User talk:Liftarn/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Violation of edit restrictions on Muhammad al-Durrah

This edit not only removed well sourced information (2 references are given), but is a clear violation of the 0RR restriction on the page. Please undo it, or you may be subject to editing restrictions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The content wasn't backed up the slightest bit by the sources. It is a zero revert limitation, not a zero edit limitation. // Liftarn (talk)

As you write "It is a zero revert limitation" - and you reverted. You are obviously aware of this limitation - please don't do it again. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a clear revert, and a violation of the Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Conditions for editing. --Elonka 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here.

Please ensure that future edits at Muhammad al-Durrah comply with the editing conditions at the talkpage. Specifically, do not revert other editors, and do not remove sources. Thanks, Elonka 01:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nahum Shahaf

Liftarn, I'd appreciate a second opinion on an issue that has been raised concerning Muhammad al-Durrah - please see Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah#Nahum Shahaf. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Saab 600

hi, You should find better sources to those claims, "Lancia’s collaboration with Saab also resulted in the development of new rust proofing techniques." this says nothing that it "had better resistance to rust than most Italian cars" or "it is rumoured that Saab required better rust resistance from Lancia so it would be more suitable for the harsher climate in Sweden in Norway. " is clearly rumour and there is nothing about cold climate. --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are ofcourse better sources, but those was the sources I managed to find right now. I recall that the heater was very much beefed up compared to normal Italian cars. In any way you shouldn't just blank the text. // Liftarn (talk)

as you can see the sources are very bad, other one says nothing about being better and the second one says itself its rumour. These arent really sources we need, so until we find encyclopedic sources I would leave the fact tag untouched --— Typ932^{T | C}  21:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

al-Durrah

Liftarn, Would you please bring up your concerns on the the talk page rather than simply putting up those templates? Much of what you have tagged was not put up by me, and much was sourced earlier. I can source everything though it certainly seems redundant to source every other word, particularly when it is already sourced somewhere else. Please bring up your concerns to the broader community by putting it on the talk page and please put your rationale in the edit summary. Thanks, Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tundrabuggy, I don't think he's attacking your edits in particular, he's just stating that certain sentences need sources, which is a valid thing to do. If no one produces sources in a reasonable amount of time, those sentences that are tagged, can be deleted. In the meantime, anyone who wishes to condense the section down to what is sourced, is welcome to do so. --Elonka 19:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, he put a disputed tag on a whole section, not just FACT tags. Which is inconsistent with his own demands of Proxy User at the Camp 1391 article. Sort of along the lines of "Do as say, not as I do..." Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There's certainly a question of what you can source it to, given that you've previously attempted to use blogs and personal websites as sources. -- ChrisO (talk)

Blogs and personal websites of the people in question are certainly legitimate if you are talking about those people, just as are blogs and websites of organisations if you are talking about them. I don't think you can find any instance of me using such sites for any other reason. If you check out this Camp 1391 you will see that the coordinates of this secret camp are sourced to a bulletin board forum, for one thing... Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting Changes to Milton Friedman Article

I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sabreman

I have nominated Sabreman, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabreman. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

Re. your note of 23 August - I have entirely lost interest in Wikipedia, for the reason stated on 2 August in my Talk page. --JHB (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ODP usage graph

Do you happen to still have the raw data you used for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Odpusage.png ? I would like to replace it with an updated version, and it would save quite some time not to gather the old information again  :-) -- Windharp (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It's listed at Image:Odpusage.png#Source data. I don't think I have the original file. // Liftarn (talk)

Robozilla

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Robozilla, 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? raven1977 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fantom

I have nominated Fantom, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fantom. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TN‑X-Man 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC) TN‑X-Man 15:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Progress Quest

I have nominated Progress Quest, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress Quest (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RogueNinja_talk 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Progress Quest

I have nominated Progress Quest, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progress Quest (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. RogueNinja_talk 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Anti-Zionism

Seriously, this was a bit beyond the pale. I'm not sure what your intention was there but it comes off as being deliberately offensive and supporting a rather disgusting personal attack. Please use more care in the future, especially when dealing with contentious subjects. Shell ^babelfish 20:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability of The Refreshments (Swedish band)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on The Refreshments (Swedish band), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because The Refreshments (Swedish band) 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 The Refreshments (Swedish band), please affix the template {{hangon}} 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. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of RARS

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article RARS, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Still no demonstration of notability (WP:N)

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Marasmusine (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

adherents.com

Per Wikipedia:SPS, it's not appropriate to cite a self-published source to establish notability. Notability needs to be established by citing a reliable, third-party source, not by linking to a page on the website in question which says it's notable. 98.216.65.79 (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I you would have checked you would have found that that page links to newspaper articles about the site. // Liftarn (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rosa Honung

A tag has been placed on Rosa Honung requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Locust (car)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Locust (car), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No sign of notability. Looks more like a fansite.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Triwbe (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Campbell

As the descriptions of Campbell are properly sourced (see Jerusalem Post and CFCA links), they are not considered a BLP violation, and thus not covered under the BLP exemption for 3RR. I understand that they are not flattering, but per BLP policy, as they are properly sourced, and an integral part of what makes this person notable to begin with, they cannot be removed from the article. If you check the history, you will see I went to great lengths to remove unsourced allegations, and provide proper sourcing, even responding to Wendy's own request that certain biographical information be sourced to her website and not the CFCA; which I did. But removal of "unflattering" information, that is verified in reliable sources is, unfortunately, unacceptable. Should we start excising Sabra and Shatilla from the Sharon article? How about removing all mention of the Irgun from the Begin article? Wiki policies must be followed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly reccomend following Wikipedia policy, like in this case WP:BLP. If I see an anon Ip entering a lot of unsourced and very suspicious information my gut instinct is to revert it on sight. // Liftarn (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Liftarn. I have either brought a source for everything for which you asked, or have removed the claim for which I could not find a source now. If I can get better sources in the future, that would be great, but at this point, everything in the article should be sourced (if not oversourced). Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started looking into it. It seems to be a lot of guilt by association in the article as well. // Liftarn (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:2cat3d 1.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:2cat3d 1.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

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 '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 uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Back to the future 02.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Back to the future 02.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BackToTheFuture.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BladeRunnerIngameZX.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Paw.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Paw.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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Thank you for your WP:BB edits on that article. I was desperately hoping someone would come in as a third opinion on how to organize the lead. You didn't really say anything on the talk (and you may not have even read the talk page!!!), but I was getting uncomfortable with my domination of the page and am really glad someone else looked at the problem with a fresh sets of eyeballs. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Attentatet i Pålsjö skog

I have nominated Attentatet i Pålsjö skog, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Attentatet i Pålsjö skog. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Law Lord (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Newsmill

A tag has been placed on Newsmill requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would 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. Eeekster (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

IDF image undo

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Joe407 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding a relevant image is vandalism? // Liftarn (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case I reverted, the image was inappropriate. Please do not re-insert it again.
Please refrain from uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value. It is considered vandalism. Thank you.
Additionally, deleting the military cemetery image is inappropriate. If you feel that an image is not appropriate for the IDF article, or if you feel that the set of images do not represent a balanced perspective of the IDF, please raise it on the talk page and we will all come to a consensus. Please do not continue to force change in this fashion. Thank you, Joe407 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The cementary image was removed since it adds nothing of value. As for your constant removal of valid images that certainly is vandalism. // Liftarn (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:IG allows images related to the topic at hand. For example: Fort_Omaha#Image_gallery or Royal_Gibraltar_Regiment#Image_gallery. I understand your statement that you feel what I've done is vandalism. Let's take this to the talk page. I will refrain from making further edit to the page until this is resolved and would ask that you do the same. I will be copying this discussion to the talk page. Joe407 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've written up a summary on Talk:Israel_Defense_Forces. Is this ok? Would you be ok reverting the image gallery to the Aug 29 version until the discussion is settled? Joe407 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Obvio! 828

The article Obvio! 828 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:V and WP:N through lack of reliable sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gazimoff 13:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Shaden Abu-Hijleh

I have nominated Shaden Abu-Hijleh, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaden Abu-Hijleh. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Midos (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD

I've nominated List of former Jews, List of former Christians, and List of former Muslims together for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Jews.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mandela

Hi Liftarn! Indeed, he seems to be on a U.S. terrorist list somewhere. It would be helpful if you could find the official bill/text that states so. As this is a very sensitive topic, a USA Today article is not enough, we need to go to the source of the information, which is the US government. Same for the others. Thanks for your research! Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Governments are not very helpfull, but I also put in BBC as a source. I managed to find H.R.5690[1] that indirectly shows they at least were on the list.[2][3] // Liftarn (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The opencongress.org page is a serious reference, thanks! But if I understand well, since July 1 2008 the ANC is not treated as a terrorist organization anymore, right? Thanks for your time Nicolas1981 (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to tell. Either the entire organisation was removed from the terrorism list or it was just some persons. In any case ANC at least was on the list and that makes puts it in an interesting position regarding the Wikipedia article. // Liftarn (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you seem very motivated, I suggest you create List of organizations that have been designated as terrorist in the past. If you find 10 or more such organizations, that would make for an interesting article. A lot of WW2 resistance organizations would have their place there too. Cheers Nicolas1981 (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Same

In the article The Same, which you created, the sentence "Their most popular song; "Kuken i styret" resulted in the P3 radio show Ny våg was convicted in the Swedish Broadcasting Commission after they played it." appears. This is unclear to me, and I think it is not clear English in general. Does it mean "Their most popular song 'Kuken i styret' was banned from radio broadcast by the Swedish Broadcasting Commission after it was played on the P3 radio program."? Please take a look at Talk:The Same where this and some other issues have been raised. Thank you. DES ^(talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Liftarn! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 873 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Olof Möller - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Susan Nathan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Björn Envall - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Bodil Malmsten - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of BBS software

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of BBS software. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBS software. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RWD layout

Hey, I saw you replied on the talkpage on engine layouts, perhaps you can help me out here. I can understand that a transverse (? - opposite of longitudinal) engine in FWD would work or when it's mounted in the front for RWD, and even that a transverse engine would work for RWD when mounted in the rear. Something I don't understand however, is how a "Rear Longitudinal" engine would work. It is fitted in the LP versions of the Lamborghini Murciélago (you can search for the 'Rear Longitudinal' in that article, I quoted from there. I'm not sure if there are any non-LP versions of the Murc) for instance. Do you know how it works or at least redirect me to something else that can explain. I thank you :) 81.68.255.36 (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussion

You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Bitpop

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bitpop, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Bitpop. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with Bitpop

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Bitpop, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.artandpopularculture.com/Bitpop. As a copyright violation, Bitpop appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Bitpop has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Bitpop and send an email with the message to permissions-enwikimedia.org. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that it is licensed under the CC-BY-SA license, leave a note at Talk:Bitpop with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Bitpop.

However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The article states "Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Bitpop" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on original research by Jahsonic and friends." There is no evidence that this particular article is copied from Wikipedia and if it is not then GFDL is incompatible for importing into Wikipedia. If it is in fact a copy of the old Wikipedia article (which an admin can determine), then it should be undeleted to preserve attribution instead of recreated. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to request undeletion instead. // Liftarn (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla raid

You wrote at Gaza flotilla raid: According to an unnamed military official the aid, however, did not reach its destination because the Hamas did not allow its entrance to the Gaza Strip. How is that sourced? According to your page you don't speak Hebrew in which the reference is. Please, explain or revert your change if it is not fully sourced? --Kslotte (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at what I inserted[4] I just clearified that it was according to an unnamed army official. I checked it using Google Translate. // Liftarn (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, please add comments when editing. It will avoid others being suspicious about edits. Lycka till i fortsättningen med editeringar ;) --Kslotte (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobel of X

Please take a look at the proposal I made in Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field to ensure the future quality of the list. Your comments would be much appreciated :) Cheers, Waldir ^talk 06:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Update: There's a discussion going on regarding the inclusion of the Right Livelihood Award, which you added to the article. I thought you'd be interested in commenting. Check out the talk page. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 09:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:People accused of antisemitism

Category:People accused of antisemitism, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Doppelgänger (band)

I have twice deleted the article Doppelgänger (band), a blatant copyvio from http://www.mahathkala.com/Biography.aspx Is there a reason why you think it should not be deleted? Moriori (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's a translated version of the corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia. After checking the link you gave I see no obvious similarities. // Liftarn (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories and BLP

Because I'd love to put a bunch of guys under Category:Sexism but know the double standard would not allow it, I have been trying to get a more consistent policy on all the various general bigotry categories to make it clear no names should be allowed. (BLP won't allow "allegations of [bigotry]" categories, but it should allow "opponents of [bigotry]" categories, for those who want people named because of those activities.) I've made some minor progress = see full detailed arguments at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Inconsistencies.2Fambiguities_in_categories_about_various_forms_of_bigotry and my proposal which was never nixed so is now in the BLP policy article. Also Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people needs beefing up and made more consistent to follow that somewhat less ambiguous policy. Anyway, working to get all the relevant categories consistent is probably the best approach, from wikipedia's standpoint. Check it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

S4M

You created this a while back; what sources did you use? The external link doesn't verify all the content and doesn't seem all that reliable, and mentions of this weapon seem absent from reliable sources. Fences&Windows 23:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Aha, just as I was giving up I struck on Janes:[5] Fences&Windows 23:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:British Mandate for Palestine#Transjordan was not an integral part of Palestine

I understand that you participated in the creation of the image BritishMandatePalestine1920.png. I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Carlos Latuff

Hi! Your opinion is requested on a proposal for consensus on the RfC at Carlos Latuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Whoosit ^(stalk) 16:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Muslim atheists

Category:Muslim atheists, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt

I take great offense at your labeling my recent edit as racist. Your charge is inaccurate and completely inappropriate.Ebikeguy (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You implied that a newspaper article was less reliable due to the etnicity of the journalist. What would you call it? // Liftarn (talk)

I did no such thing. You imagine offenses where none exist. Ebikeguy (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I over-interpreted your edit[6]. // Liftarn (talk)

When only a single source of unverifiable RS is available (in a second language no less) it is not unusual to state "According to..." and that is how I believe the article should read, with no "ethnic" connotation 20:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WopOnTour (talk • contribs)

That is pure fantasy. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Svenska Dagbladet. // Liftarn (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of JBA Cars

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on JBA Cars requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JBA Cars

The article JBA Cars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Liftarn. You have new messages at Talk:JBA Cars.
Message added 15:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

holysmoke.org is a personal site

http://holysmoke.org/kontact.htm

It's not a reliable source. Please find some other sources for your assertions.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 04:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not use a personal site as a source. But Ok, have it your way then. // Liftarn (talk)

You can't link to personal sites either. WP:ELNO I've saved you the trouble of removing the link.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 11:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add that site again, either as an external link, or as a source. Final friendly reminder. Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That type of threats useually come with an "...or else". Per WP:EL it is perfectly acceptable. Actually per WP:ELYES it is even encourages, and I quote "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work". If that don't suits you it is still Ok according to WP:ELMAYBE since it "contain information about the subject of the article". We could also link to http://www.skepticfiles.org/ccin/ that also hosts the newsletters, but the formatting is rather awful there. // Liftarn (talk)

skepticfiles.org is also a personal site. WP:ELNO and WP:SPS apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremystalked (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is of no relevance since it is only used to host the files. Anyway I have removed the external links and I hopy you can be kind enough not to remove references. // Liftarn (talk)

I've brought it up at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Personal sites hosting files. // Liftarn (talk)

I would also like you to read Wikipedia:Citing sources#Convenience links as I think it is relevant. // Liftarn (talk)

Since these sites have a POV which is directly supported by the source we're squabbling over, I question the authenticity of the material hosted at those sites. Does the newletter exist? Probably. Is the newsletter accurately reproduced at the site; has the site refrained from "touching it up" to support its POV? I question that.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 16:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, see WP:COPYLINK. If the newsletter 'is' actually authentic (I'm not saying it is) it doesn't seem that the newsletter is being hosted with the permission of the copyright holder.Jeremystalked_{(law 296)} 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have verified that the hosted reproductions of the newsletter matches other stored copies. // Liftarn (talk)

Holysmoke.Org is a reliable source and is an organization that has operated since approximately 1978. HolySmoke as well as The Skeptic Tank and the now-defunct Cult Awareness Network and Hate Watch Response are/were volunteer organizations which have had a variable number of unpaid volunteers providing reference materials, answering emails according to subject, and assisting in real life efforts, including providing source information which was included by the State of California in their "Occult Crime: A Law Enforcement Officer Primer."

The Primer itself was acquired on paper from the United States Federal Printing Offices of publications which continues to archive the lengthy document which is is available through request. The document itself was scanned in to electronic form and though there may be OCR scanning errors in the content, the content itself has not been deliberately altered or redacted in any way.

Additionally the chairman of HolySmoke D. Rice worked directly with individuals and religious groups specifically targeted and referenced in the File 18 documents, unaltered and un-redacted copies of which appear on the HolySmoke web site. Mr. Rice even worked directly with the Police Department Public Relations Officer when File 18 was being produced, and Mr. Rice also worked directly with Mdm. Rowan Moonstone and other religious groups which were specifically referenced in the File 18 newsletters.

Also Mr. Rice himself might very well be mentioned in the File 18 newsletters since the original author considered anyone who debunked or refuted his assertions to be part of the world-wide "Satanic" conspiracy which the author believed actually existed. This was certainly true when Mr. Rice contacted the famous Mr. Austin Miles about his own newsletters.

Finally, the unaltered, un-redacted, true-and-correct copies of File 18 available on HolySmoke are indeed copyrighted by the original author however they are disseminated with the author's permission provided the newsletters are disseminated freely and without charge, not even postal shipping charges may be requested according to the original release agreements.

The referenced provided in the File 18 article are legitimate and as such should remain. Personal disagreement with the contents of the File 18 newsletters, or personal dislike for the original sources, web sites, file archives et al. are not relevant since Wikipedia articles attempt to focus on factuality, verifiability, and neutral point of view, something the article itself as well as the listed references accomplish. Damotclese (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that you apparently removed my discussion note on the File 18 entry in violation of the rules. Not that I care very much. It really does not matter to me whether the File 18 article's references are remove or retained since the historic documents will remain on HolySmoke and SkepticTank regardless. Damotclese (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff sine I have no recollection of doing anything like that. // Liftarn (talk)

Moving photos to Commons

Hi, Liftarn. You recently moved a couple of photos of mine to Commons. Thank you. Anyway, I'm curious how you did it. Did you do it by hand or is there an easier way now? Also, the fotos still exist on Wikipedia. Will they eventually get auto-removed or do we have to prod them? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I use CommonsHelper. It's a lot easier than doing it bu hand. Especially if you use CommonsHelper Helper. The photos will be deleted after an admin checks them to verify they have been moved correctly. // Liftarn (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I think you should be awarded this barnstar (and more) for your never ending efford to move photos to Commons where they can be used by the whole world. Thank you! MGA73 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way. If you know how to use a bot there is a special bot that makes it easier to move files with a PD-self and other self-licenses to Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think CommonsHelper (mentioned above) fixes that. // Liftarn (talk)

Yes almost but it does not fix all - you have do do some manual work like removing bot check template and cleanup like [7] to get the same result as with the "new bot". For example commons:File:Front Entrance Of The Bay Academy.jpg has not been changed after upload and the file was renamed during transfer [8] :-D --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Very nice, but unless there have been some breakthrough in AI technology a human still needs to check the categories. But the bot check template often feels unnecessary. // Liftarn (talk)

Thats true. But you can do that during the transfer. The bot gives you a preview and if it is ok you just press ok and the bot will do the rest. If it is not ok you can add the relevant categories and change information before hitting ok. The best part is that the bot can load several description pages while you are checking categories/info (or getting coffee) if you are transfering a lot of images (example all images in a category) so often it only takes a second from you hit ok or skip on one image before the next one is ready. --MGA73 (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very convenient. Interesting... // Liftarn (talk)

Something else. If you are interessted in a "joint venture" we could work on the same category. Or one of us could move the files and the other one could do the "bot check". You can of course also work alone if you prefer to pick files randomly :-) --MGA73 (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I do kind of pick them on random (or rather as I find them). I have been working n the PD-self categories (working by month), but I only transfer the images I find useful, interesting, good and some that are just WTF. // Liftarn (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hehe yeah. Last time I moved a lot of images I started with a scan for copyvios (including derivative works) and crap and tagged those images for deletion. Then I started the bot and worked my way through the category I was working on. The reason I keep spamming your talk page is that you are one of the few users that remembers to check the transfer (this says it all). If you get any good ideas you know where to find me. Good hunt! :-) --MGA73 (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Incest Brothers

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Incest Brothers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Volvo544small.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Volvo544small.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 10:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)