User talk:Alan Liefting
|Babel user information|
|Users by language|
|This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.
This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alan_Liefting.
|This is the user talk page of Alan Liefting, where you can send messages and comments to Alan Liefting.|
I reported you in AN/U Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Alan Liefting. -- Geagea (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was expecting something like this. You really don't like editors moving files out of Category:Israel do you. Anyway, I have to go to bed. Got work tomorrow. Alan Liefting (talk) 09:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, your recent assumption might be off track. This year 162 of Geagea's file uploads have been deleted (not counting images in open DRs), and during their total history, 1,066 have been deleted while 36,576 images are 'live' on Commons. A deletion count requires some context as there may be many reasons why a batch upload might later need to have a large proportion deleted (such as near duplicates being discovered). It is likely that a "deleted edits" count for an admin includes files/pages that they marked for speedy deletion etc. but are not their own uploads.
In terms of best practice for what counts as a large dump of files in a category, note this part of Commons:Guide_to_batch_uploading#Categories — "if a large number of files - say over 20, but sometimes fewer - are going to be added to a category, it is often best to either spread them among subcategories, or create a new sub-category for them."
Best of luck, frankly I am finding it impossible to discuss this problematic behaviour without others claiming that saying anything against an administrator is bad faith. --Fæ (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Google Glass jpg
Hi Alan, I am the author of the Google glasses jpg. not sure why you think it should be deleted. It is my original cartoon, and it should be labeled Google Glass, not Google Glasses. Otherwise I do not understand your objection, I am an infrequent poster to Wiki Commons and enjoy allowing others to use my artwork and photos, with permission, even though I find the posting protocols to be difficult.. yrs mamyjomarash — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
- The image does not appear to fall withing the scope of files hosted on Wikimedia Commons specifically due to:
- "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use."
|Category:20th_century_gallery_pages_by_year has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.
If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
184.108.40.206 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Of course it is not "fine", on the other hand it was not ideal but it was ok. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Your disruptive DRs and your treating to other users are not helpful
Alan Liefting, as an experienced Commons user, you should know the Commons policies. But your behaviour in the last time says otherwise.
You was already blocked (unreasonably, I guess), but you, instead of stay COM:MELLOW, you still doing disruptive editions, including DRs of files clearly inside the COM:TOO, and treating discourteously to other users (including Administrators). Please stop your problematic behaviour in Commons, or I'll repory you to the COM:AN (that will be the thrid report in this year) to request a block for a reasonable ammount of time. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I do consider my block to be unreasonable.
- I don't consider that my DRs are disruptive. The deletion to keep ratio is high.
- I did not realise that I was being discourteous to other editors. Abrupt maybe, but not discourteous.
- The previous two reports to COM:AN were from an admin trying to maintain a position that was out of step with the rest of the community and my editing was shown to be reasonable.
- Also, I am not fully conversant with Commons policies but one tries to get oneself familiar with them. Alan Liefting (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why a user registered in Commons more than 6 years ago and with more than 50.000 edits is still unfamiliar with the Commons (and other WMF projects) policies? Not a few users think your editions are not helpful (including administrators) and in some of cases disruptive, and even worse, vandalical.
- Also, you have already been blocked in the en:Wikipedia several times by the same (disruptive editions). Ignoring the Commons (and other WMF projects) policies (strange, coming from an experienced user) does not eximes to comply them. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- It is only recently that I began doing more that just uploads to Commons. Obviously, just doing uploads requires less knowledge of policy that doing a wider range of edits. While the range of guideline on Commons is far less than Wikipedia I am not going to say that I am completely familiar with them.
- And yes, I have been blocked on Wikipedia a number of times. Interestingly it was mostly by one admin. That smacks of a vendetta to me
- Now this may sound arrogant but rather than being disruptive I like to think that I am trying to make improvements to Commons (as I tried to do on Wikipedia) but the community is not interested. Many other editors tried to do what I am persevering with but they have given up in frustration and have left the project for good. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- The big problem here is the lack of auto-critical, thinking you're assumming good faith and the others are assuming bad faith (alleging vendetta from some admins). You violated several Commons and Wipipedia policies, that is unquestionable.
- Finally, you can question the quality of files, but not its scope. If several users disagrees your reasoning for your editions and DRs, is because we have more experience and know the Commons policies better than you. If you disagree the Commons policies, please discuss them in the Village Pump instead of questioning the Commons Policies in your DRs. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Yann that this DR was not OK. Just curious: "I am in the process of collecting data to write an article about it. Stay tuned..." Can you elaborate a bit? --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- I had discovered the Geagea was uploading all sorts of stuff in his/her mass uploads so I decided to go though them resulting in the DR in question. I obviously have a different opinion on what should be kept and what should be deleted. There is what I call the "Culture of Keep" here on Commons. It is really easy to get all sorts of digital detritus onto Commons and it is really hard to get rid of it. Given that some files were deleted in the DR in question it did achieve a measure of success.
- The article that I mention on my user page as moved off my to-do list at present. When I started editing Commons in earnest I posted that note because I was so incredible disgusted with the state of Commons with respect to Wikipedia (although Wikipedia has its share of faults as well) that I thought I should research the "State of Commons" and bang on about it wildly by publishing an article in the appropriate forums.
- It worked for Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lamor100. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- And at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tmclaren. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Deletions (User:Pikiwikisrael)
I know very well the COM:VFC and I usually use them. The individual DRs opened by me belongs to files tagged for Speedy by User:Pikiwikisrael, where them does meet the Criteria for Speedy deletions. The COM:VFC also allows to remove Speedy tags and convert them to DRs (that I done). Doing a mass DR does not work, because don't remove the Speedy tag, unless I have specialited tools to do that.
Categorization you may enjoy
Hi, I don't know if you are playing with VFC or AWB yet, but my recent Miami U. uploads included many (probably a few hundred) artworks that were allocated to "YYYY photographs" categories rather than "YYYY drawings". This search shows over 400, but I'm not sure if that is all of them. I fixed this problem part way through the upload, but unfortunately it's the sort of thing that was easy to miss on setting it up. Just highlighting as I can see you helping with some of the categorization at the moment. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- I zapped you a msg to u at the same time! I should have breakfast and go to work! Will have a look at that stuff later. Alan Liefting (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks to busy volunteers, I see the total needing work is already being chipped away at. --Fæ (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Alan Liefting removing all categories, again.. Regarding your continual disregard for consensus in removing all categories from files. Thank you.