User talk:Liftarn/Archive 6

Might be interested
I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America argument for deletion. You may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Seven Builder link
I notice you keep deleting this resource link. I very confused as to your reason why as I've been a Lotus Seven enthusiast for almost a decade now, and my brother was a design engineer for Lotus Engineering. We are planning to build one and find Seven Builder to be quite relevant and it's regularly updated with high quality articles, pictures and is a useful resource. Please add it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickgomez (talk • contribs)


 * It is not a relevant link in every article about a sevenesque car. // Liftarn

Image:Tetragrammaton-related-Masoretic-vowel-points.png
Why did you move it to commons when it has little use outside of an English-language context? AnonMoos 14:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

User wanted ;-)
Hi Liftarn, we want to contact the original uploader of this image for further questions. Unfortunatly there is no user page. Is the page probably deleted? Can you help somehow? -- Stahlkocher 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The user may not have made a user page. The user seems to exist, see Special:Contributions/Michael.katzmann so you could go to User talk:Michael.katzmann and leave a message, but the user doesn't seem to be very active. // Liftarn

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
Thanks for moving it to the Commons, but due to the high use of the image here, I ask not to be deleted from en.wikipedia at this time. Thanks. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem (I'm not an admin so I can't delete it anyway) and the image on Commons is not the same as here. // Liftarn

Your moves of many articles
In the future before you move pages, suggest it on the talk page and get consensus to do so first.--Sefringle 20:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You think you are funny with edits like this?
Do you honestly think this edit was in good faith and would be kept?--Sefringle 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, anti-racism is a component of anti-zionism. It's true that there are other reasons to oppose zionism, but anti-racism is one of them. // Liftarn


 * This section really begs the question. Arrow740 06:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"the spaghetti's not al dente? Cook's an anti-Semite. Loses a bet on a horse. Secretariat? Anti-Semitic. Doesn't geta good seat at the temple. Rabbi? Anti-Semite." // Liftarn

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR
 You have been blocked for violating the three revert rule on Anti-Zionism after previous 3RR blocks. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Selket Talk 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're only allowed three edits per article per day? // Liftarn

WP:SIG
Please take your time to read WP:SIG, which says: "Signatures on Wikipedia identify you as a user, and your contributions to Wikipedia. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment, and the date and time at which it was made." Your practice of signing your posts only with your username contravenes WP:SIG, so please consider changing your signature accordingly. Beit Or 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

muwahahaha
All I have to say is, you're quite a card (def #2), re: Image:Jewish Encyclopedia Arnon Gorge.jpg. :-p Cheers, Tom e rtalk  07:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moving images to Commons is amusing? Then you should have a look at WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons. // Liftarn
 * If you look at what's been going on regarding that image, it's pretty funny. 75.17.198.36 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving to commons
Great effort moving images to commons, but please remember to find a suitable category or article for the images that you move to commons, or at least use the uncat template. If the image is not in a category or an article the local copy on :en can't be deleted according to CSD I8.

Angular (typeface)
A "" template has been added to the article Angular (typeface), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Psychonaut 19:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

3rr
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Coming from you that's a joke. // Liftarn

A tag has been placed on Onkel Kånkel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears 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 think 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.  tomasz.  10:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Onkel Kånkel
I've restored the article. It would probably stop people tagging it for deletion if those references were all in there. Best, Neil   ╦  16:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Project Palestine
If house demolition is project Palestine, suicide bombing will also be Project Palestine. You seem to want double standards. eternalsleeper


 * No. And it's not up to you to decide anyway. // Liftarn


 * It is imperative that we maintain neutrality here. Please remember that. This is not "trolling." I am going to join Project Palestine so I can use their banner.

eternalsleeper


 * I do not think you are allowed to remove this from your discussion. But I see why you would want to.

eternalsleeper

Post to a user page?
Hi. I noticed that you posted a message about the upload of an image to the userpage User:Ludvikus. I may be missing something here, but should it not go on his talk page instead, as per convention? The other mystifying thing is that he is currently blocked until August 2007, yet still appears to be active, if he is uploading material. Again, I could be missing an important point or two in this. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 19:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but his talk page appears to be locked so I couldn't put it there. // Liftarn

Fair use rationale for Image:1K ZX Chess - Sinclair - ZX81.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:1K ZX Chess - Sinclair - ZX81.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Stonkers - Imagine.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Stonkers - Imagine.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stonkers - Imagine.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stonkers - Imagine.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Back to the future 02.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Back to the future 02.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BackToTheFuture.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BackToTheFuture.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Molly-RajRaj.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Molly-RajRaj.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Molly-Mollyfied.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Molly-Mollyfied.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:VolvoT6.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:VolvoT6.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Volvos40racing screenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Volvos40racing screenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clocklogo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Clocklogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArrowPhoto0Half.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:ArrowPhoto0Half.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SaabQuantum.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SaabQuantum.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jenin jenin.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jenin jenin.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CharlieAndTheChocolateFactory.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CharlieAndTheChocolateFactory.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Friday the 13th.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Friday the 13th.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Dual Freq 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

House Demolition revert
Someone has removed the following quote from House demolition: "'The thinking is that a national threat calls for a national response, invariably aggressive. Accordingly, a Jewish house without a permit is an urban problem; but a Palestinian home without a permit is a strategic threat. A Jew building without a permit is ‘cocking a snook at the law’; a Palestinian doing the same is defying Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem.'" with a claim "that the material has nothing to do with the material that preceded it, nor followed it, nor anything to do with the section itself that it was placed in. Please explain the relevance".

But I fully understand the relevance of having it in. The UN describes what is happening in Jerusalem as "ethnic cleansing" (the ADL reminds us of this, see ). The whole Palestinian thing is likely the longest and best documented case of ethnic cleansing in history, it seems reasonable to put in a short reference to the beginning of it and another short reference to what is happening 60 years later. Your clip doesn't actually specify "ethnic cleansing", but it's more "useful" and/or "readable" than many that do. It's a good description of the process and thinking behind it, and the encyclopaedia will benefit from having it in. PalestineRemembered 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't having large quoutes, but that may provide more context. However, it's being discussed at the talk page so that is probably the best way to deal with it. // Liftarn

Canvassing for reverts
Please stop canvassing for reverts. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? Are you totally paranoid? I specificly reccomend using the talk page. // Liftarn

Jerry Klein
I have responded to your comments on Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment about whether it belongs in the Antisemitism category. Please review and respond.
 * --Wowaconia 23:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your new post on Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment
 * --Wowaconia 18:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to your most recent post on Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment
 * --Wowaconia 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

La Jamais Contente
Please have a look to my talk page. Ericd 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of Terror by the United States AfD
Thank you for pointing out that my argument for deletion was not a good one. It was my personal opinion and when I saw the article my passion got the best of me, and before you commented I was about to withdraw and post better reasoning (as I have done now). Again thank you ChrisLamb 14:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. // Liftarn

Good Faith Issues -- Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks
User:Liftarn, It's beggining to feel that good faith is under suspiscion in regards to your edits on Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacksHistory. I'm making this note due to a few edits which seem to censor information from the article - such as: - this edit btw destroyed refrence no. 11.
 * this edit: explained as "I think the caption got mixed up." in which you (i)remove the name of the woman on tape and both the (ii)ref and info to on her beying quoted as cursing the USA and (iii)the link to the criticism.
 * this editrepeated here in which you attach the hosting webdomain name (freedomdomain.com) as the "reporting body" in what might be an interpreted as an attempt to discredit the actual reporting body of the refrence, i.e. Times Newspapers.

While i try to assume good faith, and i havn't objected to this edit in which you discredit sources by noting they are on a "personal website". there is a fine line where i'm loosing faith due to promotion of dubious unrefrenced notes and making page moves while claiming there was a "Propaganda" or "Fraud" where it might seem to suit a possible agenda and censor-reverting and tagging refrences as "propaganda links" where it doesn't.

please note!

please remember to maintain WP:NEU in future edits to this article so that good faith suspiscions won't turn into allegations of WP:TEND and contribute to unnessesary soapbox situations and/or edit warring where you "discredit" a source and another contributor might "NPOV the situation" by "discrediting" another source. Jaakobou 11:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Was that the name of the woman? Ok, I just noticed that the caption had changed and changed it back.
 * Btw, are Youtube videos useable as sources?
 * Unless we fins the actual Times article it is no more reliable than any personal webpage and should be reported as such. How do we know it is an accurate description of the original article?
 * The text was copied directly from the Westboro Baptist Church article (or thereabouts). Now I only found a passing reference in Targets of Westboro Baptist Church. A quick googling found http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/6/22220/02926 Just look at the signs saying "THANK GOD FOR Sept. 11". And in other media.
 * Yes, propaganda and fraud. Fake (fraud) celebrations being brodcast as propaganda.
 * I removed the links that was already used as sourced and those with an obvious bias. Then there was no links left.
 * // Liftarn


 * i see no problem with an article about the Westboro celebrations, i don't think they are worth much more than a "see also" in regards to this article which is heavily dedicated to palestinian celebrations.
 * i don't know if you're aware on how the international media buissness works if you call the usage of these images "propaganda".. they were not propagated by israel, but AP - an agency blamed many times for being a tool in the hands of terrorists who threaten the lives of it's reporters so they comply on many occassions to make a buck and were heavily under fire for proven photoshopped images and arranged scenes... the life of a photojournalist is about as vicious as the one of the paparatzi(sp?) if not more (you know, photography under fire and such) and to be honest, i think -- knowing pictures of celebrating palestinians were taken not only in israel (and west bank) but also in lebanon and that perceptions in the arab world about the US cultivate this behaviour (to some extent) -- that the handing out of candy is more probably part of the cultural ceremony rather than an induced staging... although, i'm not intending to add such POV into the article.
 * these video links i provided are based on the only current sources availabe for these newscasts, luckily for us they seem to be at full length and unedited. sadly we have no better source (yet) and it's here for obvious encyclopedic reasons. if you can come up with better refrences to the video that would be great.
 * for the same reason, we have no reason to suspect that the Times article is distorted.. similarly, the der spiegel source was allowed also when we have no availability of the actual full article. i believe there really shouldn't be any contention at the moment that the refrences are of shoddy reliability... i do think there is room to find better links for all the articles mentioned in the Tripod page.. that one bothers me a little, but it's there because we have no reason to believe the articles were falsified and also for encyclopedic value which is IMHO the most important part of our contributions here at wikipedia. Jaakobou 13:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we take this on the talk page of the article instead? Btw, for Der Spiegel we at least know that it is a genuine article. A website called "Freedom Domain Political Conspiracies Hemp Marijuana Freemen" doesn't exactly inspire confidence. // Liftarn

Block
This account has been blocked for 48h due to a violation of the three revert rule. Regards,  Signature brendel  21:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Shit happens. I must work on my math skills. // Liftarn

Image:Bandera.png
You d'ont take in consideration the tag PD-UA-exempt ? Why ? Bogatyr 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How do we know it's Ukranian without a source? // Liftarn

I just took it from the Ukrainian Wikipedia ! Bogatyr 14:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And where did they get it from? // Liftarn

Discrimination WikiProject
I've created the project page. Welcome. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Brand (magazine)
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Brand (magazine), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Brand (magazine) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Brand (magazine), please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Brand (magazine) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That was quick. If you had looked at the history you would have seen that the actual content was deleted by an IP and spam inserted. // Liftarn
 * The article was tagged as spam, but that was not why it was deleted. I deleted it because it failed to assert notability (neither your version nor the version introduced by the IP editor). Feel free to head to DRV if you still think it should be undeleted. --Core desat 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Highway pursuit
A "" template has been added to the article Highway pursuit, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  Whispe ring  12:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Mistlur Records
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mistlur Records, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mistlur Records 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. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mistlur Records, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Mistlur Records itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 09:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Buzzbox Records
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Buzzbox Records, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Buzzbox Records 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. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Buzzbox Records, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Buzzbox Records itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Ultimate Play The game
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Ultimate Play The game, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Ultimate Play The game is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Ultimate Play The game, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate Ultimate Play The game itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Castor Cracking Group
I've added the prod tag to Castor Cracking Group because I don't feel it satisfies the notability criteria for groups. Since you're the creator, I'm notifying you.-Wafulz 02:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tricky. There is very little printed information about demo groups, but being one of the first (or the first?) demo group on the ZX Spectrum they certainly are notable. // Liftarn

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard
Has the matter been resolved?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No. // Liftarn


 * Sorry to hear that. Perhaps we could restart the discussion at the noticeboard, and see if we have made any progress in the past weeks in reaching some sort of compromise?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful with moving things to commons...
You moved: Image:BWB-Composite.png up to commons without looking at it carefully. One of the images is a fair-use commercial promo image, and the composite is thus not ok for use under Commons licensing. Georgewilliamherbert 22:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:DSC08955.JPG
This warning is a little late, but please use care when marking things on the English Wikipedia as nowcommons. The version on Commons, Image:The_original_Winnie_the_Pooh_toys.jpg is an inferior 800x600 preview. We should preserve the highest resolution possible of free images. -N 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Templates for deletion
You once created some of the templates I just suggested for deletion (Template:Green line, Template:Red line, and Template:Blue line) and I therefore thought you might want to join the discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 16.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

categories
Hi. Please see this edit of yours. Why did you remove these 2 categories from House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?:
 * Category:Human rights in the West Bank
 * Category:Human rights in the Gaza Strip --Timeshifter 11:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed that one. It's fixed now. // Liftarn

Persecution of Germanic Pagans issue
Liftarn, this is the final notice before I take this to the appropriate administrator noticeboard. We have a fundamental disagreement about the question whether there was a persecution of Germanic pagans and about whether there was a continuity of Germanic Paganism into the present time. The burden of proof is on your side. I have been willing to sort this out, but the discussion has been leading nowhere. It is also apparent that you performed your last revert at exactly 24:01 hours after the 2nd previous one. -Zara1709 15:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice timing. I did not notice. There are references given for each case (sometimes several) so I don't see what more I have to proof. I have also presented a published academic journal/book (it's a rather thin book and it has both ISBN and ISSN numbers) as evidence. You have so far been utterly unwilling to discuss the issue. // Liftarn


 * Liftarn, in the beginning I had accepted that the burden of proof was on my side. However, in the discussion on Talk:Historical persecution by Christians it became obvious that the burden of proof that there was a persecution of Germanic Pagans is on your side. Read Fringe theories and make sure that you understand this. I said this previously, and you have never replied to it: If someone demands European history to be rewritten, he readily admits that he is an academic outsider. This is far below a request for mediation. If you continue to be disruptive, I have to ask that you get banned, at least from editing the relevant pages. -Zara1709 15:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And I have indeed added information with references. As I said before you are entitled to your opinion however I must ask you not to be disruptive and use sources for all your statements in articles. // Liftarn


 * So you are accusing me of being disruptive and and not stating my sources? Does this mean that I am entitled to the opinion that you are not capable of applying Reliable sources and Fringe theories effectively? -Zara1709 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The editing have been a bit messy at times, but I recall that you have added strong statements without sources. If I'm wrong please excuse me. Are you interested in making the articles better or more interested in ad hominem attacks? // Liftarn


 * No, I can't excuse this at the moment. There is no need to debate this further. -Zara1709 17:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I do think there is an obvious need to discuss the development of the articles. // Liftarn

you are simply trolling now. Your constructive contribution to the subject has been zero, you didn't even realize you were trying to discuss was Cutter v. Wilkinson. That's because you do no research. Yet you make a big noise on talkpages, without any evidence whatsoever to back up your whims. Much more of this nonsense, and I will seek sanctions against you. Respect policy, and you'll be fine. Troll articles without making a case and you'll just annoy people without achieving anything. dab (𒁳) 12:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You simply move stuff around on a whim and come with personal attacks on other editors. // Liftarn
 * other editors? As in people actually trying to write an encyclopedic article? Who do you mean, Zara1709? Sheesh, I do hope he didn't feel attacked by me helping him keep the "persecution" articles bullshit-free. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Other editors such as myself for instance. Your constant trolling and personal attacks haven't helped creating a good editin enviroment. You personal little crusade have also been very annoying. // Liftarn

Please
Liftarn, you are antagonizing serious and good editors and not trolls. We all have different opinions, but sometimes leaving articles alone for a while and going back later is a much better option than engaging in conflicts with editors you know are valuable wikipedians and not trolls. I don't say that you are wrong and they are right, but if *I* am in a serious conflict (not dealing with a random crackpot) I ask myself: "is the matter really worth being frustrated and upset about?" The answer is always no, and I take a time-out.--Berig 15:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem is basicly good editors who behave like trolls (for instance this contant personal remarks) and I have pretty much taken a time out already (as I wrote on one page or another). // Liftarn


 * Liftarn, there is a proverb that is usually right: "det är aldrig ens fel att två träter" (translation: "it is never the fault of one if two argue"). It can be difficult at times, but "hålla god min" (rough translation: "keep a stiff upper lip") is a great strategy on WP.--Berig 15:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jodå, det vet jag. // Liftarn

For the purposes of Wikipedia, you are not required to bear yourself honourably, you are just required to respect policy. Your contortions to wiggle your way around policy certainly fails any standard of common sense or honoring of the spirit of policy, but we can well deal on a level of the letter of policy, which will mean WP:3RR: continuing in your present vein will get you blocked sooner rather than later. I might add that I am personally decideldly sympathetic towards Germanic neopaganism (Asatru), and do care about good and factual coverage of the topic. In the light of your undignified flopping about and wikicampaigning, I must say I do hope you do not count yourself among its adherents, since your behaviour clearly fails any standard of personal honour I would like to expect. dab (𒁳) 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you take the non-need to behave honourably very seriously. In the lights of your actions your claim is a joke. // Liftarn

Really?
you, sir, I don't know what you are trying to do here, but you are certainly not being helpful in building an encyclopedia. If you continue your trolling and idle accusations, I will take you to rfar. It is preposterous to imply that I would jeopardize my long-standing reputation as a bona fide editor because of a petty quarrel with a clueless pov-pusher. 59.91.253.x is in India. I am not in India. Your accusations just make you look even more pathetic. I do not endorse anonymous harassment, but this particular anon has told you something valuable: you are endorsing a bunch of fascists just because you are frustrated with your "whiny neopagan convicts" project. way to go. dab (𒁳) 17:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * troll talkpages
 * revert warnings on your talkpage
 * idly accuse me of sockpuppetry


 * Go away. // Liftarn

Edit warring reminder
Regarding the ongoing edit war on House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which you are involved, I'd like to remind you of Three-revert rule's prohibition of reverting as an editing technique. Please note that "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." I would request that you bear this in mind and use the article discussion page or dispute resolution to resolve your dispute. -- ChrisO 15:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
You have been blocked for a period of one week for violating numerous policies after numerous previous blocks, including: WP:3RR (in spirit if not in letter), WP:CIVIL, WP:CON, and WP:POINT (for example, listing User:Dbachmann on "potential sockpuppets"). If you would like to contest this block, please use the template on this user talk page. Thank you, ugen64 09:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you have already asked for an unblock. I won't be able to respond for a few hours because my internet connection is a bit patchy (read: 1 ethernet port, 2 computers, 1 really annoying sister). Suffice it to say, I stand by this decision, and all the required evidence can be found at WP:ANI and WP:AN3. ugen64 09:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the claim of 3RR is ofcourse bogus (as it also says), the first claimed revert is a new article and not a revert. I find nothing about WP:CIVIL mentioned (not against me anyway). WP:CON seems very odd since in this entire mess I've been the only one trying to reach consensus. WP:POINT may have some merit, I could have ignored the suspected sockpuppets for instance. // Liftarn

I have reviewed the block as an uninvolved admin, and I have unblocked Liftarn accordingly. I'm not seeing this as being justified - while there has been some incivility on his side, it has been at least equalled by his two opponents. Equally, the edit warring needs to cease, but it is patently unfair to block Liftarn and not Dbachmann and Zara1709 for doing the same thing. I'll say this to all parties in this case: knock it off, start talking to each other with a bit of respect, and start at least trying to work cooperatively or you're all likely to wind up getting blocked. Rebecca 10:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As soon as the autoblock wears off (or thereabout) I intend to file for formal dispute resolution. // Liftarn

Note to self
Things to look into:
 * http://www.onlinechester.com/articles/2007/03/12/great_falls_news/gf1.txt
 * http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mVesAztEFBoJ:www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/07idetlegalport.doc+asatru+discrimination&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=firefox-a
 * http://www.kscourts.org/CA10/cases/2005/08/05-1180.htm
 * http://africa.reuters.com/wire/news/usnL20806502.html
 * http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20070720/wl_mcclatchy/20070720bcisraelwitchembargoed_attn_national_foreign_editors_ytop_1
 * http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0215prisonfaith0215.html
 * http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=4224
 * http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=9375
 * http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=9375

The 3-Revert Rule
Good Morning (BST time); as you will recall, a report was filed against you at WP:AN3, the Administrator noticeboard for 3RR violations. As the Administrator handling this report, I'm notifying you that no blocking action has been taken.

However, I'd like to caution you against getting involved in Revert wars: reverting people, but leaving time in-between your reverts to "skirt around" WP:3RR, does not make you immune to this policy. Please - for your own sake, as well as for the good of Wikipedia - refrain from reverting except where necessary; one of the markings of a good Wikipedian is the ability to take things to the talk page.

Kind regards, Anthøny  (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that a) I brought it to the talk page (with no luck) and b) it takes two to tango. // Liftarn

Image:Bape Shark Hoodie.jpg
Hi — you appear to have marked Image:Bape Shark Hoodie.jpg as on commons, but the copy on the commons needs to be correctly categorized before it can be deleted from here. Additionally, the license on the image is not convincing — it is marked as Creative Commons, but comes from a storefront web site on which I can find no sign of the correct license. Please fix and then re-mark using subst:ncd again once it is fixed. —David Eppstein 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Same applies to Image:Barcode-printer.jpg. —David Eppstein 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)