevance it has but I mostly use a desktop and sometimes a laptop. BTW, just to be pedantic, a mobile device (in the generally accepted usage of the term) is also a computer. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, in reading several of your comments here and elsewhere, I thought it possible you were editing from a mobile device (with a small screen), and thought maybe that might explain some of what you were saying.

Anyway, nm. I'll look at the rest of your comments in a bit (need to go get another bottle of water : ) - jc37 02:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, taking your comments point by point (And I would guess that you already know at least some of what I will be saying below, but I'll say it anyway in the hopes of not missing anything):

• "I am not making attempt to re-categorise based on the page namespace and categorisation and discussions on related guideline is to ensure that there is separation between project and content." - Well, there is some confusion somewhere here, and I hope through discussion we can discover what and where it is so that it can be resolved.

• "I am here to build an encyclopaedia for The Reader and I do not treat WP as if it were facebook. WP is not a Massively multiplayer online role-playing game. " - regardless, continuing in tendentious editing is considered disruptive. (Putting on my admin hat for a moment) Please understand that continuing to edit contrary to established consensus is a blockable offense. And continued, ongoing disruptive editing can lead to further sanction such as topic bans, namespace bans, or even full site ban. (removes admin hat) - I find this eventuality one which I'd like to see avoided for you. As I noted to GO, I think you're a well-meaning editor, and would prefer you still around : )

• "Categories have not been edited as well as articles in maintaining the project/content separation and I am trying to tidy it up." - Well, actually, categories (not unlike the rest of Wikipedia) have been in a varied but constant state of growth. What was necessary in the past due to technical restrictions have in some cases been dealt with in the software. But categoires are still a rather basic grouping system. I think wanting to "tidy up" the pages is a nice goal, but I don't think page austerity is in the readers' (or editors') best interest. I was involved in the ambox discussions, and one thing (out of many) that was agreed was that there is a balance between being as informative as possible, and the "wallpapering effect". It's what has led to combining several of the banner templates. So less can be more, but austerity is bad.

• "There will always be grey areas and they need discussion but patently obvious transgressions such as user pages in content categories, and unexpected and unneeded project links in content categories (a la Category:Animal rights should be able to be removed without interminable discussion." - No actually. content of category pages is (mostly) a style issue. And there is no bold edit concerning style that should be immune to discussion. None. WP:BRD, among other things, applies. This is, by the way, one of the big things that's getting you into difficulties. bold edits are trumped by consensus almost always (WP:BLP issues and other such arbcomm or foundation rulings being the only exceptions). I understand that you want certain things done, but the way forward is to convince others through discussion, else (as noted above) you'll be considered disruptive, etc.

• "I don't know what documentation there is on maintaining a distance between project and content but to me it is an obvious need and the vast amout of editing and current structure reflects this need. . Cluttering page up with a jumble of project and content links makes it harder for a reader to use WP. Editors often do not see the distinction and blur project and content." - Just remember that not everyone sees things as you do, and it through consensus that stability for the encyclopedia is gained. You've made similar comments to this one, and it is part of why I thought maybe asking other editors well-versed and experienced in consensus in relation to categories to please help editing the proposed MoS page might be a possible (and hopefully less confrontational) way forward. I'm happy to see that some have already come to discuss and help. (And thank you for inviting postdlf, definitely an oversight on my part.)

• "SlimVirgin is one of these editors." - I would hesitate to make that assumption/assertion. Silmvirgin has been a Wikipedia editor a very long time, and I have no doubt knows the ins and outs of policy better than you, I, and many others combined. Now of course that doesn't make her interpretation necessarily any more "right" than anyone else's. And (being human) that doesn't mean she's can't be mistaken or make mistakes (intentional or unintentional), or even have her own preferences on "how things should be done", just as you do. Which means that if you come to a discussion with SV, you should be well prepared to reference and source whatever assertion you're making. Just self-asserting your POV typically won't cut it with other experienced editors. And (for the most part) that's what you've been doing. If you want to gain more traction, show how and why your suggested version of something is better. don't just say IWANTIT, ILIKEIT, ITSOBVIOUSTOME, ITSHOULDBETHISWAY, etc. Editors are going to disagree. That's life on Wikipedia. the best you can do is make your case, and then discuss to clarify. One thing to keep in mind is that thius being a typewritten format of communication is that not everyone will read your words and immediately understand the concepts you're trying to convey, so be prepared to explain, re-explain, and explain again. (clarify, clarify, clarify : )

• "The rationale of trying to attract new editors is often given as a reason to have project links in content pages. This is a tenuous reason in my opinion. Sure, we need editors (actually we need good editors) but they will find their way in through the numerous avenues on offer" - categories are about navigation. And one of our goals (indisputable goals) is to make sure in designing the navigation that it should be as clear and helpful to editors (new and not-so-new) as possible. And yes one of the goals is to try to attract editors to Wikiprojects. they are a well establsihed method for gettiing people to discuss and collaborate and find consensus. Are they perfect? no, far from it, but in many cases they are rather effective.

In the above i've tried to steer clear of the substance of the discussion you're having with SV and others, and more trying to offer more general suggestions. And obviously I welcome your further thoughts on the above. I'm happy to discuss any of it. I hope this helps. - jc37 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)