User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Alan Liefting. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rachel Klein (novelist), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.spock.com/Rachel-Klein. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

False positive - mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you requested usurption of your username on the Simple English Wikipedia as an IP edit? Is the Username protected as you have started the SUL process?Creol (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did make that request as an anon editor. I did not see ant point in creating a new username to, ahhh, simply make a request. Yes, the username is protectred. It is blocked. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a very interesting storm. Thanks for creating it, as otherwise I would have never known about it! I am very surprised how much info there is, so now I plan on incorporating all of the good New Zealand info into the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment via "What links here" I discovered User:Alan Liefting/List of environmental topics and that you "hope to use it as a replacement for Lists of environmental topics and it's associated pages." {sic} {Please see ITS.}

Does your plan involve the deletion of the history of Lists of environmental topics and its talk page and the history of its talk page? Does the expression "associated pages" refer to List of environmental topics (0-9) and List of environmental topics (A) through List of environmental topics (Z) (27 pages)? Would their histories and talk pages and talk page histories be deleted?

Interested persons should know that, before such deletions happen, they can still see an old version of a page by selecting "history" and then selecting (clicking on) the date of the version they wish to see. They can still preserve, in some form of their choice, any information they wish to have available, before it is too late.

-- Wavelength (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You came across a user subpage that I have let lapse. I certainly would like to see the Lists of environmental topics A - Z to be replaced by a single page rather than the current 27 pages. Twenty seven pages is too extensive a list. The single page would be the core articles about environmental topics and the numerous articles on enviro orgs, agreements (unless notable), country specific pages etc would be dropped. There should also be List of pollution topics. There is already a List of conservation topics. List of climate change topics is a copy of Glossary of climate change and should be listified. These lists are subsets of the environmental list and should be linked in the "See also" section. The topics in these lists need not be duplicated in the main environment list unless particularly notable. On a minor note the lists clutter up Category:Topical indexes, along with all the other A to Z lists.

I would like to see the current pages deleted after a rehash but if you find them useful you could userfy them. Whether or not they are deleted (along with the histories) would be up to the WP:AFD process. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You said:

• the capitalisation is not correct.
• the links are using the pipe trick and therefore the reader does not get the correct impression of where the article lead to.

The capitalisation is a matter of style, not a normative issue. These templates are intended as small menus tucked to the side. They use short informal topic indicators, not lists of article titles. They are pointers to topics - click on them for more details. Your approach results in an ugly template spreading across half the page. Having the full title is not necessarily any more informative than a brief pointer, and people pursuing the topic will look at each article anyway.

• I removed the book since it does not belong in a template. Templates are for global use and so they should have links that are of a broad nature.
• Marine pollution and marine debris are getting too far from the core focus of the template.

Yes the book and the other topics you mention are on the margins, they are dealing either with broader or more peripheral matters. And because of that, those articles don't have the template attached to them.

I have listed the topics you suggest in the top part of the menu, and restored the more peripheral topics to the bottom part of the menu, and am happy to discuss this with you further if you really think it is important to remove them. The three items at the very bottom of the template relate in a collaborative way with other templates, and I have restored your unexplained removal of an item there.

I agree this template needs some tidying up (as do some of the articles!), but this is a sorry way to go about it. You might have first discussed this matter in a friendly collaborative manner and reached some agreement. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, can do. Rich Farmbrough, 13:01 8 June 2008 (GMT).

This is a great addition to the Storm kettle article! The paint job on it is terrific too. --Fremte (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I reponded to your post here. Please respond on that talk page (if you so desire). Thanks. Bebestbe (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Talk:Otago. XLerate (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why you removed the redirect to Landcare (organisation) from Landcare Australia as they seem to be the one and the same? Or is the Landcare Australia meant to just refer to the government authority created to support the community based organisation, under the National Landcare Programme of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry? If so the categories should be refined from orgs to govs. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Landcare Australia is an umbrella group. whereas Landcare (organisation) is one in the state of Victoria. They should be merged into one article given that one is a stub. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the considerate post. I suggested that the article for the Death Note movies be split into multiple (or two, as I would suggest) because, in the end, we are talking about two movies. Right now, the plot summary is the rather sparse one given for the Death Note manga that only introduces the story. While it would be a good idea to lengthen the section to better explain the total story, having two separate pages might be more useful for going into the individual deviations from the original manga. I'm hesitant to talk about having just one list of such changes on the current pages, because it could easily get too long or nitpicking to be something that could be read easily or casually. If you and the other Wikipedians, though, can think of a way of expanding the article to better talk about both films, please do so. Good luck and thank you Ode2joy (talk) 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has nominated your Image:Weinmannia racemosa flowers.jpg for deletion. As the nominator was not logged in, I will ask an admin to treat it as a hoax and remove the deletion request. Kāhuroa (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Might be a disgruntled editor who has an image that I left a tag on about its quality. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to get that question 100 times if we put it at the top of WP:LEAD, so I figure I better ask you :) See WT:LEAD. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

we are not trying to establish notabilty merely by references.

also: criterium number 6

"Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that commonsense exceptions always apply."

NOISE WITHIN contains of 3 members that were and still are past of notable groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblemedia (talk • contribs) 01:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your moving of its history off of the Floppy Disk article. I invite you to join the discussion of whether such a move is justified, IMO, not so. But regardless of my opinion, such a major restructuring should not take place without consensus, and right now there does not appear to be such. No need to reply to me at all, just join the discussion Tom94022 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any featured list that falls under WikiProject Environment's scope? Please reply on my talk page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan,

Not sure what you mean by "the move was not obvious". The justification for the move is quite simple and stated on the talk page: the page is about tussock grass, which is a perfect synonym for "bunch grass". All that the heading really requires is a redirect IMO, but there is a case that it needs a disambiguation page to allow people to list the (literally hundreds) of species with the common name of "tussock grass".

The stuff I moved was only tangentially about tussock grass (a lifeform descriptor) per se. It was however a rather good article about New Zealand tussock grasslands (an ecosystem). So I created a page of that name to give it a home. You're right, I probably should have moved it but I still haven't figured out how.

Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Cheers

The tussock (grass) page should be more than a list of tussock species. There is all the ecosystem stuff, usage in different countries etc. that should be on such a page. I envisaged the page being built up over time and then at some point in the future the page would be split into different pages. To move a page just need to click on the "Move" tag at the top of the page. and then follow instructions. I manage to do it so it cannot ne too hard. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1) As I keep pointing out, with references of the highest order, the terms "tussock (grass)" and "bunch (grass)" are perfect synonyms. We can only keep one of them since Wiki doesn't allow separate articles for perfect synonyms in regional dialects. I am honestly not attached to which goes, tussock or bunch, but one or the other needs to be the main article, and the other then becomes a disambiguation page. What you have done is try to create two separate pages for exactly the same subject using regional dialects.

2)There is already an ecoregion article on tussock grasslands. If you have more to add to it then by all means add it. But once again you are reinventing the wheel. There is an article that is already perfectly placed to cover "all the ecosystem stuff". It's an ecoregion article. It doesn't need to be covered yet again in a botanical article on a growth habit.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

srry --TheGreenGorilla (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

--TheGreenGorilla (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A number of your new pages are very stubbie stubs and some may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Here are a few comments on the pages that you have created:

• Afterglow Controller - probably not notable
• Moody Beach - probably not notable

Also, try and add the appropriate category, avoid spelling mistakes and adhere to the Manual of Style. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that A7 does NOT apply to schools and Clifford Holroyde, while I agree doesn't seem notable, is a school. I've reverted that, so you should consider an AFD if you wish. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done a hangon. It seems to me that a luminary of early eighteenth century Dublin who left a remarkable legacy, is every bit as deserving of a Wikipedia entry as, for example, an English minor league soccer player or an obscure Sinn Féin politician. Millbanks (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I was a little hasty with the apeedy I guess. Have added cats and stub notice. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks, Alan. Millbanks (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am newish to Wikipedia and see there has been a "history" associated with the "Lists of environmental topics". I find these (all 27) lists very useful - not least for a very quick check of what topics have been covered, what related topics have been written and so on. As I am working on Sustainability at present I also find the lists useful because of their "anthropogenic" bias. I would like to ask if there are any problems with 1. continuing and updating these lists. 2. Possibly transducing the TOC environmental topics box to a "Sustainability" page (that is, is there a problem with it appearing with more than one article if the topics are sufficiently similar? - or, alternatively,how do I make a TOC box the same as the Environemntal topics box except for internal "sustainability" headings? Granitethighs (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching your good work on the env science glossary article.

Replies:

1. User:Wavelength created the enviro topic lists and a few other editors, myself included, felt that the lists were too extensive and articles with very little connection with environmental topics were being included. The list has been culled to a much smaller subset of the original. I would prefer that the lists was small enough to fit on one page since there are many other lists that either do or could overlap. I am trying to keep the topics in the environmental sphere appropriately allocated to lists and categories.
2. I assume you mean this template: {{TopicTOC-Environmental}}? It is only suitable for pages that are of the same topic on separate pages per letter and that template is only for that particular list. I would like to keep the topic areas separate where approp. The whole enviro field is cross-disciplinary so it is good to get some sort of demarcation (except for the overlaps) between topics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Re-version, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.reversion.eu. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

False positive.Mirror page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Geniospasm, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Mentalis. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

False positive. Mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kinkey Lee (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Alan and OhanaUnited – I’ve got myself into strife in producing multiple pages for ‘’List of sustainability topics’’. At present my list is fairly short and can sit on one page but I had intended essentially gathering as many relevant articles as possible. I realise that there are many advantages in keeping lists short – also that categories contain basic lists that people can look up as well. Thing is, big lists also have many pluses too – they allow comparison, show up what can be merged and deleted, show quickly where there are areas of weak information and much more – they act like a vast table of contents and are great for research. Yes, you can use the search button but it really isn’t quite the same as a block list. Anyway – that’s not (altogether) what i want to ask you. What I want to ask you is this – you have both been at this game much longer than me. I have noticed that there is now a ‘’List of environmental topics’’, a ‘’List of conservation topics’’, ‘’List of sustainability topics’’. There is a lot of cross-over here. I know Alan would like to keep the environmental topics brief (is that right?) that is why I set up a lot of pages for ‘’sustainability topics’’ to take up the slack so-to-speak – a big job but I am prepared to undertake this. To cut to the chase:

1. Can you see or suggest any way of rationalising such similar lists or do you think we keep going as is?

2. Do you think it is worth while deciding – if only for Wikipedia purposes – what is the difference between sustainability, conservation, and environment as it relates to human impact (which is how the list of environment topics is presented) so that it is clear what each list covers. Or is that just too hopeful?

3. I could get the list on sustainability topics I want by gradually labelling every topic with ‘’category:sustainability topics’’ and that way could get a list by clicking ‘’What links here? ‘’ . But then perhaps that is best done by just using ‘’category:sustainability’’? The beauty of just collecting articles together as I originally intended is that entries do not have to be made on the article pages so that they are all linked ... but perhaps the linking is desirable.

Anyway – I’m just interested in your suggestions - especially since there seems to be a bit of history with this sort of thing. Granitethighs (talk) 11:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the longer a list is the less use it is. The List of sustainability topics as currently stands is not overly unwieldy. If you are aiming for a list that is of use for editors to improve articles then such a list can be placed in user or project space. There may well be a lot of crossover between the environemntal, conservation and sustainability lists but that is the nature of information. What we should be doing as editors is making sure that the overlap is not excessive and therefore making the lists redundant. I see environmental topics as the overarching umbrella topic for conservation, sustainability and environmentalism.

Replies:

1. The rationalising that needs to be done it to ensure that there is as little overlap as possible between all the lists under the environment umbrella. Any article that are placed on multiple lists should be relevant to all the lists.
2. What we decide on here on WP must be a reflection of the real world but having said that there is a lot of confusion over ecology and environment. Environment, conservation and sustainability are quite separate subject areas. Environment is the overarching topic area that covers the human impacts on the environment, conservation is about protecting species (and therefore ecosystems) from human activities, and sustainability is how human activity must be in order to minimise or prevent impacts on the environment.
3. Labelling sustainability articles with Category:Sustainability topics is redundant since it should already be in Category:Sustainability and its subcats.

Hope that helps. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's really good - thanks - its cleared things up considerably. Following your lead I was going to put a swag of sustainability items (solar power ethical consumption and the like under environment as you say here - especially as environment on these pages refers to human impact - but the list would soon have got long and I knew that wasn't what you were trying to do. I will follow your suggestion and use category:sustainability to get sustainability topics together - and try to keep them well within what most people would refer to as sustainability stuff. Granitethighs (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On a similar topic - what do you make of List of environmental issues merging into the TOC List of environmental topics - it is very similar to what I was going to do for sustainability with the clickable letters of the alphabet leading to separate pages. But is a bit confusing as to what is going on here. It seems as though someone has put a few issues on page 1 allowing others to go for the topics in the box above - but that is not obvious.I see there is a bit of history to those pages - are they being updated or what?

Granitethighs (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Re-version requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edlover333 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Sorry But What Do You Think Is Wrong About The Koneko Momoko Page!?!Edlover333 (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick question; why create a disambig page that links nowhere? Ironholds 23:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I had second thoughts about it and was about to redirect it to another page - but then I got your message! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

We need your help: Filemon, a Warsaw-based Neocon activist wants to delete the Wikipedia entry on The Canadian European Council.

It defies logic how a lone amateur Polish contributor with little knowledge of Canada can single-handedly decide to delete a small (yet real and relatively influential) Canadian think-tank.

The Canadian European Council is a real/legitimate think-tank- these guys have published several pieces (some referenced in the Wikipedia entry) in:

- The San Francisco Chronicle: one of the top 5 US newspapers - The Daily Star: the Middle-East’s leading English language newspaper

They’re amongst twelve (only!) Canadian political think-tanks listed in Wikipedia …

Granted they’re not a very large/active organization, but that doesn’t constitute in itself a valid reason for removal.

I suspect Filemon’s desire to remove them stems from his overt dislike of their anti-neocon stance… I hope I’m wrong!

Anyways, I think this entry must be kept: it’s clear, well –written, concise and abides fully by Wikpidedia guidelines.

Please help us in countering Filemon’s abuse.

Cordially,

Moorehaus (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC) 

Jezzes, Alan, have you got it in for me or what. I've just created that article, I'm actively editing it, and you have already crawled all over it imposing your own preferences, again without courtesy or consultation. What's going on with you? You haven't replied about the sustainability issue, so I wonder of there is any point trying to engage with you. This doesn't feel like cooperative editing - it feels more like aggression. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, a neutral rather than emotive tone of voice typing would be nicer. It is probably a policy or guideline. No, I do not have it in for you. I do not know why you say that. I had no idea what state of completeness you leave the article in unless you put up the {{underconstruction}} tag. Please note that no single editor can take ownership of an article. If you do not want to have any new article edited by others keep it in your userspace. I cannot impose my preferences on WP article because anyone else can change it. The changes I make reflect what I have seen elsewhere on WP and I feel that it is the preferred option. As to consultation I do this when necessary but not on every single edit. I engage with editors if I have a strong opinion and don't engage if I have nothing to add, or feel that I am on a loosing streak, or am in the process of formulating a reply (sometimes gathering info to make an informed reply takes a little time). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I get touchy sometimes and can't be bothered to simulate an impeccable neutral tone (I'm too old to aspire to the wikipedian version of political correctness). I welcome your involvement - and when you pick at scabs on the fishing articles I will go "ouch"! --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied to at my talk page and the article's talk page. Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hickey (surname), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Hickey. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

False positive. Split out from another article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Man Alive (TV series), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Man Alive. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

False positive. Did an article split. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to move Man Alive by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Feuillant (monks), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.skogasbk.com/Feuillants. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Feuillant (political group), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.skogasbk.com/Feuillants. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and 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 and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Feuillant (monks) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Feuillant (political group) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I noticed that you added back the external link section in Take Care of Texas. I think that WP:EL implies that ELs are not needed for links that are already included in an in-line reference. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case the question may be academic since the article may be deleted. Since the subject of the article has a website it is appropriate to include it as an ext link even though it is a reference. This is commonly done in other WP pages and assists readers of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Maybe we should update WP:EL?—G716 <^T·_C> 19:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

we already specify in WP:EL that such links are always accepted. DGG (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

For an Indian scholar outside the US/European academic tradition,asserting the publication of numerous works is at least an assertion of notability, and, if it can be proven, is possibly actual notability--though there are usually major sourcing and copyvio problems\ and many are rejected at AfD on that basis. But as for notability, andone asserted to be an author of multiple works, passes speedy., DGG (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Your consistent work on environmental articles, an area seemingly neglected, is noticed. Thanks a bunch. II | (t - c) 11:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosh! Thank you for that. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why you removed the Category:Environmental economics? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed it for two reasons. Firstly it is getting to distant from the article focus and secondly it is in the higher level Category:Environment. If a Economic implications of zero population growth article existed it would be appropriate for Category:Environmental economics. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've significantly rewritten {{Please see}}, which you nominated for deletion. Could you take another look and see if I've addressed your concerns? If so, please withdraw the nomination. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you reply here, please leave a {{talkback}} on my talk page. Thanks.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think environment (biophysical) and natural environment could be merged? It seems as if there is a lot of overlap there. I noticed that you created the former and I was wondering if you had a plan for it. II | (t - c) 02:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just skimmed it. I see the distinction better now. However, I still think it could make sense to merge all three of these articles. I also wonder if there's some OR involved in the distinction, since no references are provided showing that built environment is a term which is used in environmental science, opposed to natural environment. II | (t - c) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would rather not have these articles merged. Firstly, a bit of history: the natural and built environment articles were created quite early on and I very recently created the environment (biophysical) article to disambiguate the many articles the used that definition. As you discovered natural environment is different and is not accurate enough for many contexts. The three article are disambiguated form Environment and I hope that they will at some stage become decent standalone article of their own right. With respect to referencing the articles is seems that any discourse in environmental science makes an assumption that readers know what is meant by the terms. As an encyclopedia we have to spell it out and the articles are a synthesis of environmental studies. Other encyclopedias do not make clear definitions of the terms, possibly because the word is of relatively recent use. Environment, especially the anthropogenic effects on it, are of increasing interest hence the need for clear definitions here on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed your speedy tag on Andreas Boyde There is an unmistakably clear assertion of importance, and I think it will even survive Afd. We do not delete articles for being unsourced, even at afd, only for being unsourcable. and Derek Wallace is asserted to have played in the Major Leagues!! Unless that's an error, you should look for sources, not tag articles like that for deletion. Swlwron is the last resort. DGG (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)