User talk:Liftarn/Archive 3

Hello, Liftarn/Archive 3!

Hello, Liftarn/Archive 3! I'm Clamster5. While creating new and interesting articles is extremely helpful to the Wikipedia project, there are more than 19,000 articles that need to cleaned up. These articles could use your knowledge and time. There are so many pages currently needing clean-up that there is guaranteed to be something that you find interesting. Even fixing up just one is a huge help. If every editor on wikipedia edited just one article each, the backlog would be cleared in no time.

Thanks! Clamster5.

Stealing credit?

On Talk:Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, you wrote about me:

Only after he rewrote it entierly so at least something good came out of this

Are you claiming some of the credit for my work? Please clarify that remark (on that talk page). CWC(talk) 21:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Asterism-cuneiform.png

You tagged this image as having no source information but did not notify me. Please note that I drew it by hand and approve it for GFDL. -- Vansig 19:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I see that you have updated the info. // Liftarn

Cornell Pictures

The pictures have all been verified. The owner was contacted, and the owner assented, and he sent an email response to the wikipediag foundation, and a reference number was assigned. Not to be rude, but every month or so someone comes and states that these pictures are illegal, however, each time they are completely wrong. Why does this keep on happening???--Cornell010 16:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Because that information is not included with the picture. And why upload them here and not on commons? And why upload them at all as they aren't used? // Liftarn

Image:Aag-forwiki.jpg

Hi. Looking at recent IP edits led me to this image. Wouldn't it be ok under fair use? I get that notion from Wikipedia:Fair use and Template:Web-screenshot, but I'm a complete novice at images on Wikipedia, so I am probably missing some subtlety. Thanks, William Pietri 01:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps, but it can't be claimed to be own work under GFDL. // Liftarn

CAT:NS

Hi Liftarn, I've been noticing that you've put many images into the category for deletion, CAT:NS and would greatly appreciate that you use edit summaries, when doing so and also notify the uploaders, perhaps with the template provided, {{Image source}}. Thanks, DVD+ R/W 20:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mussolini hitler.jpg

Ser att du håller koll på Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. Vad tror du om Image:Mussolini hitler.jpg? /Lokal Profil 00:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Det är ju fotografen som ska ha varit död länge, inte motivet. // Liftarn 07:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tack, har listat den på PUI. /Lokal Profil 00:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Latruff

Hey Liftarn, I just wanted to say thank you, after your most recent rewrite I finally feel like you are taking my concerns and objections seriously. When I get the chance I will try to enter in my own input, but I now feel quite optimistic about the possibility of working together with you on this article as well as others. Thanks- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the sectioning of the article makes more sense now too. // Liftarn

BAGHA JATIN, Postal Stamp

Earlier this month you called the attention of Dwaipayanc about a possibility of deleting the above-mentioned image. I do not know if anything has been done, but today I discover that the picture has been removed, without leaving any notice. Can you please find out the reasons and how far it is possible to restore it. Thanks.--BobClive 06:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the image called? It was probably listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. // Liftarn

Who can verify - and how - whether it is unfree or not ?//--BobClive 09:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is brought to the page for discussion. The uploader is notified and if nobody objects it deleted after a certain time (14 days I think). // Liftarn

Wasting time indeed

Hej, I'm sorry to be writing this but for the first time on WP someone has managed to annoy me, and it happened to be you. You just tagged 8 photos (all Mazda MX-5) as 'unsourced' and marked them for deletion. All of them were uploaded by me. All of them feature the text "Flicker user xxxxxx under CC license". The photos were sourced from Flicker, the photos are CC-licensed, the photos are credited. Yes, the link to the source is missing but there is enough info to easily get to it. If it was the missing links that prompted your action, show some reciprocal good faith and look for them yourself. As you put on your user page, you waste too much of your time editing Wikipedia. Please waste it better and do not waste mine too, having to revert your overzealous policing no less than 8 times. Thank you.

PS You're still not notifying the 'perpetrators' as other people have been complaining too. --maf 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could add the source link so the copyright status can be verified (as required!) then I wouldn't have to waste my time tagging them. And I have no intention to waste even more time tracking down the source of the pictures. // Liftarn

You put the tags yet again. You have indeed too much time to waste. I don't, so I guess you win. There's a very thin line between zealous and zealot and you have crossed it. I don't think you are doing a good service to WP. Have a good day and please clean the mess you will leave behind in a week's time. --maf 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could jusy have played by the rules and included a source rather than a generic handwave of the general direction the source may be in neither of us would have needed to waste time over this. // Liftarn

List of Satanists

Why have you taken up childish vandalism? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, why do you ask? As you can see I have sources for the claims. Please see the talk page. // Liftarn

It would be best to stop Liftarn. They are not reliable sources. Could you ensure they are removed from the page and also apologize here [1]. Its a Monday after all. --Ben 19:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

As per WP:BLP and WP:BLOCK, if you persist in repeatedly posting controversial unsourced or pourly sourced material related to living persons, you will earn a block for disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but to avoid double standards the list of other misslabelled Satanists would have to go. // Liftarn

Blocked

You've been temporarily blocked from editing due to your edits discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Liftarn_making_WP:POINT_edits_that_violate_WP:BLP. Please use these 24 hrs to reconsider your method of contributing to the project and become more familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. FeloniousMonk 21:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that someone is on a personal vendetta. // Liftarn

Image:BFMV.jpg

I'm sorry, but I saw you recently incorrectly tagged BFMV.jpg as unfree. We do not tag image as unfree because they are "from a website", we do it based on their copyright license, the author, and the image itself. Images such as these, are clearly released to promote a work in the media and therefore qualifies as a fair use image. I have now added a fair use rationale to the image to avoid further misunderstandings. Again, sorry for the trouble. Michaelas10 (T|C) 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I correctly tagged it as unfree as it's not free. // Liftarn

It's fair use. Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not free. It's useable, but not free. // Liftarn

When an image is tagged unfree, it means that "it is missing information on its source or copyright status", which is not true for this image, both in its corrent license tag and the previous license tag. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's true. Anyway, when I tagged it as disputed it was claimed it was copyrighted free use. // Liftarn

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Please do not deliberately introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Avi 12:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl XVI Gustaf/Paparizou remark

Please see Talk:Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden#The Paparizou remark. /Slarre 14:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Party (Norway)

Take a look at this article if you're interested/if have the time. User: Intangible and User:Heptor, two far-right sympathizers, are attempting to censor the findings of reputable academic sources, all of which state that the Progress Party is a radical right-wing populist party. -- WGee 18:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I bet they do. // Liftarn

Chart

Although the chart is created in open office, the ongoing debate as to it's neutrality requires that the text under the legend be added manually. If you would like to make it multilanguage, perhaps you could post the translated lables on my (or the charts) talk page and I will see what I can do about getting new charts out. Carbonate 18:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Israelwall.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Israelwall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. Edward 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago. It's uploaded according to a non commercial license so it is double licensed. Anyway, it should be quite easy to find a replacement. // Liftarn

Image tagging for Image:Zenith.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Zenith.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo food and drink

If you'd like to contribute constructively to the taboo food and drink article, please include appropriate references along with your additions, and make an effort to use correct English spelling, grammar, and capitalization. Simply reverting your previous edits will not resolve the problems with them. Dr.frog 21:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel prize naming

Let's discuss the issue at Robert Solow on the article's talk page AdamSmithee 00:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMoz

A tag has been placed on MusicMoz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because it is an article about a certain web site, blog, forum, or other community of web users that does not assert the importance or significance of that web location. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles, as well as notability guidelines for websites. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on Talk:MusicMoz. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.Demiurge 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JansonSpecimenAIB.svg

You have moved the image to commons. But it seems to be corrupted. Could you upload the image again, so that the image on wikipedia could be deleted. Regards, Shyam ^(T/C) 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. // Liftarn

Image:Batmanbegins custom case.jpg

You were kind enough mark this image as "possibly unfree" even though it is my picture, case and my work as stated in the image description. I am new to wikipedia so bare with me. I'd like to know how to keep it on wikipedia. I provided as much information as possible. There was a second picture which was not mine and now I understand why it was also marked. However I am the owner of this picture and would like to keep it on here. -Qtip42

Do as it says and go to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#November 26 and state your case there. // Liftarn

re: Locust (car)

Oops, my mistake. From what I had read it sounded exactly like the Locost idea (based off of "how to build a sports car for £250"), but with a ladder chasis. BMan1113VR 21:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 03:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Autoduck

A tag has been placed on Autoduck, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page 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 its subject's notability under the 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. CiaranG 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons

Hello, please note that the direct use of {{NowCommons}} is deprecated. Please use {{subst:ncd}} instead. Conscious 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iäll try to remember it. // Liftarn

Sweden Democrats

Keep an eye on Lucy-marie at the Sweden Democrats article. She's fourteen years-old, knows little about political science other than what she sees on TV, once argued that the word persons is not a word, routinely confuses the words seems and seams, yet is now claiming that the Sweden Democrats are not a radical right-wing populist party, unilaterally defying several scholarly sources in the process. -- WGee 00:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet? // Liftarn

Naw. More like a dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance. -- WGee 19:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Home Taping is Killing Music

Hi, I must apologise, when you linked to Piracy is theft it was appearing as a red link (presumable because you were still making the page), and so therefore I though the page was being vandalized... Sorry about that.. Fosnez 01:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see why you could have thought that. // Liftarn

Lotus Eleven and Lotus Seven

Hi Liftarn, I recently noticed that you wrote in the Lotus Eleven article that its chassis was based on that of the Lotus 7. I am far from an expert on Lotus cars, but I was always under the impression that it was the other way round, ie the 7 was actually based on the 11 chassis. Another user, who also thinks so, has brought up the issue on the talk page. It is entirely possible that both me and User:Tom Bartlett are wrong about this, but could you provide some reference that the 11 was based on the 7 chassis? Right now, I cannot find a reference to support my opinion either, so maybe you are actually right :) -- Ferkelparade π 13:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My fault. Yes, the 11 is based on the 7. The reason was as far as I recall that Lotus wanted something cheaper. // Liftarn

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. I've changed the article accordingly. Cheers, Ferkelparade π 21:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lotus Seven, Series 4

Hi Liftarn. Unfortunately I do not have a picture of the Lotus Seven, Series 4. Tom Bartlett 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving my image to Commons

But tell me... how is it possible to have the same image name on both wiki and commons? th--Indolences 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The software looks first locally and if not found on Commons. // Liftarn

NPOV

From your edits in FWD and RWD article, I see that you are not neutral. I will ask other wikipedians to help in conflict resolution. --Maxim Masiutin 10:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. // Liftarn