Jump to content

User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

1983 in the environment

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of 1983 in the environment, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.wordiq.com/definition/The_Commonwealth_v_Tasmania.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

False positive. Mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Koletsou School of English

Hi Alan. I've declined the PROD on this because it's already been PRODded once before. Feel free to take it to WP:AfD. Cheers, Whouk (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Lists of reptiles in the United States

I nominated Category:Lists of reptiles in the United States under deletion under CSD C1 after finding it with a malformed AfD tag on it. Wanted to let you know as its creator in case you wanted to populate it. Monty845 20:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawal

As you've withdrawn your nomination for deletion, for the good order would you also remove the nomination tag on Category:Superfund sites in New Jersey. Thanks Djflem (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't do that. We have to wait for an admin to close the Afd. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

RX

Responded to your request at WP:RX. Regards, Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Five pillars?

Of interest per, "the Revert" along with Special:Contributions/User:Fat&Happy and apparent Wikipedia:MEAT User:Vsmith are avoiding the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle on [1] Talk:Religion and environmentalism and [2] Talk:Christianity and environmentalism. Is this a failure of the Wikipedia process? 99.181.151.68 (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012

Hidden category: stub cat

Hi, what was your reasoning for hiding Category:Environment stubs? Stub cats are not normally hidden: in fact, this is the first time that I've seen it actually being done. A recent discussion on that very matter (to which you were party) closed with consensus to "keep visible, i.e. do not hide". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn! you noticed. Looks like I can't hide anything on this wiki. It is my preference that stub cats are hidden, and since there is no consensus either way it is a valid edit (I would not call the discussion that you quote a clear consensus). Feel free to revert if you wish. It is not worth quibbling about when looking at The Big Picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Alan Liefting, if you disagree with a discussion close, you discuss this with the closing admin or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. You don't just ignore the result and continue with edits that go against the decision. Such editing is considered disruptive. Fram (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
But you cannot call the edit in question disruptive could you? And the discussion the you linked to is hardly indicative of the community is it? And it was not a clear consensus either. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Why wouldn't I be able to call that edit disruptive? It was, but we are hardly going to take action based on a single edit. And the discussion represents a recent community consensus, if you disagree with it you should take it up with the closer or via dispute resolution. It is not up to you to decide that a certain discussion and decision wasn't valid or correct. Fram (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Tell me, what is it are you here on WP for Fram? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Building and maintaining the best encyclopedia possible for our readers. You? Fram (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The same. And removing placeholder images is a small step in that direction IMO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with this topic... Fram (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
True, but I was just sounding you out. Not something I usually do BTW. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop until you have a clear consensus

I notice that you are again removing File:Replace this image male.svg from hundreds of pages, despite the lack of consensus for this removal. This was discussed in User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 16#rm File:Replace this image male.svg per discussion using AWB, where the lack of said consensus was pointed out. I also asked you there to link (in the edit summaries) to the discussion you believe supports these removals, but you haven't done this. I also don't believe that there is consensus for the replacement of "references" with "reflist" (or that this is a standard AWB replacement), but feel free to correct me and indicate the consensus or the place where this is done in AWB.

Please stop with these mass removals until there is a clear consensus for them. Fram (talk) 12:30, 19 June 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. This concerns the above issue.  Sandstein  06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Alan, thank you for stopping the removals while the WP:AN/I thread was underway. Also, please note that I have created WP:IPH, which is a shortcut link to the consensus for removal. You may wish to include this shortcut in your edit summaries when you resume removals. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you still don't link to the discussion in your edit summaries, despite the requests to do so? This doesn't seem to be so hard to implement. And can you please show me the consensus to replace "references/" with "reflist" (like I already asked above), like you did e.g. here? Both are accepted and working methods, and in general, the Wikipedia rule is that we don't swap one acceptable method or style to another one without a good reason (a clear improvement). Fram (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

For all clarity, if you would just follow these (rather simple) requests, I have no problem with you continuing the task, according to the ANI discussion. Fram (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Fram, Alan stopped the removals once the WP:AN/I discussion began. You've not given him an opportunity since that moment to modify the edit summaries. I'm confident the WP:IPH shortcut I noted above will be added to the edit summaries once he resumes removals. Please be patient. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • He didn't change the edit summaries after the first request to do so (end of May), nor after the second one (the 19th, first post in this thread). He has had the opportunity to modify them between the start of this thread and the time he stopped making these edits. No ANI shouldn't have been needed to change these. Fram (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • And until I posted the notice about the existence of WP:IPH (which I created just yesterday), he hasn't had an opportunity to add it. Please, please, please, have some patience. Further, even if he doesn't comply with my request or yours, there's nothing actionable in any respect. He is already linking to the image which contains references to the discussion. That's plenty sufficient. Please, leave it alone. The obvious consensus is for him to continue these edits (though, Alan, I would wait until the AN/I thread concludes), and no one there is asking him to change his edit summary, just you and I. He's doing nothing wrong in the removals. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • And he couldn't have added a link before you created the handy shortcut? Strange... And at least one other user had problems finding the discussion he used as justification for these removals as well, please see the May 31 discussion I linked in my OP. If you are making hundreds of edits based on a discussion, and a number of people have trouble finding exactly which discussion is meant, then adding the link is a very small effort (just once, in AWB). Fram (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Addendum: note that in the ANI discussion, Sandstein notes "He uses the edit summary "rm image per discussion. See File:Replace this image male.svg", but I can find no discussion about this." and on 29 May (a post you linked to at ANI), Orange Mike asked "Where is the discussion that led to the removal of the "find an image" placeholder?". ~So it's not really for "just you and I" that he should be changing the edit summary. Fram (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
          • And in the 29 May discussion he rapidly pointed it out. Fram, there's nothing to this. He's not doing anything wrong. Just be patient. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
            • You obviously don't get it, so I'll try to spell it out once more. If different people indicate that a "discussion" you refer to in hundreds of edit summaries is not obvious to find, then the right solution is not only to reply to them individually, but to change the edit summary to include a link to that discussion, as was suggested some three weeks ago. Communication is crucial on a collaborative project like this one, and when it becomes obvious that some piece of communication isn't working well enough (like here), then editors are expected to change this, certainly when it affects hundreds of articles and may be or turns out to be somewhat controversial (as should have been obvious after the May 31 discussion, where different people objected). Can you indicate why asking for something on May 31, and asking it again on June 19, isn't patient enough? Should I wait until the task is finished? Fram (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Fram, you're right, I obviously don't get it. What I do get is that I have politely asked you several times now to stop. I fail to understand how this message is unclear. What is clear is that Alan has wide consensus to continue what he was doing. I fully expect that he will continue the removals once the WP:AN/I thread concludes. When he does, if he uses the edit summary he has been using there will be nothing actionable. If you think there is, then bring it up at WP:AN/I now, before the thread concludes. I recommend a new sub thread of the current discussion. Alan is under no requirement to do what you request of him nor what I requested of him. If you don't like that, take it to WP:AN/I. We're done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I have already indicated that "if you would just follow these (rather simple) requests, I have no problem with you continuing the task, according to the ANI discussion." The ANI discussion was not about the edit summaries, and I don't see what your problem with my request is, or what reason he could have not to follow it. If I do take it to ANI, it will only be after he started again though, not now, as that would be impatient. As for your repeated requests to stop: I have not asked anything from him since your "first" request to stop, so it's very unclear what I am supposed to stop. I have had a discussion with you, not with him, wher you have raised different wrong arguments which I then had to refute. All rather pointless, obviously, which makes one wonder what your actual purpose was with this. It certainly wasn't helpful in any way. Fram (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you think his edit summaries are a problem, please start a sub-thread at WP:AN/I. As to my "actual purpose", please do not attribute hidden agendas. I am (here) what I type. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I will give a lengthy reply to this whole sorry saga at WP:ANI. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:The Planet 2006 film.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Planet 2006 film.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) 12:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Christian music

You were bold in removing some cats at Saint Thomas Christian music. I reverted because I did not understand them (you used the automated HotCat edit summary, so I do realise that issue). You have now reverted me with a manual edit summary that I still consider to be obscure, Please can you self-revert and discuss? You may be right, but convince me ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary the article is about music rather than communities. It therefore should not have categories relating to communities. Categories are black and white/yeas and no and so articles should only have categories that have a strong connection with the topic. Have a read of WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
So why have you left some in there? Actually, forget it. I am going to raise the issue on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean Category:Kerala society? I wavered on that one. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I have mentioned the issues at Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christian_music#Categorisation, mainly because these STC articles are proving to be a nightmare of edit wars and so it is probably best to resolve the issue now before it turns into yet another prolonged game of ping-pong. You are probably correct but you may not be aware of just how much fighting goes on over (seemingly) the most trivial points, an example at Saint Thomas Christians being acres of space devoted to whether the word "communal" should be dropped because it has political overtones. I am not great on category-related work, btw. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The WP:AN/I Barnstar
The WP:AN/I Barnstar is hereby awarded for having a thread about you on WP:AN/I reach #1 on the table of contents, while being exonerated of any wrongdoing (or, at least, there being no consensus you did something wrong). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

(To the easily offended who read this; humor people, humor. It's that thing that causes you to laugh.)

Thanks a lot for that. Whew! What an epic thread that was! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Giday to you too :)

The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
I really like your style,
the way you get things done...
quietly, surely, and prolifically, omg! :)
Penyulap ☏25 Jun 2012 (UTC)_
Gosh! Thank you! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
You're most welcome. Brilliant work ! Penyulap ☏ 00:58, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

1982 in the environment

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of 1982 in the environment, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Category:1982 in the environment. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 01:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

False positive. Different namespaces. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012

Sandbox

Hello, just wondering why you would remove that sandbox when it was created so that I could re-structure the page without completely disrupting the original?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The page was showing up in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
So to reinstate it I would need to remove the categories?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Or comment them out, or put a ":" in the category link like this: [[:Category:Science]]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Your behavior

Your prolific activity deleting content on wikipedia has already been questioned. You were lucky to escape being banned here. That was just last week, still it didn't apparently alter your rapid, short-sighted deletionist activity. I doubt you will listen to my words either, but I have to try: Stop. Spend a little time researching and helping the project, rather than laying a destructive swath across anything you touch. I do take it personally that you attack a category I have contributed heavily to. If you have an issue with a title, deletion is not the solution. Our titles here are called EDITORS. Suggest a better title for the category. But this is a wholesale complaint.

Directly above that in the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 26, you are also attacking another category Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract players which I am also somewhat informed about. Obviously more informed about it than you. You think its a useless, marginally populated category. You did no research. You didn't try. I invite you to look at my pointed comments in the CfD. If you had done even the simplest google search you could have found content to solve the issue you complained about. There would be no reason for the fate of the category to be held in the balance because of your proposal for deletion. Now that you have placed the category on the chopping block, I had to follow your attack and do the work for you. I have now clearly proven the category is valid. You were wrong.

The issue is; you cannot possibly be giving each of your attacks the due consideration they deserve. You know when you toss things into consideration for deletion, the odds are the discussion and decision will only involve a handful of back-room editors. Most editors, much less the members of the general public, don't have the knowledge or the time to spend chasing after just your one person path of destruction through those obscure places. I don't usually prowl those corridors unless I need to, like when contents I contribute gets attacked. Do not suggest that this process gets due consideration. You know it does not. And yet you repeat this destructiveness over and over. It would take a crew of people just to follow you alone to fix the damage you do to wikipedia. And your damage leaves a prejudicial residue that effectively lasts forever if another person does come along and try to correct for something you successfully got deleted. There is just no other solution than for you to change your behavior. Stop. Trackinfo (talk) 11:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Trackinfo, you are completely out of line. A person does not need to be thoroughly knowledgeable of a subject in order to make additions, deletions, recommendations, or any other editorial action. If a deletion has merit, it will hold up on consensus. If it doesn't, it won't. You do not own anything here. If you do not want your writing to be edited, deleted, or rephrased at will, then do not submit it here. Describing placing a category for deletion as "an attack" is a gross overstatement. The solution you appear to be advocating is to shut down all XfD processes since these constitute "attacks". You may wish to consider the wise words of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry when he said "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Lastly, the claim that he was somehow lucky to escape being banned at the recent WP:AN/I is false on the face of it. Alan never faced banning. Sandstein inappropriately threatened a block, not a ban, and no consensus was found that Alan's actions were in any way improper. It isn't about luck. It's about consensus. Being a deletionist or inclusionist on Wikipedia is not a sin. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Except Alan has a long history of inappropriate deletions and has been brought to ANI for them time and again. I first ran across him when he was on his book prodding spree and he prodded an article I had created, Will Grayson, Will Grayson, whose references haven't changed since then. It took a group of us to comb through the past ten pages of his contributions history and remove most of the prods. In turn, he often then just listed them for deletion, but I only know of 1 book that was actually deleted in the end. Thus, he had around a 90% fail rate, if not higher, on his prodding, and that is completely inappropriate. And i've seen no evidence that he has improved in his deletion activities since then. SilverserenC 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So that is why your comments about me tend to be disparaging. Please assume good faith, please do not make assumptions and please do not bring our human frailties into the Wikiworld. And if you did some some quantitative research on my use of PROD nominations you will find that your perception is not borne out by reality. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • So you're saying your mass prodding has improved since the book prods and that you now put the titles and names into, say, Google News before adding a prod to check for notability? Because i'm thinking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Place right now, where all you have to do is click that news button right there and you'll find a first page full of reviews from major newspapers. SilverserenC 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please do some research on my editing behaviour before making pointed accusations. Can you back up you claim that I carry out "mass prodding" (whatever that may be)? You should also realise that notability guidelines are subjective and not necessarily a reflection of the community for every single article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussion results in deletion. The intent is to make content within wikipedia, mine or anybody else's vulnerable. I might not use the proper wiki-jargon all the time, however the point should be clear. When total annihilation of a block of content is being considered, the BEST word one can use is "attack." Nobody can possibly argue (though you do) that the handful of participants involved in these consensus' can possibly represent the wide variety of opinions of wikipedia editors. You are an extreme minority. And your individual "discussions" are buried by sheer volume, disenfranchising the vast majority of people even if they knew about them and were interested to comment. To ignore this fact of wikipedia life is the ultimate in stupidity. We are all not stupid people here. In theory, we are here to help people learn.
Deletion alone is not a bad thing. I welcome corrections to content I have made. That is the way of life on wikipedia. And there are a host of idiots out there who will put up absolute junk, from vandals to POV pushers, from egotists to attack dogs. I spend a lot of my time reviewing edits to a couple thousand articles I watch. If you wish to call that taking ownership, well yes I try very hard to make sure what is posted for the public to see is accurate and responsibly presented. I know what I know, I research what is outside my knowledge, in fact, I research to source what I think I know. Research. I only had a cursory understanding of the contract players system until I researched it. By the sheer volume, much less the obvious failure to do the same simple research I did, I am accusing this editor of not being responsible for his edits. His path of destruction ranges across such a wide variety of topics he should get Slumdog Millionair-like accusations but exponentially because his work goes beyond just a few trivia questions. His work is obviously unresearched, hap-hazzard and in the cases of subjects I have researched, WRONG! The phrase I keep coming back to is the legal term of Due diligence. Slow down, research, evaluate your targets so the work you do has meaning and value. Trackinfo (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trackinfo, firstly it was not clear which category you were referring to in the first part of your diatribe but it appears to be Category:American high school record holders. I came across this one and the all the others I subsequently put up for discussion when doing routine maintenance on pages listed at one of the many Wikipedia:Database reports. They were flagged because they were uncategorised categories.

I put Category:American high school record holders up for discussion because I considered it to be too broad per WP:CAT. Renaming may be an option but I made a judgement call for deletion. Lets see how the discussion pans out on this one.

As for Category:Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer contract players I put it up for deletion since it was not in a parent category and it only had two or three member articles. To me that was enough data to suggest that it was an orphan that was created without due consideration of the WP categorisation system. It has since been populated and categorised. This raises the the question that I often ask: should the burden of proof for retention of WP pages be place on the page creator? My answer to that is a resounding yes. There is too much vandalism and mischievous edits and good faith bad edits to waste time chasing up this sort of stuff.

Finally, you are one of a very small number of editors who vociferously questions my editing. That would be fine if there was a basis for it but given the outcomes of the resulting discussions it seems that I have the consensus of the community on my side. I am not saying that I am always "right" but I don't like being attacked if there is no basis for it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft, thanks again for your input. You say that a "person does not need to be thoroughly knowledgeable of a subject in order to make additions, deletions ...". I may be misreading this or taking it out of context but when working on content I make sure that I am thoroughly versed in the topic. I want WP to be accurate so adding misinformation or omitting important information is anathema to me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

Alan, given the inaccurate representations above, I recommend you begin keeping track of prods, speedies, and XfDs that you make. I strongly suspect you are going to come under concerted efforts to have sanctions placed on you. The best antidote is proof. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and the vote of confidence but are you sure that they are inaccurate representations? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Australian magpies in New Zealand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pest (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

[Category:Princes of Seborga]

Hello. This is just a polite notice, asking you to inform the creator of a page if you tag it for deletion. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I normally do but I did a batch of categories from Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories that were easier to do with WP:AWB and informing the page creators was not easily done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Giday again Alan,

I didn't notice the nice picture on your page before, with the message of reflection beneath it. It reminded me of another talkpage I came across with this picture on it, and links to some quiz. Both make me reflect on what writing means to me, I was thinking about it a lot lately. How sweet it is to simply write. Although for me, at the moment, I'm into pictures, movies, animations, all that visual stuff. I just worked out how to set about mastering 3D modelling, which I know nothing about, but if you ask me in another 12 months I should have come as far as I have with images in as much time. I want to draw the Chinese space station but this time in 3D motion picture, true to life, make readers confused thinking that it is real and in orbit until they read the text and see it's cinematic :) lolz. Mislead the reader. Yeah, like a great movie. I love that. It seems lately I have had no time at all to do what I love to do, to simply tell stories, to entrance the reader and myself in the telling, I enjoy taking time out to learn this 3D software so I can do something cool. There are a million other things to do, and real life is creeping upon me with it's demands pressing in more and more, I have to learn more code, new tasks for my bot, so much to do. So little time. I just thought to comment and say, hey, I like that picture, and the spirit it evokes. Strange place to find it though, like, on what is meant to be a place people could actually write something. shrug. Penyulap ☏ 23:55, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

You've got mail. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing mainspace cats from non-mainspace pages

Wouldn't it be better if you "neutralised" the cats by adding a ":" before "Category", instead of simply removing them? Something like this, this or this is not the best method of improving the article for creation or sandbox versions while at the same time removing the non-article from the mainspace category (which in itself is good). Fram (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Because it's harmless to have the categories which are intended to be used there if they have the colon before them. Deleting them entirely is harmful because people have put work into determining which categories these sandbox articles should be in when they are moved to the mainspace. Your edits in this nature are unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
You (Alan) might have a point in user pages, but AfC pages are supposed to have the categories indicated, so you should not remove them. It's always better to neutralize ([[:Category:Foo]]) or quote (<nowiki>[[Category:Foo]]</nowiki>) rather than to remove categories from non-mainspace pages which may be moved to mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
All I can say is: cost benefit analysis. Wikitime is precious so I don't waste it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you do waste it. Perhaps not yours, but the wikitime of other people. Reactivating categories is much easier and faster than having to go through the history to find a version pre your edits and get the cats from there. Fram (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Take it to WP:ANI and then you can waste a lot more time... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be reasonable to say that it's your duty as a WikiGnome to restore those categories as quoted. If you remove a category one more time on an AfC page or draft page in userspace, I will block you, since you know it's wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Then, I'd take it to ANI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems he doesn't really agree with this: [3][4][5][6] Fram (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand why you think your time is more precious than the time of editors who have carefully considered which categories they may wish to use before moving articles into the mainspace. You are undoing their work when you could just add a colon. Is it because it slows down your mass semi-automated edit rate and reduces the speed with which you rack up edits? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan, just add the colons. Doing so is a courtesy, and you should do it once you've been asked to by multiple editors (if nothing else do it as a sign of good faith that you want to have good relations with other users on WP—due to repeated events in the past months, I think you probably are on relatively thin ice behaviour-wise...). If you don't want to do this, then just don't work on removing these categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for see above. Making work for otherwise contributing editors.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The ANI discussion about the block can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:Alan Liefting again. Fram (talk) 10:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify that, whether or not I'm logged in, I have absolutely no objection to an unblock if Alan agrees not to do this again and to fix any previous edits that he's done, or if a frequently running bot is written to fix these edits properly, and create a log file when it can't. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I've done my best to fix all the erroneous edits that Alan has made in the above cases in the past few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, that was all I could find in the past 1000 or so edits Alan has made in the last couple of days with AWB and HotCat. Of course, there may be other instances, but as Alan himself asserts, time on Wikipedia is precious and really he should clear up his own mistakes, not deliberately go on making them after being asked to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

While the editing that I did prior to being blocked (which was also the reason for the block) appeared to be disruptive, petty and provocative, I did them to highlight the fact blocking as punitive action is completely inappropriate to deal with the matter in hand. It is a case of using a sledgehammer to crack a sunflower seed, to rephrase the saying. Also, I carried out the edits to highlight the fact that there is a small group of editors who hound me while I attempt to improve Wikipedia. Arthur Rubin and I do not see eye to eye, and to me it seem that he blocked me based on a knee jerk emotive reaction rather than rationality. It seems that "bad blood" clouds the judgement of some of the editors who turn up on my talk page with monotonous regularity.

Or have I got it all wrong? That, of course, is for the wider community to decide.

We, as editors, should leave the human frailty of negative emotive responses for the real world rather than bringing them into the wikiworld.

BTW I did not realise that I could edit my talk page while blocked! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No point lifting a block that will expire soon anyway. Furthermore, I don't see this block as punitive, rather it appears you were blocked to prevent deliberate disruption to which you admitted — which, due to the unrepentant nature of your request, suggests that an extension of this block may be necessary to prevent further disruption. That's really up to you. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I have a dilemma. I want to fix Wikipedia but cannot do so if blocked. When, and if, I am unblocked I have every intention of doing the very things for which I was blocked in order to improve Wikipedia. So I will probably get blocked again. It is ridiculous! I can see why editors are leaving. I can see why the backlog is not going away. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

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

So you deliberately disrupted Wikipedia to make a point, is that what you're saying? You were happy to ignore all the advice and pleas for you to stop your mass semi-automated edits to prove a point? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Wait, hold on a second. You went off and did a small spree of disruptive editing, and then didn't stop when asked...to make a point about how blocking you was the wrong call? Whether or not Arthur Rubin was the right person to block you today, and I haven't really looked into whether that was problematic or not, might I suggest that an unblock request saying "Yeah, I totally disrupted the encyclopedia and made more work for people, because I wanted to make a point!" isn't likely to get all that much traction? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Something here reminds me of Monty Python's Life of Brian. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Something here reminds me of "wasting a lot of people's time". Please try to be precise and succinct in your responses, not politically evasive and nebulous. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, have you seen the last 5,000 edits of Alan's? I wasn't just referring to the errors he's made. Clearly you feel happy that he's admitted to deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point? Like he did a month or so ago. I like the way you pop in to offer your support though, very honourable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I suggest you pop over to AN/I where, yet again, Alan's disruptive behaviour is being discussed and where you can once again defend him being disruptive to prove a point. I'm not angry at all. Disappointed that I have to trawl through thousand of semi-automated edits to undo the damage he's doing, yes, disappointed that some so-called experienced editors think that what Alan is trying to do is appropriate, yes. Disappointed that editors would advocate vandalism by Alan as being appropriate behaviour, yes. Disappointed that when multiple editors ask Alan to stop, reconsider what he does, he turns out the political answers, just blankly refuses to co-operate, yes. I think disappointed sums it up. Hammersoft, your defence of his disruption is odd, but curiously admirable, like a faithful hound, and I like that. I don't understand it, but I still like it. Off to WP:AN/I I suggest! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the thread regarding the placeholder images, no consensus was found that he did anything wrong. In fact, rather the opposite. I don't see how holding that thread against him is appropriate. If you don't like trawling through thousands of edits, then I recommend not trawling through thousands of edits. Nobody is forcing you to do it. The project isn't going to come crashing down because you didn't reverse 12 edits of his. The reality is there are more than 3000 non-admins who have permission to use AWB. Alan has permission to use it. If you don't like that, start an RfC to gain consensus to have his AWB privileges removed. As to "blankly refuses to cooperate"; in the thread I mentioned above regarding the place holder images, he did cooperate very nicely indeed. In fact, he instantly stopped doing the work the moment he was aware the thread had begun. I don't claim his continuance in this particular case was the right thing to do (it wasn't), but it's not as if there were thousands of edits to undo. Further, please do not ascribe to me some notion that I am defending his actions in this particular case. I am not. In fact, I'm not interested in defending Alan at all, as I've expressed to him before. I find attempts to demonize him to be highly disruptive. A lot of hyperbolic statements (12 edits as "mass semi-automated edits") and falsehoods (Alan supposedly being unresponsive in the place holder image queries) are being leveled at Alan, and I find that highly objectionable. I don't find Alan's actions in this case to be proper. But, it's an infinitesimally small road bump. Of course, now it appears its going to be blown up into epic proportions. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • @Alan; Very apropos! "Wikipedia's a piece of shit, when you look at it! Always look on the bright side of life!" :) By the way, I'd just retract the unblock request if I were you. There's only 12 hours left. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
No, no, no. WP is great. And it has the possibility of being even better. My reference to Life of Brian was the portrayal of infighting amongst leftist factions (People's Front of Judea et al) to such a degree that nothing gets done. That is exactly what is happening here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
But I see no reason for it. It would be equivalent to sorting my compost into vegetable peelings and tea leaves before throwing it all into the compost bin! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)
  • The reason is simple Alan. If a person is crafting an article in their userspace and dutifully (if incorrectly) adds categories to it in preparation for it being made into a live article, removing the categories completely is undoing their work and making it more difficult to have appropriate categories when it goes to mainspace. If they are instead commented out or a colon is used to prevent the article from appearing in (temporarily) inappropriate categories, the editor does not have to remember what categories they put it in. Instead, they just remove the colon(s) or uncomment. This is a reasonable request. It solves the problem of the non-mainspace pages being in inappropriate categories while preserving the text of the categories if the page ever sees mainspace. Please Alan. Indeed, the wolves are baying at your door. If you make but one edit where you rip a category rather than colon it or comment it out, you will be blocked and possibly indefinitely until you agree to stop doing that. Don't feed the wolves. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Alan, you have the analogy wrong. It's much more akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Those cats are there for a reason, and while the drafts shouldn't actually be in the categories unless and until they get moved to mainspace, there is no reason to lose the work an editor put into placing the categoreis rather than just disabling them. LadyofShalott 12:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • True, but it is less easily retrievable, and there is no need to make it so. For a newbie editor, that could well be almost the same thing as losing the work. LadyofShalott 13:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, pretty obvious to me. And colon-ing them might look to the newbie as 'someone is putting stupid wikilinks at the bottom of my article', and using <:-- and --> could be equally non-understood. Anyways, it is a lot of fuss about absolutely nothing, and has resulted in a block and a de-AWB-ing. Sure that thát will all be helping Wikipedia forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

AWB

Alan, you've shown up at ANI several times in the last few weeks about problems relating to your automated editing. Today, you've been blocked for making more bad automated edits in the face of warnings from several users, and for not responding sufficiently to complaints about your automated editing. Now, you've clearly stated that you intend to go on making the same edits once your block expires. This comment seems intended to induce an admin to extend your block, and I was quite close to doing that. Instead, per this comment (see bottom of the diff), I've removed your access to AWB until such time that you show that you have the ability to make automated edits with the level of care required to do so responsibly and cooperatively, without making more work for other editors who have to clean up after you. I would highly recommend not using any other automated or semi-automated scripts or tools (HotCat, Huggle, etc.) in even remotely controversial areas, unless your goal is to be blocked indefinitely.

You may appeal the removal of your AWB rights in any reasonable forum, ANI probably being one such forum. I would request that any admin not reinstate Alan's AWB privileges until he makes it clear that he doesn't intend to continue the behavior that lead to this block and his removal of AWB rights. -Scottywong| chat _ 01:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Gotta love it. Take away his AWB access for something he did that he didn't use AWB for. Also, bringing up a recent past thread where no wrong doing was found. But, he's guilty anyway, just because there was a thread about him on WP:AN/I. So much for being exonerated. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)This is a vendatta. You know full well the the last ANI was a lot of hot air that came to nothing. In this latest round of bullying I am hauled over the coals because I removed rubbish pages from content categories. Incidentally, I used HotCat to do it so to block my use of AWB is nonsensical. I challenge you to find instances of my AWB usage that is contentious. Well actually I know of two instances but they are minor (IMO). And please don't rely what other editors say. Some seem to have an almost Luddite view of automated tools. AWB is invaluable for the many cleanup tasks that need doing and blocking my AWB usage slows down WP improvements. AWB allows for rapid edits. A great way to improve WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a vendetta. Two different administrators now have brought up the recent thread claiming it as evidence against you, when it is blatantly obvious there was no consensus you did anything wrong. Adding to it the absurd decision to remove your AWB permissions for using HotCat, it now solidly falls into the laughably comical. That said Alan, you have a choice before you; feed the beast as you have with your insistence on continuing as you have before, or do as you are being demanded of. Whether it is fair or not is immaterial. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
After one of the past battles I decided to retire but I then decided that WP is far to important to abandon. The systemic failures that are leading to stagnation and editor attrition must be sorted out and I am willing to fight this battle out, even if it means that I am blocked (temporarily I hope), if it will lead to an incremental improvement in WP. For the greater good and all that. I like to think that I am a good editor (ok, don't laugh!) and I have much to add. And as you pointed out The Rambling Man only found 12 edits relating to this fiasco. It is interesting to note that the The Rambling Man did not pass comment on the good stuff that he should have found in my edit history. You know, stuff like brand new fully fledged articles, vandalism repairs, article improvements etc. But that's ok. I am not here for fame, fortune or fornication but I am certainly getting plenty of infamy! Unlike others I am here for The Project and the satisfaction of a job well done.
It is all too easy to bring the human frailty into WP thus spoiling the goal of the project. I should know. I lost my rag with another editor and that led to my only other block. This latest attack is an illustration of why editors should leave human behaviour at the door before entering the wikiworld. We have all the guidelines and all the tools but they are not doing their job. As editors we have to act as if we are automatons - think, process, compute, and then edit. Instead we are all too often guided by emotion.
Anyway, Wikipedia is a beautiful thing. It should be cherished. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The ideal is the beautiful thing, that continues in the hearts of the faithful, wherever they carry the spirit. Penyulap ☏ 04:41, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)
cheer up with a quirky quote I rote,
"It is very easy to be blinded to the essential failure of Wikipedia by the sense of achievement you get from getting it to work at all. In other words - and this is the rock solid principle on which the whole of wikipedia's success is founded - its fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by its superficial design flaws." Penyulap ☏ 04:41, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Moving past the histrionics, I would like to point out that the issue isn't the 12 edits, but the fact that they were pointed out to you as being incorrect and disruptive and you refused to acknowledge that. In fact, you stated that you were going to continue with your disruptive actions (and did so right afterwards), so you were blocked. I'm sorry, but no matter what you might try to convince yourself of here, you're the one in the wrong and no one else. SilverserenC 04:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Are they incorrect? And what is incorrect about them? And who is being disruptive here? Me or a whole bunch of editors I have crossed paths with who seem to watch my talk page and relish the chance to get a boot in? And what about the silent majority - the 16,000,000 editors 130,000 regular editors who have said nothing? So please tell me what is "wrong" to dust out and fix up some of the forgotten corners of WP? And now that I am blocked who is going to do it? Nobody else seems to clean up around the place. Don't forget that no one ever cleaned up all those placeholder images that hung around for years until I decided to do it. I got no thanks for that, well apart from my faithful hound Hammersoft. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Alan, you do a number of good things, but you do them carelessly, and you have a tendency to not listen whenever anyone complains about collateral damage. I don't know if you're reading the WP:AN/I thread, but before Scotty removed AWB privileges, I had a reasonable compromise in there, that I think you could have lived by. I'll quote it here:
My idea is that he's placed under a strict restriction: if anyone raises a concern about an automated edit set he's doing, he must stop until the concerns have been resolved (and it can't just be Alan's opinion that it's resolved - there has to be some kind of consensus). If he does not abide by that restriction, he's automatically topic banned from automated editing.
I honestly think that that kind of restriction is a reasonable way to a) let you get on with the good parts of the work you do while b) alleviating the community's concerns about your use of automation. I think that if you voluntarily agreed to it (or something similar), we can work something out. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I challenge you to find good things that I have done carelessly. I challenge you to find anything that I have done carelessly. And yes I have read the comments at WP:ANI. I still don't see the point in any sort of block. This is all about baying hounds who smell blood and have come here to bite. It is a mountain of a problem made out of a small molehill. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It is much, much easier to make accusations than it is to provide proof Alan. You've already lost. I strongly, strongly urge you to drop any and all automation and do exactly as they insist you must do. Right or wrong, just or unjust, you must comply. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Alan, you are human (presumably). You have, at some point, done something carelessly. 12/1000 (from this latest episode) is not careless, but it's also not perfect. That's not the point. The point is that the real problem is not that you don't do things perfectly. It's that you don't respond to concerns. You dismiss them, Alan. I've seen you do it, several times. It's not your job to fix Wikipedia, it's everybody's job to fix Wikipedia where it's broken. And if other people disagree with you on a fix, then you need to stop and take time to build consensus. "Fixing" Wikipedia is more important than working in consensus. But unless there's an immediate, overwhelming crisis, it's not so much more important that you shouldn't try to build consensus anyway. Being bold does not mean that you can ignore it when someone asks you to stop and talk. So I proposed a compromise - that you can do your work, do it well, on the condition that you actually take the time to respond to the community whenever someone raises a concern. Personally, having thought it through, I'm not sure I like the taking away of AWB from you. But you need to talk to people. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Alan, I assure you this is not a vendetta and no one is being a Luddite about automated editing. When I first started doing bot tasks, I was similarly frustrated about how hard it was to get a seemingly simple BRFA approved. Everyone seemed so careful about every detail. Later, I realized how important it actually is to be extra careful when you're about to set off on a couple hundred or thousand automated or semi-automated edits. One error in your code and you have just created a couple hundred or thousand mistakes that need to be fixed. This is exactly why there is an AWB check page in the first place.

The reason I removed your AWB access is not because of any one particular edit you made with it, but rather because (1) you don't think through your automated tasks completely enough to ensure you're implementing an ideal solution, and (2) you don't respond to criticism of your automated tasks in a way that is anywhere close to how a bot operator or semi-automated editor should. Automated editing is a privilege, because it is much easier to cause widespread damage with it. If you're unwilling to cooperate with other editors with regard to automated edits (regardless of whether or not you think those editors are on a witchhunt), then you are far too high of a risk to allow access to automated editing tools. Consider this a "preventive" measure.

The reason these things are happening to you is not because a group of editors are conspiring against you. It is because there is a part of your behavior that needs to be adjusted, namely that you need to respond to and cooperate with all complaints about your automated editing. You don't have an implicit right to make any type of automated edits you want. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. If someone disagrees with changes you are making, then you need to have a discussion and find a consensus before you continue making them. Consider the edits you are making as bold edits. If someone reverts (or complains about) your edits, then per WP:BRD you must discuss these changes and come to an agreement regarding how to make them or whether they should be made at all.

I would happily reinstate your AWB privileges if you agreed to Jorgath's proposed terms above. -Scottywong| gab _ 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I certainly wouldn't agree to such terms. It contains a defacto admission of guilt, that his semi-automated editing is somehow problematic. I see lots of claims this is the case, and have yet to see any proof. The man has produced more than 100,000 edits here. He's been an editor since 2004. After eight years, suddenly he's a crap editor who has to agree to a sanction like this? Sorry, you're going to have to provide evidence, at least so far as I'm concerned. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I wasn't thinking of it in those terms, and I don't really see how anyone could. My assertion is that overall Alan a good editor, but that his one flaw - and we all have flaws - is that he hasn't responded well recently when people raise concerns about his editing. Basically, Hammersoft, all I'm asking for is for Alan to acknowledge that he does need to respond to people's concerns about his edits, and that that need is especially strong when he's making mass edits. I don't care if he's mass-editing by hand or by automation; it's that a concern about a thousand edits is by definition more pressing than a concern about ten edits. But to refuse to acknowledge that other people's concerns are more important than finishing the task at hand is to deny the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. It's not guilt I'm asking him to admit; it's the need to communicate. If he wants to claim he's been communicating, fine, whatever - I disagree, but that's not important to me. What's important to me is that Alan communicate in the future, especially when mass editing, and therefore that he acknowledge the need to do so. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • "that he hasn't responded well recently when people raise concerns about his editing." - so, now we use the right to use AWB as a tool to make Alan admit that he has not communicated well. How is that not a defacto admission of guilt? And it is even worse, Alan gets blocked, ánd his AWB rights are removed, all because 'he did not communicate'. And actually he did not even use AWB, and it is all because .. people do not like (!) the way he is removing categories from articles that are not in article space. 'do not like the way' .. And that is why we need to bash him around like this. Just like last time, where he responded a couple of times, then because one of the editors was still not happy with the current practice he gets a command to stop (since when do editors have the right to command others), and an immediate threat to be blocked when he did not respond to that command. And that was for a practice that already performed way over 90% of the actions he was doing as well, and which had still an almost unilateral support. And here he comes again, Beetstra with his endless ranting and regurgitating of old facts - when AGK, one of our esteemed (yes, as I was told in the previous AN/I thread, we really have esteemed and normal editors here) Arbitrators performs an automated action on 7,500 pages, no one gives a damn, not even when that Arbitrator is asked to stop, or when that Arbitrator is brought to AN/I, or when an editor who is creating categories for which there is no consensus (except for common practice), but where editors have concerns about certain aspects of the categorisation scheme, and with a running RfC on the scheme is asked to stop, no one gives a damn either - because in those cases, it are the less esteemed editors who are ranting, and then that does not count as opposition - it is only opposition because here it involves esteemed editors who complain about .. yes .. have a look at it .. nothing. And here we are - 12 removals in stead of colon-isation and .. block ánd removal of AWB. And why .. basically because people think that newbies will be more bitten with the outright removal of the categories than with the colon-isation (both of which visibly change the article!), and because now they may need to help to get the categories that the editor so carefully selected back, because .. the newbie must be too stupid too know about article history when they are capable to select the proper categories. But well, what can we expect of a community that desysops and sanctions editors because they make AWB edits with mistakes - editors have to listen to the others, this is a collaborative environment, and if you don't listen to someone who is obviously right in what he says (even if community consensus and practice so much in favour of the edits performed), that editor HAS to listen. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Justin Bieber on Twitter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Justin Bieber on Twitter 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/Justin Bieber on Twitter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Informing you of this nomination because of your previous participation in the Justin Bieber on Twitter merge into Justin Bieber discussion.--LauraHale (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 July 2012

Alternative proposal for AWB restoration

Alan, I think you should be aware of this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alternative_proposal_for_AWB_restoration. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Pakistani water locks

Template:Pakistani water locks has been nominated for merging with Template:Dams in Pakistan. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A lengthy reply to my detractors

This is an attempt to convince my detractors that I have done nothing wrong. I have crossed paths with some of these editors in the past and they appear to be biased or making judgements that are clouded by their animosity towards me. Decisions should not be based on the foibles of human nature but rather on rationality or whether they further the goal of The Project (I would hope that they are one and the same!).

The issue

Removing categories from pages that are not part of Wikipedia content rather than commenting or "coloning" them.

My reason

To save time. They are too numerous for the fiddly manual process of opening the page, finding the categories (which are not always where they are expected) adding colons or comment code, adding an edit history, and then saving. HotCat does an admirable job of this and gives a nice edit summary.

Some recent examples of the contentious edits
Attempts at remedies

Nothing is forthcoming from these discussions as yet.

AfCs should not have any categories added at all until the articles goes live. That would save a lot of hassles.

Notes
  • I don't care if other editors want to waste their time shuffling bytes that do not help The Project but I would prefer that they did some fruitful work.
  • Telling me to be less productive by wasting time on the slower method of editing wikideadwood is quite ridiculous.
  • Other editors may be doing exactly what I am doing but are they hauled over the coals for it?
  • Claims of "not communicating" and "disruptive editing" is complete hearsay.
    • I have been communicative but it seems that I am expected to partake in endless discussions to explain something that should be patently obvious to experienced editors. I am asked to improve my communication when what should actually happen is that my detractors should listen and/or become familiar with how best to edit WP.
    • To claim that I am doing disruptive editing is completely ludicrous.
  • Removal of AWB rights is a completely inappropriate kneejerk reaction. My AWB editing is not in question. The very small number of questioned edits that I have done using AWB has been resolved.
  • Blocking me for "Making work for otherwise contributing editors" is both petty and untrue. Petty because of the trivial nature of the issue at hand, and untrue because the recommendation suggested actually makes more work for editors. BTW, I am unsure as to what the difference between an editor and a "contributing editor" would be.
  • I have made over 100,000 edits and I get kicked out because of a few contentious edits. I am not here for thanks or praise but how about some recognition for the time spent writing new articles, and vandalism repair, and new pages patrol, and setting up wikiprojects and task forces, and building the category system, and trying to introduce new guidelines or updating old ones, and trying to improve WP for The Reader etc. Yeah, I get some barnstars and some praise but the second I do something that can be used to shaft me and get the boot in, no matter how trivial, I get the usual bunch of talk page stalkerss coming down like a ton of bricks.
Conclusion

The current systems are not addressing the problem, and are not working or are done sporadically. It is difficult to change the current system. No one else may be addressing the polluted category problem. I am hamstrung by attempts to clean up polluted categories. So the problem remains.

I have done nothing "wrong".

Anyway, I am on a wikibreak and I need to spend more time in the real world so I may or may not answer any replies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is your attempt at regaining AWB access, but "I have done nothing wrong" is certainly not the right attitude. I don't know much about your non-automated work, but from what little I've seen of your automated work, it seems to focus largely on quantity over quality. I could be wrong, but you seem very intent on accumulating a high edit count, rather than making high quality edits. Several quotes from your comments above bring me to this conclusion.
  • "My reason: To save time. They are too numerous for the fiddly manual process of opening the page, finding the categories... adding colons or comment code, adding an edit history, and then saving." - If you're not willing to do the work right, then do other types of work. In any case, adding colons or commenting out categories sounds like something that AWB could handle quite easily, if you put some work into it.
  • "I don't know what the likelihood of the tens of thousands of declined AfCs have of every being revived but I suspect that it is minimal. Note that only 30% of AfCs ever become an article." - Let's say 5% of all declined AfC's eventually become articles. If we applied your HotCat task to 100,000 AfC's, then you just messed up 5,000 articles, and made it much more difficult to revive the categories once they're moved to mainspace.
  • "I don't care if other editors want to waste their time shuffling bytes that do not help The Project but I would prefer that they did some fruitful work." - Again, quality over quantity.
  • "Telling me to be less productive by wasting time on the slower method of editing wikideadwood is quite ridiculous." - Self-explanatory.
  • "I have made over 100,000 edits and I get kicked out because of a few contentious edits." - Focusing on your edit count is unhelpful. If many of those 100,000 edits end up making more work for other editors, then you would actually be a detriment to the project. (I'm not saying that you're a detriment, I'm just speaking hypothetically.)
Contrary to what you might believe, no one is out to get you, and no one is stalking your talk page waiting to pounce on every last thing you do. The pattern that seems to be repeating itself here is this: You start a good-faith automated task to clean something up, and perhaps that task isn't fully thought out, or you are cutting corners in order to make the edits faster. Someone notices, and contacts you on your talk page. You briefly engage them in discussion, and disagree largely on the grounds that you don't want to waste time introducing extra steps into your workflow that the other editor is requesting. Then, without coming to any agreement, you shut down on the discussion and continue making the edits. So, I don't think anyone is claiming that you don't discuss things at all, but that you don't take those discussion to any kind of conclusion, and you generally don't listen to what the other side is saying.
For automated editing, the combination of focusing on edit count over edit quality, cutting corners, and not fully considering or listening to complaints is a dangerous one. If you make a few edits per hour with that mindset, probably no big deal. If you make a few hundred edits per hour with that mindset, and it takes a couple hours/days for anyone to notice, that is a big deal. I'd love for you to continue automated editing, but I need to know that you understand why all of this stuff is important. No one is looking for an admission of guilt or an apology. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and I just need to know that you can acknowledge that one of your weaknesses might be overlooking the quality of your edits in favor of speed. If you can acknowledge that, and strive to consider that that might be exactly what is happening next time someone complains about your automated editing, that would be enough for me. -Scottywong| babble _ 17:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the comparison, not to Jesus, but to the way people would argue if Jesus returned and found himself amongst a number of Christians, something I pointed out yesterday elsewhere, is amusing.
People would be so interested, not in what the person was saying, but in endlessly debating about what the person was saying, that if the person turns up, they'd get pushed out of the way by other people who are arguing with each other about what he said, Jesus would be sidelined or knocked over and shoved aside in the commotion to argue over what he said. There seems to be fewer people listening to you, or to any clarifications made, because basically they aren't empty vessels. There are plenty of people who are instantly understanding and move right along, it's just amusing to see just how much people love to discuss little letters and little words and which half or a sentence is the correct one to misquote with. This is so totally the Christian endless endless endless arguments over the bible mentality right here. Anyhow, no response necessary, just thought it would give you a secret smile. Penyulap ☏ 18:12, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about anyone else, but personally, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. -Scottywong| comment _ 18:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The tendency for some people to argue endlessly about what someone meant in regards to something they said, rather than simply ask that person for a clarification. Penyulap ☏ 18:53, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)
And how is that relevant to this situation? -Scottywong| spout _ 18:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
To expand on Scotty's comment, is there any way to interpret Alan's statements as other than he will not comply with past consensus that he should not do certain types of edits (removing categories from draft pages without quoting them, etc.), nor will he comply with future consensus. If that's not what he intended to say, he should explain what he meant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
'"I have done nothing wrong" is certainly not the right attitude' you continue to talk past each other. Penyulap ☏ 09:09, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
If he really thinks he has done nothing wrong, he should be indefinitely blocked per WP:COMPETENCE. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds a lot like if he doesn't agree with you, he needs to be indef blocked according to WP:MEmeMEmeMEme he's more than intelligent enough to understand you, but that doesn't mean that you're right. Penyulap ☏ 10:48, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)
It appears he isn't intelligent enough to understand (at least my interpretation) of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He still doesn't understand that what he did (this time) is wrong, or at least there is a WP:CONSENSUS that he's wrong, even if he weren't in conflict with the policies and guidelines. (You can't be in "violation" of a guidelines, which is what I was about to say.)
There are a fair number of intelligent former editors who never figured out that their original research has no place in Wikipedia. Alan's transgressions aren't as obvious, but he has gone against WP:CONSENSUS a number of times; usually, after a final warning by an admin, he stops (for a little while), but he seems unable to comprehend the possibility that he's wrong about something. It's a common failing among intelligent people. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Arthur, just get it over with and do the "right thing" and indef block him for blatant incompetence already. How many days does this need to go on? This 'event' of 12 edits is more than a week old now, and STILL it isn't dropped. So enough with the dialogue. Either block, or drop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not just the 12 edits. He made enough inappropriate changes to the category system so that it may be better to delete all categories and start over. (Which might not be a bad idea, except that we would need to categorize millions of articles.) I believe he eventually stopped, but I'm not sure. Perhaps he should just be restricted indefinitely from removing categories or editing a category page. I don't recall anything inappropriate he's done other than with categories, but I didn't run across him until he edited Category:Logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"Perhaps he should just be restricted indefinitely from removing categories"
Amen to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Arthur, I think you should be indefinitely restricted from posting to Alan's talk page. At this point, it's nothing more than harassment. He hasn't even posted here for days, hasn't touched anything outside of his userspace in over a week and still you're after his head on a platter. DROP IT. Drop the flippin' sticks and walk away. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the clear consensuses that have arisen at ANI are as follows

  • Everyone is agreed unanimously that they cannot agree on which part of Alans statements are the best way to misquote him
  • People prefer at all times to go on what they think he said, in preference to accepting any clarification from the indisputable authority on what Alan has to say.
  • The vast majority are scratching themselves, at one end or the other, trying to find any policy that relates to anything.

He's got little or no hope of surpassing AO for the title of largest most pointless discussion clogging the ANI, but so far it's been very productive as far as producing pointless consensuses is concerned. Penyulap ☏ 23:23, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I don't find consensus anywhere for any of those points. -Scottywong| yak _ 15:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 July 2012

The Signpost: 16 July 2012

The Signpost: 23 July 2012

Invite to Research Survey

Hello Alan Liefting,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We are creating a tool, called wikiFeed, that will help Wikipedia editors make connections between content from Twitter or RSS news feeds and Wikipedia articles. We are currently gathering data which will help us in the development process and would love to learn about how you consume news content and how it relates to your Wikipedia editing. If you would like to help, follow this link to complete a brief survey. Your feedback will help us create a better tool.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. Thanks for your time! MarchionessGrey (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've successfully created an account on wikiFeed: my verification phrase is court years--i -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alan_Liefting/Archive_17&oldid=1082355946"