Your idea has not met with a warm reception, but I'm glad you brought it up. I have been using AWB for quite a while, and was not aware of this interesting option. Thanks! Chris the speller ^yack 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I realise this is just a break from your Wikibreak, but it does mean you're not gone for good!-gadfium 02:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have come across some work that needs doing. Thought I would sneak in, do the work, and then head off before any one notices. Looks like I have already been spotted! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan Liefting,

I noticed the article Logitech Harmony Remote was deleted in April. Could you give insight on why you proposed the deletion? Thanks CBassett1 05:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbassett1 (talk • contribs)

You seemed to remove references from this page in this edit. I've fixed it for you. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the <ref> tags out of the Further reading section to allow the section order to follow convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You mean you left the page with a massive RED WARNING at the bottom of the page? Sorry, I'm not clear on what "convention" you're following to achieve that masterpiece. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you edited Category talk:Feminism books, thought you should know a merge has been suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Feminism ("feminist categories" section) --EarthFurst (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan, I'd like to propose a consolidated Recycling navigation box, including Template:Recycling, Template:Recycling by material, and Template:Recycling by product, with some cross-links to more general waste topics. Please see the suggested consolidated navigation box at: User:DASonnenfeld/sandbox. Suggestions? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, good idea. Lets go for it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. Thanks. Would you suggest replacing the current sidebar, Template:Recycling? Or one of the other ones? I'll wait a few days & see if there's any other feedback... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, replace the sidebar with the proposed footer. Do I recall a move away from using the sidebar templates? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

We should do the same with Template:Waste management and Template:Waste by type. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Recycling by product requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have undone your edits to History of Australia, after you removed an image. I am sure however this was done in good faith and you didn't mean to delete it.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it is vandalism? I removed the image because having too many images floated right stuffs up the page layout for most monitor resolutions. I stated this in the edit history. You also reverted a number of other changes that I did to the article. Was that necessary? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was vandalism I said it was possible vandalism, and I suspect this since you removed a significant amount of content. Please respect the hard work that editors do to help keep these articles clean, thanks.--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove a significant amount of material. I removed an image, added some links, and did some minor layout changes. Also, the respect of other editors work argument is a spurious one. I would argue that hitting the undo link is not exactly hard work and the work that I did was. Anyway, lets move on. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Template:Waste by type requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_16#Category:Non-indigenous_fish_species_in_Ukraine.
Message added 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Japanese White-eye in Hawaii (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Juveniles

Red imported fire ants in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Solenopsis

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Mr Bot. Can I call you DPL? Thanks. Well, I have fixed those links and in my defence they were both due to splitting out info to a new article. Anyway, sorry about that DPL and thanks for the message. You know you have been editing Wikipedia for too long when you start talking to bots!-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's when the bots start directly responding to your comments that you have to worry. Beyond My Ken bot (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Be quiet while DPL bot is talking! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • A thousand pardons! Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted you to know that I stole you "Reader" image and caption for my talk page, although I altered the formatting slightly. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again you're stripping all categories from the lead article on eponymous categories. Please stop - you've been warned for this repeatedly before. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Those categories were either inappropriate or were used to categories the article category and therefore redundant. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some were inappropriate, hence I didn't restore them.

However your view that lead articles for eponymous categories should not be otherwise categorized is not supported by either policy or consensus. In nearly all cases, categorization will be applied to these articles. In some cases, not all of this categorization will be applied to the category, and so the article will then show more categories than the related category does. It is very rare (and this isn't such a case) that the article will omit categories that the category page carries. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of GroundWork, Inc, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Alan Liefting. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Aras Corp, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Please note that Category:Social media is about social media rather than people connected with it."

Disagree.

There are individuals that have defined and shaped social media and should be part of this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opn800 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Generally biographical articles are categorised Category:Mass media or Category:Internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So, it's better to categorise the bio article as 'Mass media' rather than 'Social media'? Now that doesn't make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opn800 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, the previous sentence came out wrong because I inadvertently deleted part of it. I meant to say: as an example there are no bio articles in Category:Mass media or Category:Internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, there's that blanket statement, which I have grown to love with Wikipedia: a very dictatorial and black and white stance to the wider community. I would suggest a section within the Social media article to include people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opn800 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A beg to differ on you opinion that WP is very dictatorial and black and white. It is almost the polar opposite. As for including people in the social media article, that is a good point but the two people in question don't appear to be suitable additions to it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. It's more of a dictatorship with a 'black art' approach to updates and changes. If we don't comply or offer an opinion that upsets someone, you'll receive a notification "you'll be blocked", or exterminated!

I have created a 'Notable' section and, this is where it becomes black and white. Who are you to deem them as 'not suitable'? They have authored books and shaped social media - there's an entire section on it in their articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opn800 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, this is that black and white and dictatorship thingy I mentioned. Utterly baffled as to why you have removed the 'Notable' section from 'Social media'. Please advise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opn800 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan, please see Template_talk:Botanist#Addition_of_padding. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Noxious weed, 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) 11:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan - noted your comment on Ben Hana's AfD and took a look at Wiki's Poverty line article. Interestingly the article show that NZ and Australia have no published statistics relating to poverty. I'm sure that is incorrect and that Stats NZ have some. I'll explore this a bit further. If you're interested I'll let you know what I come across NealeFamily (talk) 09:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The second graph is CIA factbook data and there is no applicable data for NZ in that instance. Data exists but it may not be useful for international comparisons. There is already a number of [Poverty in ...] articles. I had thrown a bit of stuff together. See User:Alan Liefting/Articles/Poverty in New Zealand. Am interested in what you dig up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Alan - would it be okay to add it to your article? If it is to weird you can always revert my edit. NealeFamily (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I suppose it can be used as a sandbox and when it is good enough it can be moved to article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can find NealeFamily (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan:

I am a consultant to DPT Labs and just learned of your consideration of deleting their listing. I am not sure how "Notability" is defined. If the leading trade publication references them as "leading" who is a better authority? Can you please provide more information related to why DPT is not notable. DPT manufactures drug products for some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the U.S. Of importance is also the fact that DPT was recently acquired by a company because of DPT's success in the the Contract Drug Manufacturing and Development industry. I appreciate any advice you can provide so that I can get DPT's listing back on track quickly. Thank you.

Sdjeremy (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan,

I work in the public policy space, and just noticedchanges to drug courts. I don't think this change, with a breakdown by geography, makes sense as the general drug court model is ideologically the same around the world. If anything, I think the text of original drug court page should be restored, with subsections for Australia, Britian, and the 2 or 3 other locations. A large majority of the drug courts, greater than 90%, are in the US, so the topic is highly US centric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.79.59 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that drug courts are predominantly an American system it therefore would make sense to have a specific article about them in the US. This prevents the info about drug courts in other countries from being swamped with a large amount of info about the US. Also, have a read of WP:CSB. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DPT Labs.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry, but the nomination of DPT Labs seems to be based upon your apparent preference about certain companies/products and other topics not being covered on Wikipedia, rather than the suggestions at section D of WP:BEFORE. Furthermore, this nomination (and many others) doesn't qualify why the topic is perceived as non-notable. This has been going on for a while, and is becoming disruptive.

Some examples of your nominations that appear to fail the most basic of source searching prior to nomination, as clearly and strongly suggested per section D of WP:BEFORE include:

• [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

Please seriously consider basing nominations for deletion upon a basic source search prior to nomination. This would make your nominations much more functional. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

AfD is a forum for deciding what the community wants to delete or keep. Sure, there are guidelines about it but they develop out of AfD "case law" so while you have highlighted a number of cases where there is strong preference and even unanimous decision to keep (and you also supplied links to less clear nominations) they are not indicative of my posted AfDs. Scottywong has a tool that tracks editor !votes to AfD closing outcome and IIRC my position is about the same as the community on the whole. Anyway, point taken. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not very good with Wikipedia so I created another post. This is the EXACT problem I have, this bias issue you mention, where the majority or the well funded can create bias. Essentially, the drug court research is 50/50 pro/against, BUT, there is a huge lobby machine pushing out its pro drug court research publically in the media, and this lobby has a financial incentive to do so. If anything, the research being published against drug courts is from FAR better sources, including Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, The Brookings Institute, the UK Justice Ministry, and others. The drug court lobby publishes mostly studies done by either drug courts themselves, paid for by drug courts, or done by industry associations. The drug court industry orginally wrote this article as a banner advertisement for the indusry, touting growth in drug courts and only research that supports their case. This is the most visible media venue/resource for drug courts in the world - moreso than newspaper articles, other websites, associations of drug court professionals, TV media, etc. Any law student, citizen, representative, ect. seeking to learn about drug courts, who googles drug court, comes up with this site first. It must be accurate, and unbaised for all.

Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.79.59 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also raised at User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Drug_Court Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I will start a discussion at Talk:Drug court. It is a more appropriate venue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Otago NORML, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nark (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) 10:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here you removed all entries from the July 2011 list at Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, and then added the commentary "done". It is unclear why exactly you removed this list, or what is supposed to have been done. The list contained a fair number of redlinks that are still linked from many pages (e.g. Kurt Walter), so it's not as if the whole list is either an article or unlinked. The linked list Wikipedia:Most wanted articles/July 2011 is unsorted, so not a replacement of the list you removed.

Any reason why you removed this list instead of either trimming it or just leaving it? Fram (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Little Penguin colonies (2nd nomination).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have added a check for the existence of the map to {{Infobox bilateral relations/sandbox}} and shown testcases here: {{Infobox bilateral relations/testcases}}. If this change is implemented, I'll update the documentation Illia Connell (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I notice that {{infobox road}} also presumes certain files exist without any checking to make sure that they actually do. Illia Connell (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Flag of Brevard County, Florida.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as you often work on categories, I thought you might like to take a look at Category:Flora of the Himalayas. This seems to be in a mess; Category:Flora of Tibet occurs as both a subcategory and as a parent category, whereas neither seem correct to me – the flora of Tibet is neither a sub- nor a superset of the flora of the Himalayas. Equally I don't see why the flora of the Himalayas is categorized inside the flora of Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan. However, I am often unclear as to how categories are supposed to work in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Categories work as you surmise above. Subcats should be a subset of the topics of the category in which they are in. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, had a quick look. It will depend on whether the country or the Himalayas is the "supra-topic". Having a category as a sub-cat and supracat is allowable in some cases but I have to have a think about this one. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I keep having to explain that I am working on editing the contents of my sandbox - also having to explain that in fact that area is MY user sandbox and as such, should not be constantly edited by ANYONE, unless invited. I am asking once more, please return my sandbox to its previous version, with the contents I had collected for the purpose of creating a concise, useful, relevant wiki article. Please return my sandbox contents to the way it appeared, in MY sandbox, edited by ME, in private, in MY PRIVATE USER SPACE which is not public, and NOT PUBLISHED. please. and thank you. Jilliance (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed most of the content because the page was showing in a number of content categories and maintenance categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The best tactic is to comment out categories using double dots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Not in all cases. Sometimes complete removal is better. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So what was the justification for the removal of the other 35KB of contents? Lazy and disruptive editing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan, in which cases a removal is justified? Can you provide me some examples? In all the cases I was involved a comment out was enough. For wikiprojects I would use {{tl}} to commented them out or maybe remove them but I would never remove categories from userspace unless there were redlinked categories with weird names. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion about your actions has been started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Alan Liefting, categories in userspace, and bite. Fram (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave you to it. It will be another pointless, endless discussion and I will not take any part in it. What I say either comes out wrong or gets misconstrued or attracts unwelcome, inane replies from editors who appear to have a dislike of me. It is also a waste of my precious wiki-time. Sigh... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion somewhere must be done because we seem to have different approaches to a subject and the most important is that this subject involves newcomers. We have to be very careful with that because we should not disappoint people who want to participate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Care to AFD this? Utter tripe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for removing mainspace categories from non-mainspace pages, despite numerous warnings & ANI threads etc.. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

GiantSnowman 09:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy reading the now-revised Onufry Zagłoba. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Alan Liefting. You have new messages at Guoguo12's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this should stay as a redirect, because it was the result of a move of Wikipedia:Images to the relevant MOS page. Before this lots and lots and lots of pages linked to WP:IMAGES, and as a result unless we want to take on disambiguating them there will be a lot of people who will have to go through other step/be confused. I think the number who use WP:Images as a general term is much smaller. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Every time I type in WP:IMAGES I want to get information about image, not an image MOS. I am in the process of expanding it into a more useful page that is broadly about images, erg. help and maint. Any incoming link that should go to the the image MOS can be fixed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a plan for their changing? There are thousands of incoming links to WP:Images. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:04, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I will change the ones in templates but the others will be addressed by the hatnote. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have signficant objections to your plan and so I think it would be better if you found consensus for it somewhere (village pump, perhaps, given the talk page would be useless) before. That way I can explain and see what other members of the cumminity think is the best way forward. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I will post a link to it here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Creating_a_Wikipedia:Images_page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to leave you a note earlier to say I'd replied there. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. I have seen it and am in the process of replyig. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan. I wanted to invite you to participate in an RfC regarding adding color differentiation to Wiki markup, particularly towards references. You are welcome to participate whenever you are able. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Alan Liefting. I'm dropping you a note because you used to patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features if you want to get back into the swing of patrolling :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The article Book censorship in Germany has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Berntie (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! [15]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems like an important category, as the "Cuisine of Foo" categories should not include articles on food that are NOT regional cuisine, such as breweries, food banks, fast food outlets, etc. I will probably add "food and drink in the United States", and then possibly some states. Do you think this is the best term? I think its good, and you seem to as well, but can you think of any better?(User:mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Food and drink in the United States would be the best page name. That is the format that a lot of categories follow. Category:Food and drink by country needs to be built up. I had tried to get the WikiProject interested. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The article Aisle (political term) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced dicdef. Can't possibly be expanded.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think I am neutral on it. I split it out of the Aisle page to clean that page up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan! Just a question. You have deleted an image in the article "Dolychandra unguis-cati" with the explanation "rm redlinked image". What does it means?

Ciao. Hectonichus

The image with the filename that was in the article does not exist so it showed as a red link. I therefore deleted the link. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Alan- I got a Wiki msg saying "The Wikipedia page "Alan Ruddock" has been created on 3 October 2012 by Alan Liefting, with the edit summary: - This is a new page. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Ruddock for the current revision." ...I don't quite follow what this means as I don't see any changes?? ( forgive me if this is a dumb question as I'm new to WP with the Ruddock entry being only my second..); > can you please clarify? cheers & many tnx NortSide505 (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)68.39.178.193 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, you deleted categories from an article in my sandbox. I had not realised this was not allowed, but I can see the reason now. May I respectfully suggest that an explanation of why you did this edit in the first instance would save work for both yourself and the other editor. Thanks also for sorting out the reference in Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals‎__DrChrissy (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this so bluntly, but if you continue to remove categories from user sandboxes, rather than commenting them out or using colons, as you did at [16], I will block your account from editing. You have been blocked two times for this in the past. Moreover, the use of a "vandalism" reversion message, as you left on the talk page I linked, is not appropriate, because the edit was clearly not "vandalism". I was truly surprised to see that you have re-made two edits of this kind today after they were reverted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not "revert" my edits calling them vandalism. Look more carefully at this edit where I restored the categories you just removed and commented them out. I will remove rollback from you if you make any further errors like this. Further problems of this nature will result in a block and I will reopen the discussion to topic-ban you from any category edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should give a proper edit summary rather than simply calling it a revert when that was not the case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't call it a revert, and it wasn't vandalism. As for providing proper edit summaries, perhaps look a little closer to home. In any case, accusing me of vandalism and misusing rollback is unacceptable. Any more "mistakes" like this and I will block you and remove your "privileges". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, you were there NOT undoing the edit by Alan Liefting, you were doing something completely else. That is just misleading. You may be right that Alan is incorrect in suggesting that your edit was vandalism, your edit was equally inappropriate. And it is in an conflict with someone with whom you are involved highly inappropriate and extremely chilling to threaten to block and remove priviliges. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I undid his edit. I didn't call it a revert (as he falsely accuses me). I then just commented out the categories he is determined to just delete. I didn't change the edit summary, but he should have checked before incorrectly using rollback and incorrectly accusing me of vandalism. My edit was in _no_ way inappropriate. Misuse of tools is the first step to them being removed. You find the comment "extremely chilling"? You clearly live in a whole different world from me! Fear not, your chill can warm, I'll take it back to AN/I should he do this sort of thing again, and there he can expect a block, a topic ban and his "rollback" revoked. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Administrator tools can be misused without actually blocking someone. Threatening to block someone with whom you are actively involved is an abuse of the tools. I strongly, strongly suggest you find other avenues for raising this issue than threatening to place (or worse, following through on) blocks against Alan. Outside of Alan himself and bots, you are the most active editor on this talk page. That makes you involved per this ArbCom decision. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, good to see you here. I've struck that comment, but as you'll have read above (if, indeed, you did read above), I'll just return this whole sorry saga to AN/I again. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for striking it. I do note that you could have approached Alan with "Alan, you might not have noticed, but when I re-instated the categories, I commented them out. I reverted your removal because of that, and I'd be happy to discuss this." Instead you chose an aggressive approach, including threats, which is highly unlikely to achieve the results (I hope) you desire; the categories remaining commented out and everyone walking away happy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do note that Alan has been blocked for precisely this bitey behaviour before. During that period he stated he would continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make his point. I see little reason in being so kind and gentle as you suggest (which many have tried) because it makes no difference to Alan's editing behaviour. He has deliberately edited in exactly the same manner that got him blocked. Thanks again for your interest in this, perhaps you could convince Alan to stop being so bitey and unnecessarily "procedural" (sans explanation). I spent some time explaining his "raison d'être" to one of his sandbox category victims, and she was particularly grateful for an explanation as to what she had done "wrong". Such a shame that Alan thinks driving new editors away is helping the encyclopedia. And a double-shame that you and others seem to think his behaviour is justified and good. A real shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I've noted in prior discussions with you, I was not referring to nor discussing Alan's behavior, but yours. I have no comment on Alan's behavior other than what I wrote in the section below. My concern here is that approaching an editor with an aggressive attitude is not likely to achieve what you want to achieve, regardless of who it is, and regardless of past experiences. I'm hopeful you will change your approach. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully Alan will change his approach to new editors. Alan has over 100k edits now and should know what is expected of him, and I'm glad you acknowledge that his approach is aggressive and unnecessarily bitey. That's what caused his previous blocks. If he continues to edit this way, I'm sure he'll find it more difficult to contribute. Which is a shame because some of his edits are very helpful, he just needs to work harder on dealing with other editors. Hopefully you will change your approach to his obstinacy. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I did not "acknowledge that his approach is aggressive and unnecessarily bitey", thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • But it was, as proven by the people he's recently "bitten". Thank you! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe or maybe not. My point was I didn't voice agreement with that. I've not been commenting on his behavior, other than asking him to change his edit summaries. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• His biting (and our notes to him) means he needs to do more. He needs to help people understand what he's doing. I've done a little to recover some good faith with one of his victims, but he doesn't change his habits. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, a suggestion; I've seen it many times across the project that the lesser extra privileges one can have (such as 'reviewer') become the target of people wanting to influence your decisions. As witnessed with your forced removal from AWB privs for something having nothing to do with AWB, the threat of revocation of extra privileges is used as a bludgeoning tool. There is a way to undermine such threats before they even happen. I have no extra privs. The only ones I have are those you can't vacate. I do not have autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, or rollbacker. Someone once tried to give me rollbacker without asking me, but after I asked for it to be removed it was. The impact on my editing by not having such flags has been a great big whopping goose egg. There's been no effect. I also do not use any automation of any kind, whether it be the tools available via preferences, or anything else. No automation assists my editing. I've accomplished north of 37k edits this way, and it hasn't hampered me in the slightest.

I heartily recommend you do the same. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_permissions, a simple request of an administrator can have these extra flags removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, despite Hammersoft's baseless accusations above, your misuse of rollback and edit summary accusing me of being a vandal was not because you're a "target of people wanting to influence your decisions". I understand why you inadvertently hit the wrong button (I use "undo" much more often with normal editors than "rollback") but I don't understand why you then accused me of vandalism. Sure, I didn't embellish the "undo" edit summary but my undoing of your category removal edit wasn't vandalism, moreover I tried to help the editor who had added those categories to a non-mainspace article. Fingers crossed that you'll not rollback reasonable edits with a "vandalism" warning in future. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• My commentary above made no accusations towards anyone. Therefore, there's nothing for it to be baseless about, thank you. I intentionally omitted any reference to particular events other than to removal of AWB privs months ago. Regardless, this particular thread is about user privileges. If you're concerned about his user privileges and the discussion I started in this thread, please feel free to continue. If you wish to continue to discuss Alan's actions with regards to your edits, that has already been discussed a couple of sections above. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Alan should not be allowed to use Rollback if he misuses it and accuses editors' of vandalism when the edits clearly are not vandalism. Accusations of people "reverting" his edits (when they were simply undone) compounded by further accusations of vandalism are indicative of an editor out of control or one who does not understand the tools he/she is using. Your adamant defence of his actions is very interesting and in some ways quite admirable, but I don't get it. He bites newcomers. He doesn't use the tools appropriately. Next stop, WP:AN and a more comprehensive ban on his editing privileges. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is this related to my suggestion that Alan give up all privileges other than 'editor'? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it is related, you seem to give him some idea that others are "targeting" him which is nonsense. He misused the rollback tool and, to make matters worse, accused me of being a vandal at the same time. The only target was created when Alan misused the tools given him. There was no-one around trying to "influence [his] decisions", and no-one was trying to use any "revocation of extra privileges as a bludgeoning tool", just a reminder that no-one should use rollback indiscriminately, worse, they shouldn't accuse people of vandalism at the same time. 86.178.213.250 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• And how is this related to my suggestion he voluntarily relinquish privilege flags? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, your passive attempt to bias the discussion, e.g. "the lesser extra privileges one can have (such as 'reviewer') become the target of people wanting to influence your decisions" which, of course, is bullshit. Liefting has abused his privilege as a rollbacker by flagrantly using it with a "vandalism" summary which is abundantly incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Since I did not mention anything to do with Alan's recent use of rollbacker, I fail to see the connection. I have been witness to people bludgeoning others with threats of revocation of rights. I have also been quite happy to observe a complete absence of such threats against me, since I have no rights to revoke. This thread was started by me to convey this idea to Alan, in the hopes that he would find editing more peaceful with not having any special rights. I don't see a need to continue to comment on his behavior here in this thread. In fact, there are now three threads going in which you are commenting, repeatedly, about Alan's behavior. This does not seem productive to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. The community have asked Alan to modify his behaviour numerous times, nothing really changes. It doesn't seem productive to me either. Any more issues and we're back at WP:AN with blocks, revocation of privileges and topic bans. Thanks for the chats Hammersoft. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aisle (political term) 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/Aisle (political term) 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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I commented on this back in August, but I came across a few recent AfDs such as this one and this one where it looks like you're still doing it in this manner, so I wanted to kindly ask if you would please not place your rationale on a separate bulleted line per WP:AFDFORMAT's practice, specifically that "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." The reason I ask is because I was looking at the AfD wondering where who the nominator was, and the way you present the AfD it looks like you are agreeing with the nominator, as opposed to being the nominator of the AfD, and it's rather confusing that way. - SudoGhost 22:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, regardless of the above, it would be in the best interests of everyone for you to explain what you are doing when removing categories from non-article space pages. Per WP:USERNOCAT you are no more right or wrong for removing as opposed to commenting out categories (both are equally acceptable under that guideline). However, as witnessed by this sandbox history, explaining yourself in the first instance would smooth the way and avoid conflict. This is good for you and the project. Even something as simple as including a "per WP:USERNOCAT" in the edit summary would help. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Alan, Kia ora! Despite what Hammersoft has said, it is most definitely not "regardless of the above". You need to explain your edits to newcomers, to those who don't understand your crusade. It's your duty to stop biting new editors with either no edit summary or one which is frankly indecipherable to a new editor here. You have over 100k edits and that makes you one of our more "experienced" editors. You do need to work on talking to other editors, rather than just quoting policy, guideline or worse, nothing, in your edit summaries. On many occasions your edits create confusion, and then hostility (I tried to undo some of the damage with User:DrChrissy for example, which was well received, have a look at the talkpage). I know you don't want that to be the case so please try a little harder to help the editors you're "helping" understand precisely what you're doing and why. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• And you've just proven my point. My approach to Alan above was cordial. Yours included accusations of him being on a "crusade", biting people, and being indecipherable. Could you please tone it down? This aggressive stance just isn't necessary. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, but no need for me to rephrase my approach. At least my approach actually states the issues, unlike Liefting's edits which give new editors little or no chance of understanding what "they did wrong". Could "he please tone it down"? Your aggressive defence of his passive-aggresive edits just isn't necessary. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Would you object if I removed all but my initial posting in this thread? Everything after it has nothing to do with my initial post in this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, keep it here. You're a keen proponent of Liefting and his methods, worth keeping the whole story intact for everyone esle to read. The Rambling Man (talk)

• And what does it have to do with my suggestion he change his edit summaries? You've commented on his behavior thoroughly in the thread above. It is necessary to repeat it here? I never said I was a keen proponent of Alan's methods, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I'm more than happy to keep all the thread going here, it's important that Alan realises the damage his mass edits are doing to users he encounters but treats indifferently. You didn't need to say how keen you were on Alan's methods, that much is clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• You've stated this case in the thread above. Is it necessary to repeat it in this thread and the thread below? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Cool, close this thread, close one of the others, and we'll focus in one place. And then we can move to WP:AN if this whole sorry waste of effort repeats again and again... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do not see a reason to close this thread, as the original post in it has yet to be read and responded to by Alan, if he so chooses. I do think it would be useful to contain commentary about his action to one thread. I hope you agree. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Next time Alan bites an editor, I'll be heading to WP:AN for further block etc. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• No, if Alan acts inappropriately your first step should be to bring it here or the talk page of the article in question, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Noting WP:DISENGAGE, I think it would be best if you simply disengaged from Alan. If there is anything pressing about his editing that requires attention, I'm confident someone will step forward to address the issue should it arise. There are 154 editors who have watchlisted this talk page. There are plenty of other volunteers who can assist. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • No, no, not at all. Alan summarily deletes issues here so there's not point in that at all. I will never disengage from an editor who is driving new editors away from Wikipedia, I will do whatever is necessary to reverse that trend. It doesn't matter how many people have this page on a watchlist, what matters is that Liefting has been blocked before for precisely this behaviour and has shown no inclination to change, indeed he himself stated he would continue to edit disruptively to prove a point. In the mean time, innocent, new, good editors will be discouraged by his crusade. I will not stand by and watch that happen. My next step, if he transgresses again, will be to seek a consensus at WP:AN to stop him doing it again. Full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Alan is not your personal responsibility. Coming here, approaching him aggressively with threats to block, remove rollback, etc. and then apparently leaving in anger is a non-starter. You are more than experienced enough to know this is not the way to engage a fellow editor. You have an opportunity to disengage. I recommend you take it. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, yes, see my post at 21:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC). Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Disengaging doesn't mean quietly watching for the slightest screwup and then reporting it out of step of the DR process. There is no emergency. Please, drop the sticks and walk away. Please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
          • Please stop telling me what to do. I will take the issue to AN as I please. You can have your say there as and when. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Please note that, just as here in this post, I am asking you to do something. I am not telling you to do anything. If you wish to take the issue to a noticeboard if Alan does something you find objectionable, there is nothing anyone can do to stop you from doing so. If you should be the person to do so, I would think it important that someone note your highly aggressive approach here, unwillingness to disengage, and willingness to use your tools even though you are blatantly involved (though I grant you seem to have backed off of that approach at least). I understand you are (correct me if I'm wrong) angry that Alan removes content categories from userspace pages. You prefer to have them coloned out. That's your preference, which is fine. Equally fine is Alan's preference they be removed. Both of you are right. See Wikipedia:USERNOCAT and note that guideline does not stipulate a preferred method. Though Wikipedia:User_pages#Categories.2C_templates.2C_and_redirects has been referenced before, it contains no guidance as to the preferred method either. You seem angry (again, correct me if I'm wrong) that Alan accused you of vandalism, yet you had an equal violation in the improper use of edit summaries making it appear that your edits were flat reverts when they were not. Further, you accuse Alan of causing disruption [17], You accuse Alan of being on a crusade [18], and then later make this post which reads very much like a crusade. In short, it appears that much of what you are accusing Alan of you are just as guilty of. I am not the only one suggesting you walk away from this [19]. You responded appreciatively to that, and negatively to the same advice from me. I understand why you are responding negatively to me. Regardless of the quarter from which the advice comes, it is on the face of it valid. It is why it is part of WP:DR. Please, if you won't hear the same advice from me, at least take CBM's advice to heart and do as he suggests. With this last said, I'm going to take my own advice. I hope you have a wonderful day (meant sincerely). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Just a couple of corrections and notes. Alan has been blocked three times in the past six months for this kind of behaviour, so he's fully aware that what he does incurs blocks, per both individual admins and a community consensus to block (note, I didn't block him on any of those three occasions in the past six months). He has even been proud enough to declare that he will continue to engage in the behaviour for which has been blocked three times just to "prove a point". Preference or otherwise, there is an agreement by the community that his edits in other users' sandboxes are disruptive and he should cease and desist. His biting of new editors is entirely unacceptable. I was angry to be accused entirely falsely of vandalism during Alan's flagrant misuse of the rollback tool (note, it should never be used in content issues, I would hope you know that?) and yes, I didn't embellish the edit summary where, note, I did not revert Alan, I "undid" his edit (important distinction). I did not revert Alan, per your accusations above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
              • Also, for third party readers, I have asked Hammersoft to redact the numerous false accusations, lies and incorrect statements, but to no avail. Hammersoft will not retract the false accusations and the incorrect characterisations of this discussion, which I find to be beyond comprehension and disgusting considering Hammersoft's experience here on Wikipedia. Note, this has nothing to do with the issues of Alan's editing, it is simply a demonstration of Hammersoft refusing to do anything about their inaccurate edits and false accusations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:Exodus International logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – MrX 00:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:48, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I have proposed a topic ban for you from all category related edits outside the main namespace. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive240#Topic ban for Alan Liefting. Fram (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Are you employed as an Editor for Wikipedia? I am new to Wikipedia (3 days) and tried to upload a photograph of the man (since the painting there claimed to be a self portrait and it is not). As a newcomer, I discovered that I am not yet permitted to do so. I am sorry that you did not think the selected list of Blaker's artworks appropriate for Wikipedia. This has never been compiled before and is not available anywhere on the internet. I shall publish it and my research on Hugh Blaker elsewhere. (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broneirion (talk • contribs) 09:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not a paid editor. There are essentially no paid editors, but I would like to see the Wikimedia Foundation make funding available to the Wikipedia community to employ editors to do any editing that needs doing but is not.

With respect to uploading an image, as far as I am aware you are permitted to do so and you are certainly not restricted in adding images to pages. The problem was that the image link that you added was a red link, i.e. an image of that name does not exist. See WP:Images for an overview of image information.

If the self portrait in the article is incorrectly described the article should be corrected. Finally, if the art collection information is not documented elsewhere is cannot be used on Wikipedia since it goes against policies such as WP:Synthesis, WP:Original research and WP:Verifiability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I kept getting the message that I was not permitted to upload pictures until after 4 days or 10 posts ... and I did not get that message until the placeholder and caption were created. Even though the portrait illustrated is catalogued by its owners (Worthing Museum) as a Self Portrait, it is not. I was endeavouring to upload a photograph of Blaker in 1900 from my own collection.

As the "world's leading authority" on Hugh Blaker ... or at least that what was said in the international Press recently, I had hoped to create a better online presence for Blaker. I have spent years researching Blaker, documenting his career, and publishing on the man (including with OUP). I have a huge personal archive of material, MSS and handwritten diaries relating to him, and have been "re-assembling" his collection from sale room catalogues, dealers, galleries, museum databases. He owned a phenomenally important art collection. The material is out there in multiplicity of archive sources - so it is documented in that sense, but there is not one print or online source where one can see a list of what he owned. Clearly I know now that Wikipedia is not the place to be doing this. I shall use the material elsewhere online. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broneirion (talk • contribs) 00:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a four day period where new accounts have limitations in place. I guess that may have been a reason. Any free images should be copied over to Wikimedia Commons. If they are not free they can be uploaded to Wikipedia but there is a very strict set of criteria for inclusion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is becoming increasingly tedious correcting your unnecessary, obviously unresearched deletion nominations such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricut, in which sources comprised of significant coverage were found just by clicking on the Google News archive link at top of the AfD discussion. It is disruptive, like you're continuously trying to make a point about companies and products being inherently non-notable by virtue of their existence, rather than by researching actual topic notability. I've noticed this stance in many other of your AfD nominations and in their discussions, which you have stated repeatedly in them in different manners, like the encyclopedia just shouldn't cover these types of topics. This won't do a thing to change the notability guidelines for companies and products. Please research topic notability as strongly suggested at Section D of WP:BEFORE prior to making spurious nominations such as these using Twinkle. Thank you in advance for your utmost consideration regarding this important matter. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• See also:

• User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 18/Your deletion nominations
• Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/Archive 57/Need an Article Killer Squadron

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I have say that I admire your dedication in sourcing information and trying to prevent articles from getting deleted. But, with all due respect, I think it is a misguided dedication when applied to articles about commercial organisations. I foresee a day when there will be a prescriptive notability guideline for such articles and we may well see some of the articles that I am currently putting through an AfD fail such a guideline. The notability guidelines for biographical articles was probably developed decause ther was the same situation as we are now seeing with company articles. WP:BIO now tramps WP:GNG and WP:OTHERSTUFF to stop the flood of bio article that editors love creating. We urgently need the same for company articles as I have often stated.

Note that it the case of Cricut it not a clear cut keep. Andy Dingly, who would be an arch-enemy in the real world, is not fully convinced of the articles' merit.

As an aside, I came across an article about a company that had survived for years. I put it up for speedy deletion and it was deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out, Alan. If you find anything interesting in your hefty collection of snake books, please add it. Drmies (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No sweat. I have got plenty of books but nothing on snakes (we don't actually have snakes here in New Zealand). I found reliable online refs about the snake. I came across the article because it popped up in Category:Articles with missing files. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)