User talk:Liftarn/Archive 5

Persecution of Germanic Pagans
I just took the really needed look at the version history and saw that the article was mostly your contribution. I hope you agree that the historical parts about the middle ages should be treated in the respective articles on Christianization. That still leaves the 20th century part, about the Neopagans. I made suggestion where to move then, I hope we can find something that you can agree on. -Zara1709 00:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I disagree about the move, but there is nothing that don't say you could have the same information in two different articles. // Liftarn


 * Could we possibly agree to first use the material to improve the other articles, and improve them so much that they are undisputed and based on solid literature? Then maybe we could write a summary for the instances that have been considered Persecution of Germanic Pagans by some people. -Zara1709 15:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What is disputed? // Liftarn


 * Well, we need to improve: Christianization, Germanic Christianity, Christianization of Scandinavia, Germanic neopaganism, Religious persecution, Persecution of ancient Greek religion, only the last two are actually tagged, by the other ones need improvements, too, IMHO.
 * Disputed are: Historical persecution by Christians and Constantinian shift, among other. Basically everywhere, where it is about Christianity and Paganism, there are some conflicting views. Without having the historical facts in the respective articles first, I think it would not be of much use to have an article Persecution of Germanic Pagans. -Zara1709 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Institute for Middle East Understanding
Why did you ignore that I had tagged the article with hangon? // Liftarn
 * Because your only assertion of notability was "because I say it's notable", which is not valid. If you wish to try again you could use your userspace; try User:Liftarn/Institute for Middle East Understanding. This way you can work on it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 15:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What kind of assertion is needed? // Liftarn


 * See Notability (organizations and companies). A few sources would help too. --Fang Aili talk 15:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * IMEU have "placed numerous commentaries in the mainstream media and connected journalists with good Palestinian spokespeople for their publications and shows" and is recognised as a good source by Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. ADL is (for obvious reasons) less happy, but mentions them. // Liftarn
 * Good enough for me. :) Restored. Go ahead and add some notability assertions. Cheers, Fang Aili talk 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I have also stored a copy in my user space just in case of a drive by deletion. // Liftarn

The Commons Ambassador Barnstar

 * Feel free to post to your user page and/or leave on your talk page as you see fit, except (of course) this part itself... Smee 23:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks! I have. // Liftarn

Image:Cups-large.png
Hi, I have reverted your change to the licence shown for Image:Cups-large.png, for the reasons that I have explained on the image talk page - basically, I am confident that the image is available under the GPL and that we therefore do not need to assert fair use. -- AJR | Talk 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not a bot...
Please take time to read the big red templates at the top and bottom of this userpage. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. // Liftarn

Street Sleeper
Hi - I notice you put a "to commons" tag on a Street Sleeper photo. I've already uploaded that photo to the Commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Street_Sleeper_1_by_David_Shankbone.jpg The one on Wikipedia is a shadow. --David Shankbone 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, it should have been tagged with ncd then. // Liftarn

Fair Use or PD?
Regarding your addition of to this image, it can't be both "fair use" and "PD". Whilst I accept that there may be some legal issues here, I have previously asked for clarification of WP's position on this, but got nowhere. Since it is a wide-ranging issue, I would assume that there is some form of agreed-upon policy based on sound legal advice that we can rely on, rather than having IANALs applying their interpretation of the law on a case-by-case basis.

This is something I feel strongly about; if we're not allowed to "PD" stuff like this, fine, we shouldn't be doing it. However, if we are, then I consider it unacceptable to remove the licenses from user-submitted images based on flawed IANAL guesswork. If you know of a link to any such WP policy, I'd be grateful to see it. Thanks! Fourohfour 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

moved image
Hi, could you explain what the entry in Image:Spline01.gif means? Also why is the use of this on Nonuniform rational B-spline not referenced in Links? Freeformer 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you refering to "This picture/multimedia file is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Image:Spline01.gif."? That means the image is now availabe to use for all Wikimedia projects. It appears the image is not used in the Nonuniform rational B-spline article so that's why it isn't listed. // Liftarn

Talk:Pallywood
Thanks for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started.

notice per this threadWP:POINT relating to this edit1,2,3 and also this editexternal links blanking per not getting it your way.

i'm sure you're aware that this is not the proper way to deal with content disputes and i hope that you will refrain from such dispute escalating behaviour. Jaakobou 09:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to work within Wikipedia guidlines, but with so much double standards going on it is very difficult to tell what actually is the right way to do it. ~// Liftarn

History with user
I find it notable to remind you at this point of this warningcarlos latuff that you've taken the liberty to remove from your talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs) 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm perfectly within my rights to remove bogus "warnings" posted on my user page by an anonymous user. If they were real warings for real stuff posted by a real user it would be another matter. // Liftarn


 * (1) do not transfer warnings to my userpage. it creates confusion and you can be sure i follow up on given warnings.
 * (2) that's the way you wish to reason/present the removing of a serious warning that clearly has the username noted in the talk page/discussion history tab?
 * (3) quite frankly, i don't think there is a need to reply to the 2 issues above. it would be a redundant waste of time for the both of us. Jaakobou 11:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) OK, I had no way of knowing that.
 * (2) Huh?
 * (3) It was you who started it, but you may want to read Vandalism, especially "Do not use these templates in content disputes". // Liftarn

Image:Flavorcrest peaches.jpg
Hello. You moved Image:Flavorcrest peaches.jpg to the Commons with User:Krimpet/CommonsHelper Helper (hadn't seen that before). However, all that does is add ncd, but for ASRS or CDC or Geograph (and presumably others, but those at least) tagged images that leaves them still sitting in the Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. No big deal. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a bit annoying. The copyright tag shouldn't add it to the category. // Liftarn


 * Yep. I think I'll ask a template guru to have a look at those. Cool Cat was telling me how great he was, so I think he would be the man for the job! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems the way it is now there is extra work that is not needed. // Liftarn

Muhammad al-Durrah
Jayjg is threatening to block you for expressing your opinion on Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah, falsely claiming it is a BLP violation. KazakhPol 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, he likes that. // Liftarn

Moving images
If you would like to copy any more (or all) of my Wikipedia images onto Wiki Commons please feel free to do so. The images are at:. PaddyBriggs 09:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at it. You could just tag them with Copy to Wikimedia Commons. // Liftarn

Image:Chevy1.jpg
Regarding Image:Chevy1.jpg: This was moved to commons once before, at put at Image:Chevrolet Caprice Classic 1985.jpg. I'm not familiar with commons procedures. For what it's worth, neither image is aptly named. The car in question is an '81-85 Caprice export model (as I understand it). --Sable232 21:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now tagged it as a duplicate. // Liftarn

jenin, jenin
"the film has no narrative"(??) .. you'll be very upset when i'm done with this article. meantime - have a good day. Jaakobou 08:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that a threat? Please keep Neutral point of view in mind... // Liftarn


 * it's a notice that you did not keep Neutral point of view while writing the article, and that i plan on extendind it with proper refrencing to what that movie is. i.e. libel presented as "palestinian narrative". Jaakobou 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be very interested to see that. What terrorist group do you plan to use as a source this time? // Liftarn


 * i was thinking to cite the israeli supreme court judge. *shrug* Jaakobou 17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Islamophobia
You also violated WP:3RR. See the last section on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. KazakhPol 18:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have blocked Limboot for 24 hours; you were technically in violation also; please be more cautious. Fred Bauder 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as far as I could tell I technically wasn't since once of the reverts was done by Ruthiekm before me so it was a null revert. // Liftarn

to Commons and PD-US
Please only place to Commons on PD-US images that actually are U.S. works! The commons applies PD-US only to U.S. works, but not to works from elsewhere. Image:The World Set Free.jpg would be a candidate for deletion at the commons! I therefore deliberately uploaded it locally. Lupo 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Copyrights are tricky... // Liftarn

SNAP article?
Hello Liftarn. Recently you added a new item to the Snap dab page, the Scalable Network Application Package. There is currently no article with that name, and I wondered if you are planning to write one? Thanks, EdJohnston 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, not really, but I can make a stub for it anyway. // Liftarn

LGBT rights in Israel
Hi! I explained in the discussion page why I removed the template you added; then you undid my revision without any explanation. Please relate to my point in the discussion page. Thanks, Aviad2001 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for visiting my Talk page
It is not vandalism to delete irrelevant content from pages. See also WP:SOAPBOX. --Leifern 12:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But it is vandalism to delete relevant and sourced content just because you dislike it. See also WP:VAND. // Liftarn
 * I have no particular like or dislike of the stuff you inserted; it's just that it's irrelevant to the subject. --Leifern 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In what way is it irrelevant? And where would it be bette placed? I'm open to suggestions. // Liftarn

Vandalism warning tags
Er, no. Vandalism policy clearly says that warning templates should not be used in content disputes. It also makes clear that good faith additions to articles is not vandalism. Please refrain from calling other users vandals. This is a type of personal attack and will not help build consensus on the article. FloNight 12:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unmotivated ("I don't like it" doesn't count) blanking of content is vandalism. // Liftarn
 * From Vandalism "content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." It is pretty obvious that these experienced users were not vandalizing the article. Your claims otherwise are provocative and sure to inflame the situation so please refrain from doing it in the future. FloNight 16:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The removal was not "readily apparent", nor was there a "non-frivolous explanation" given. I agree it wasn't mindless vandalism and perhaps more of a WP:OWN case. // Liftarn

Liftarn's Improper Vandalism Notice: Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Sandbox for test edits. Liftarn 12:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Liftarn, I see your inappropriate "content" (other editors have called it “nonsense,” “irrelevant,” “vandalism,” and worse) has already been reverted by yet another editor as it has 16 times in the past (by editors other than myself).
 * I suggest you put more effort into achieving consensus on the article talk page and less effort toward tendentious and harassing notices meant to discourage the participation of others. The extensive revert history taken along with this improper notice suggests that you are engaging in disruptive behavior. -Doright 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It is well sourced and relevant content. That other editors dislike it is not the same thing as it doesn't belong there. I have tried taking it to tha talk page and all I get is a lot of nothing. Since nobody objected on the talk page I put it back in the article. // Liftarn
 * "Antisemitism is an epithet" is nonsense invented to make antisemites feel good. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I find you constant insuniations that those who disagree with you are antisemites a bit annoying. // Liftarn


 * Liftarn, Exactly how does this justify your posting to my and other's talk pages, in violation of WP policy, "Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement?"-Doright 20:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's obviously not a content dispute since nobody is disputing the content. // Liftarn
 * You are the only person that thinks your content is appropriate for the article. That's a content dispute.  Many editors have removed it.  You have put it back 16 times.  If you continue on this course, promoting edit waring, engaging in personal attacks and other disruptive behaviors, you may face administrative sanctions. -Doright 01:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history I'm not the only one that thinks it's relevant. I'm open to suggestions for where to put the content, but all I get is the silent treatment (and ad hominem attacks). // Liftarn

Racism against Jews
Per talk discussion, it has been decided that your addition isnt suitable for the section in Racism on Antisemitism because it is merely a summary of the larger article, and it isn't the place for introducing new topics. You might try New Antisemitism, but apparently the topic is already covered significantly. VanTucky 22:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't "new antimemitsim" (it's not mentioned anywhere in the sources so saying it is NAS would be WP:OR). There are a handfull of editors that are very persisten that the section is OK, but that it doesn't belong in some other article, but nobody have given an idea about what article it belongs in. If I try to discuss the matter I get the silent treatment (or are called an antisemite). // Liftarn


 * You are adding the same text to several articles, Antisemitism], [[Racism, Smear campaign. It would be better if you discuss these additions in talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried that and have found out the hard way that there is no point since nobody wants to discuss it. // Liftarn

Notability
A tag has been placed on Rootvälta, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you feel that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

In addition I have speedily deleted Big Fish (band), for the same reason. - Mike Rosoft 07:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Left Wing Fascists
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Left Wing Fascists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving my photos to commons
Please do not move my photos to Commons without consulting with me first. Thank you. Jeff dean 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? But OK, consider yourself consulted. // Liftarn


 * I mean please consult me in the future each time you think about moving one of my images to Commons. Jeff dean 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jeff. The licence template that you've been using allows this providing attribution is given. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To add: Wikipedia's goal is to have free content. To facilitate this, it offers the option of multi-licensing under GFDL and creative commons licenses. This is the preferred method of licensing your images for use in the encyclopedia. You've been using the copyright with attribution notice which is a bit deprecated but does allow any use with attribution. I imagine you've been doing this with the idea that you could retain some control over the use of your images. Unfortunately, there is no way to do this as Wikipedia is slowly moving to a policy of only accepting contributed material that is completely free of any copyright restrictions. If you want to continue to contribute (and I hope you do) I think you're going to have to accept the fact that you relinquish control over the use your work once you contribute it to the project. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand all this. I just think it is simple courtesy to photographers who post their images to be consulted by others before they do things to or with them. If you hope I continue to contribute, then I hope you will respect my wishes. If things keep happening to my images without consultation with me, I will cease posting images. Thank you. Jeff dean 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, my intention is to move all free images over to Commons. You have been notified. // Liftarn


 * Then you refuse to respect my wishes, is that correct? You have no respect for me, correct? Jeff dean 18:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm notifying you just like you wished. // Liftarn


 * '''You are a really nice guy, aren't you. Please do not transfar ANY of my photos to Commons. Period. Jeff dean 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not? You obviously uploaded them with intention for them to be used. // Liftarn

Because I asked you to respect me and my wishes. If you have no respect for me or anyone else, I cannot stop you. Will you respect my wishes or not. A simple yes or no will do. Jeff dean 18:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What are your wishes? // Liftarn


 * My wish is that you do not transfer any of my images to Commons. Will you respect that?  Jeff dean 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I can't do that. Why is that so important to you? If I move them to Commons it will be possible to use them on all Wikimedia projects so it's a much better place to have them on. If you want to see where an image is used you can go to the page (for instance commons:Image:Restore600.jpg) and check usage. // Liftarn


 * "I'm afraid I can't do that." That's inaccurate. Of course you CAN to that. You CHOOSE not to. Jeff dean 10:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your demands are unacceptable. // Liftarn


 * I hope that someday someone treats you the way you have treated me. The reverse of the Golden Rule. You are a nasty man. Jeff dean 22:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see No personal attacks. Treats me like I treated you? Giving help and aid? Yes, that's really nasty. // Liftarn

So turn me in. It doesn't matter. Because of the way you have treated me -- sending huge numbers of my photos to Commons in retribution for my respectful request that you not to send any there -- I will no longer contribute images or text to Wikipeida. That may give you great satisfaction because of the kind of person you apparently are. You call that "giving help and aid," I call that the work of a very nasty man. I will have no further comment because I have stopped Wikipedia usage. Jeff dean 10:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)