Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

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

Damn! you noticed. Looks like I can't hide anything on this wiki. It is my preference that stub cats are hidden, and since there is no consensus either way it is a valid edit (I would not call the discussion that you quote a clear consensus). Feel free to revert if you wish. It is not worth quibbling about when looking at The Big Picture. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Liefting, if you disagree with a discussion close, you discuss this with the closing admin or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. You don't just ignore the result and continue with edits that go against the decision. Such editing is considered disruptive. Fram (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you cannot call the edit in question disruptive could you? And the discussion the you linked to is hardly indicative of the community is it? And it was not a clear consensus either. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't I be able to call that edit disruptive? It was, but we are hardly going to take action based on a single edit. And the discussion represents a recent community consensus, if you disagree with it you should take it up with the closer or via dispute resolution. It is not up to you to decide that a certain discussion and decision wasn't valid or correct. Fram (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, what is it are you here on WP for Fram? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building and maintaining the best encyclopedia possible for our readers. You? Fram (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same. And removing placeholder images is a small step in that direction IMO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which has nothing to do with this topic... Fram (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I was just sounding you out. Not something I usually do BTW. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please stop with these mass removals until there is a clear consensus for them. Fram (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This concerns the above issue.  Sandstein  06:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan, thank you for stopping the removals while the WP:AN/I thread was underway. Also, please note that I have created WP:IPH, which is a shortcut link to the consensus for removal. You may wish to include this shortcut in your edit summaries when you resume removals. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• If you think his edit summaries are a problem, please start a sub-thread at WP:AN/I. As to my "actual purpose", please do not attribute hidden agendas. I am (here) what I type. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Planet 2006 film.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I said in my edit summary the article is about music rather than communities. It therefore should not have categories relating to communities. Categories are black and white/yeas and no and so articles should only have categories that have a strong connection with the topic. Have a read of WP:CAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So why have you left some in there? Actually, forget it. I am going to raise the issue on the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Category:Kerala society? I wavered on that one. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I have mentioned the issues at Talk:Saint_Thomas_Christian_music#Categorisation, mainly because these STC articles are proving to be a nightmare of edit wars and so it is probably best to resolve the issue now before it turns into yet another prolonged game of ping-pong. You are probably correct but you may not be aware of just how much fighting goes on over (seemingly) the most trivial points, an example at Saint Thomas Christians being acres of space devoted to whether the word "communal" should be dropped because it has political overtones. I am not great on category-related work, btw. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The WP:AN/I Barnstar
	The WP:AN/I Barnstar is hereby awarded for having a thread about you on WP:AN/I reach #1 on the table of contents, while being exonerated of any wrongdoing (or, at least, there being no consensus you did something wrong). --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] (To the easily offended who read this; humor people, humor. It's that thing that causes you to laugh.)

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

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

		The tireless cybernetic contributor Barnstar
		I really like your style, the way you get things done... quietly, surely, and prolifically, omg! :) Penyulap ☏25 Jun 2012 (UTC)_

Gosh! Thank you! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome. Brilliant work ! Penyulap ☏ 00:58, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The page was showing up in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So to reinstate it I would need to remove the categories?--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or comment them out, or put a ":" in the category link like this: [[:Category:Science]]. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs)

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

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

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

• Trackinfo, you are completely out of line. A person does not need to be thoroughly knowledgeable of a subject in order to make additions, deletions, recommendations, or any other editorial action. If a deletion has merit, it will hold up on consensus. If it doesn't, it won't. You do not own anything here. If you do not want your writing to be edited, deleted, or rephrased at will, then do not submit it here. Describing placing a category for deletion as "an attack" is a gross overstatement. The solution you appear to be advocating is to shut down all XfD processes since these constitute "attacks". You may wish to consider the wise words of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry when he said "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Lastly, the claim that he was somehow lucky to escape being banned at the recent WP:AN/I is false on the face of it. Alan never faced banning. Sandstein inappropriately threatened a block, not a ban, and no consensus was found that Alan's actions were in any way improper. It isn't about luck. It's about consensus. Being a deletionist or inclusionist on Wikipedia is not a sin. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Except Alan has a long history of inappropriate deletions and has been brought to ANI for them time and again. I first ran across him when he was on his book prodding spree and he prodded an article I had created, Will Grayson, Will Grayson, whose references haven't changed since then. It took a group of us to comb through the past ten pages of his contributions history and remove most of the prods. In turn, he often then just listed them for deletion, but I only know of 1 book that was actually deleted in the end. Thus, he had around a 90% fail rate, if not higher, on his prodding, and that is completely inappropriate. And i've seen no evidence that he has improved in his deletion activities since then. Silverseren^C 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So that is why your comments about me tend to be disparaging. Please assume good faith, please do not make assumptions and please do not bring our human frailties into the Wikiworld. And if you did some some quantitative research on my use of PROD nominations you will find that your perception is not borne out by reality. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're saying your mass prodding has improved since the book prods and that you now put the titles and names into, say, Google News before adding a prod to check for notability? Because i'm thinking of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithful Place right now, where all you have to do is click that news button right there and you'll find a first page full of reviews from major newspapers. Silverseren^C 22:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do some research on my editing behaviour before making pointed accusations. Can you back up you claim that I carry out "mass prodding" (whatever that may be)? You should also realise that notability guidelines are subjective and not necessarily a reflection of the community for every single article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional note to Trackinfo: it is 'Categories for Discussion' - not 'Categories for Deletion' - and discussion is what everybody is advocating (sometimes up to the level that it is time to delete WP:BOLD and to mark WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY as historic). Could you please redact your inappropriate remarks. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion results in deletion. The intent is to make content within wikipedia, mine or anybody else's vulnerable. I might not use the proper wiki-jargon all the time, however the point should be clear. When total annihilation of a block of content is being considered, the BEST word one can use is "attack." Nobody can possibly argue (though you do) that the handful of participants involved in these consensus' can possibly represent the wide variety of opinions of wikipedia editors. You are an extreme minority. And your individual "discussions" are buried by sheer volume, disenfranchising the vast majority of people even if they knew about them and were interested to comment. To ignore this fact of wikipedia life is the ultimate in stupidity. We are all not stupid people here. In theory, we are here to help people learn.

Deletion alone is not a bad thing. I welcome corrections to content I have made. That is the way of life on wikipedia. And there are a host of idiots out there who will put up absolute junk, from vandals to POV pushers, from egotists to attack dogs. I spend a lot of my time reviewing edits to a couple thousand articles I watch. If you wish to call that taking ownership, well yes I try very hard to make sure what is posted for the public to see is accurate and responsibly presented. I know what I know, I research what is outside my knowledge, in fact, I research to source what I think I know. Research. I only had a cursory understanding of the contract players system until I researched it. By the sheer volume, much less the obvious failure to do the same simple research I did, I am accusing this editor of not being responsible for his edits. His path of destruction ranges across such a wide variety of topics he should get Slumdog Millionair-like accusations but exponentially because his work goes beyond just a few trivia questions. His work is obviously unresearched, hap-hazzard and in the cases of subjects I have researched, WRONG! The phrase I keep coming back to is the legal term of Due diligence. Slow down, research, evaluate your targets so the work you do has meaning and value. Trackinfo (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• My point was (as an example) you do not need to be an expert in high school sports to take actions with respect to Category:American high school record holders. People who attempt to keep others from editing a given section of the project because they know about it and others know less are anathema to the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

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

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

• I'm referring, for example, the supposed prod failure rate. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Why? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's harmless to have the categories which are intended to be used there if they have the colon before them. Deleting them entirely is harmful because people have put work into determining which categories these sandbox articles should be in when they are moved to the mainspace. Your edits in this nature are unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You (Alan) might have a point in user pages, but AfC pages are supposed to have the categories indicated, so you should not remove them. It's always better to neutralize ([[:Category:Foo]]) or quote (<nowiki>[[Category:Foo]]</nowiki>) rather than to remove categories from non-mainspace pages which may be moved to mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is: cost benefit analysis. Wikitime is precious so I don't waste it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you do waste it. Perhaps not yours, but the wikitime of other people. Reactivating categories is much easier and faster than having to go through the history to find a version pre your edits and get the cats from there. Fram (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:ANI and then you can waste a lot more time... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]