User talk:Liftarn

; Archives
	/Archive 1; /Archive 2; /Archive 3; /Archive 4; /Archive 5; /Archive 6;

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

Thanks

Little context in Radiator surround

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Radiator surround, by Carmen56 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Radiator surround 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 Radiator surround, 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. --Android Mouse Bot 2 04:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

house demolition

Is it just me, or is this whole thing crazy? do these people udnerstand what they're getting themselves into? Do they realize that the people mentioning Israeli demolitions of Israeli houses will continualy want to draw equivalencies between the two? I guess there's not much we can do now. --Steve, Sm8900 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest then? // Liftarn

comment removal

hi Liftarn, apologies for having removed your article extract, i was thinking it might have been done in error as i didn't see the direct link. your expanation clarifies things however, thank you. ITAQALLAH 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. // Liftarn

Making false accusations

You have made false accusations about me. [1]. FYI, I have never edited that jihadi leaflet other than adding an AFD note. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Sorry about that. I'll remove it. // Liftarn

Your edit in Kart racing

Liftarn, you have reposted your picture taken in a Swedish museum in Kart racing without any argumentation. As I said before when I reverted it, I believe your note has its place on the Swedish Karting article, or maybe you want to create a new page on the history of karting in Sweden. If we start to explain how karting started in France, Germany, India or Japan, this article is going to be extremely boring and out of place. It is already made mention of the 50th anniversary - with FIA reference - as well as the introduction of karting (which started in the US) in Europe with reference also. This is enough of history for this topic as it is more interesting to know what the sport is about today IMO. I will revert your edit again and suggest that you open a discussion here if you feel that your point is greatly improving this article anyway. - Wikigi | talk to me | 19:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did yo blank it with such an obviously invalid reason? // Liftarn

Vagn Bennike

Dear LiftarnIs there any Swedish, German or other source you know of for Vagn Bennike that might help us to make a wiki page in his memory? Regards Nishidani 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found one short bio[2] and some articles [3][4]. fr:Vagn Bennike and he:ואגן בניקה already exists. // Liftarn

I'm in your debt Liftarn. I was just reading, slowly (it's been 37 years since I studied the sister language Swedish), the Norwegian (?) section when I noted you'd already got the article up. My computer for some strange reason, seizes up and closes down when I access the Time article, but I'll try to get over the jinx, read up and flesh the stub out. Thanks againNishidani 15:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit

Could you please explain this edit [5]. Last I checked this was not free software and its shareware. I'm not even the original author of the screenshot. I don't believe this was a valid move to commons.--Crossmr 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"we have released the source code (along with all necessary support files, graphics files, sound effects, etc.) for the Windows and Macintosh versions of Blades of Exile to the world. Do what you want with it (within the sensible legal guidelines described in the license), and have fun."[6] // Liftarn

Thanks. I had a brief look at their product page when I found that, and still saw it listed as a "demo" for download.--Crossmr 13:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:2cat3d_3.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2cat3d_3.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. ~ Wikihermit 18:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Z06-Blk-7.jpg

You need to assume good faith here my friend. These are pictures of my car fix ed up with Adobe photoshop and after effects. FrankWilliams 18:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! // Liftarn

Image:Mad-sci.jpg.

Truth is, I frankly don't know where this image came from anymore. It was more than five years ago since I found it, and all I remember is that it was from some serial or another that was being freely distributed by a number of sources. No one fussed about that sort of thing in 2003.

I would note, though, that the image has been adopted by dozens of users, and apparently made it into a popular userbox. Its deletion would break all of those. Collateral damage is not a consideration, I guess. I suspect that a link to the made-for-Wikipedia image that now resides (and replaced this old one) on the mad scientist page might be an adequate substitute for most of these uses, but it would require that each user page that has it be edited. Is there a bot for this? - Smerdis of Tlön 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mad-sci.jpg is used at Boffin where it says it's Dr Alexander Thorkel (Albert Dekker) from Dr. Cyclops (1940) so we have a source. Is there a way to check if the copyright has been renewed? // Liftarn

Good - someone recognized it. If I had known that, I would have mentioned it at least. There must be some way of telling if it has been renewed, but I do not know what that might be. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you go to http://cocatalog.loc.gov/ and check it there. It is listed but the problem is that I don't know how to interpret the results. // Liftarn

Nothing in there seems to indicate that a renewal is on file. The first item involves a lunchbox apparently made from reusing the movie art; this suggests a lack of renewal, rather than otherwise. The other listings would appear to be for compilations of various kinds that include it. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll move it to Commons then. // Liftarn

Image:1913, March 9, Man wearing bowler hat, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.jpg

While you're technically right to dispute the copyright status of the photograph, why bother? WilyD 17:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because if I transfer it to Commons with all the paperwork I get shit for it. // Liftarn

re: yeah, it's my own site

If it is indeed your own site, please take note of the following message:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:AZX-Monstrum and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:AZX-Monstrum with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:AZX-Monstrum.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Cheers, — madman bum and angel 21:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, I'll just send an e-mail to you using your Mail Me page. When you reply, confirming that you agree to license your site content under the GFDL, the copyright violation tags will be removed. — madman bum and angel 21:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I have sent a message to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org as well. // Liftarn

Done — madman bum and angel 21:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All taken care of. Thank you. :) — madman bum and angel 21:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist

Hey Liftarn, I think I've just succeeded in whitelisting your site, so you'll have no problem with our bot. He's a good worker, but a bit of a linear thinker. ;) If that didn't work, I'm in contact with the operator, so he should sort me out.

Cheers! — madman bum and angel 22:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work now. Cheers! — madman bum and angel 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! // Liftarn

Regarding edits to MG Midget

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Liftarn! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule groups\.msn\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 13:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman

A free image with Batman and Robin in the Batmobile. You've got to be joking? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 17:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, just the car. That should be less of a problem. See Commons:Category:Batmobile. //

Note I already uploaded an image to the commons from flickr and replaced the copywrighted one. The 60s car is actually my uploaded image there. We now have a free replacement. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have at least the movie and TV series cars covered now. The animated are probably more difficult to find free replacements for. // Liftarn

Ah I only love the 60s tv series anyway - I can't really confess to liking comics anyway. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 12:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the images...

Sorry about that; the images are classified as parody, but you are free to get rid of them if you find this inappropriate. I deeply apologize for the trouble I made... Blake Gripling 08:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I quite enjoyed some of them, but on Wikipedia you need to keep a paper trail so you don't run into problems. If you used free images as a base it would be another issue. // Liftarn

moving my images to commons

I wish you would NOT do that. I cannot update my images when they are moved to commons. Moreover, I did not ask you to do that. Motorrad-67 14:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can. All you have to do is to get an acoount there as well (or is that tranpsarent nowdays, I don't remember). Oh, and by the way you shouldn't watermark your images. // Liftarn

PLEASE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND STOP MESSING WITH MY IMAGES! GET A LIFE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorrad-67 (talk • contribs)

I do mind my own business and my business is transfering images to Commons. Please read Wikipedia:Image use policy#User-created images where it clearly says "user-created images may not be watermarked, distorted, have any credits in the image itself or anything else that would hamper their free use". // Liftarn

IF YOU KEEP THIS HARRASSMENT UP I WILL NEVER CONTRIBUTE ANOTHER IMAGE TO WIKIPEDIA. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, YOU ARE ON THE THRESHOLD OF BEING SUCCESSFUL. AGAIN, PLEASE MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND STOP MESSING WITH MY IMAGES! GET A LIFE!! Motorrad-67 15:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be harrassement to transfer a few pictures to Commons? // Liftarn

I did not ask you to do that and you persist in saying you will. That's harassment in my book. You were uninvited. However, if you prove to be deaf to my requests, I will cease all participation in Wikipedia. If you leave my images alone, I will continue to supply images and participate. The choice is entirely yours. Motorrad-67 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this is a wiki anybody can contribute. You don't own the content. Feel free to keep participating, but please don't launch personal attacks and also plase make sure your images follow Wikipedia:Image use policy. Thank you. // Liftarn

I contribute by providing text and images. Others apparently do not but choose rather to harass those who do contribute. When my images are taken to commons, I can no longer update or improve them. They are locked to me. Therefore, I will stop contributing to Wikipedia if my images are not left alone. Motorrad-67 16:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contribute by providing text, images and by moving free images to Commons. If you feel it is necessary to harass and threaten me because of that you should perhaps take a break and consider your motives for working on Wikipedia. Images on Commons are not locked. All you have to do is to go there and edit just as here. // Liftarn

"Asatru is not a neopagan religion as such"

could you avoid using Wikipedia as a soapbox for your private idiosyncratic opinions? If you want to make a case that Polytheistic reconstructionism is "not neopagan as such", present your case at Talk:Polytheistic reconstructionism, presenting your sources, but please stop your tactics of petty edit-warring. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same about you. While Asatru technically is a form of polytheistic reconstructionism it doesn't really belong in the neopagan sphere as it has a different hsitory. // Liftarn

I urge you again to behave. You have been given ample time to establish encyclopedicity. You have not delivered. The merger has found support from Huntster (talk · contribs) and Zara1709 (talk · contribs). no information was removed in the merge. Your idiosyncratic position has consistently failed to get any support from other editors. You have to recognize that as it stands, you have no case. If you can present an encyclopedic discussion, or find support from editors in good standing the case would lie different. As long as you cannot do that, please avoid wasting any more of my time. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting my time by constantly trying to remove valid articles. Is this som kind of personal vendetta or do you actually have a valid reason for your actions? // Liftarn

you are sadly confirming my expectations by acting as immaturely as ever. I haven't the least personal stake in this, and I am utterly un-interested in you as a person. this is about WP:ENC. Stop your trolling, and I will likely forget your existence after 20 minutes. dab (𒁳) 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Columbia University

Hi, just two comments. (1) The source you re-added doesn't seem to have anything to do with the incident it is listed with. The article you sourced is about Ahmadinejad's recent visit to the university, whereas the section you added it in is about the 1933 visit of the German ambassador. (2) I added the {{who?}} tag after the quote Luther's speech stressed Hitler's "peaceful intentions" because you did not cite the source of the quote "peaceful intentions". Thanks! Yavoh 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article is also about Luther's visit. Read the full article. 2) It's in the reference you deleted. // Liftarn

Religious discrimination against Neopagans

I'm posting this note both on your page and dab's. Please stop the revert war straight away. I suspect each of you is using this article to get at the other, and the article and the encyclopaedia are suffering because of it. Personally I support the merger, but would prefer it to stand as it is untilm a gebnuine consensus involving other editors can emerge. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with that. Actually I'm the one that is open for suggstions and debate. // Liftarn

Having just reviewd the discussions at Talk:Religious discrimination against Neopagans, which I had not previously seen, I feel that a consensus for merger has been achieved, with only yourself opposing. Please allow the article to be merged there. If you revert it again you will definitely be in breach of 3RR. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kim Dent-Brown (talk • contribs) [reply]

No consensus have been acheived (or even attempted), it just mob rule. An earlier merge suggestion was rejected at Talk:Religious discrimination against Asatru#Request for Comments: merge?. // Liftarn

Electronic stalking

My goodness, Mr. Liftarn, haven't you got anything better to do with your valuable time that stalk me electronically?

I try to stay out of controversial topics since I simply don't have the time and energy ...

You appear to have the time and energy to stalk me. I think I once suggested that you consider getting a life. Clearly, I was very prescient at the time! Motorrad-67 15:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider yourself to be listed on my list of Wikiepedia vandals. I'm keeping my eye on you. // Liftarn

Fine. Sorry you don't have anything more constructive to do with your life, such as it is. Motorrad-67 15:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since vandals can destroy easier than it is to build it is time well spent to watch them so they can be stopped as soon as possible. // Liftarn

Well said. Try "building: yourself some day. You might enjoy it. Would love to see the high quality photos you have contributed. Can you give me Wiki links? Motorrad-67 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to have a look at Commons:Category:Files by Liftarn. // Liftarn

Thank you. Alas, most of those are snapshots with cluttered backgrounds. Good photos? Afraid not. I would hope you could do better. Motorrad-67 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. // Liftarn

F.Y.I. Any new photos I post to Wikipedia will be 200 px maximum, which works for thumbnails. No more large photos. Go ahead any move them to Commons because I don't care. You don't need to notify me. Have fun. Motorrad-67 16:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, be a jerk. // Liftarn

If that is what I have been forced to become, I have only you to thank. (By the way, I think that may have been a personal attack.) Motorrad-67 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you choosed to be like that. // Liftarn

I "choosed" to be like that? Interesting choice of "words." Motorrad-67 12:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could have just said "Great, someone liked my picture enought to make it available to a wider audience. Now I don't have to transfer it to Commons myself.". // Liftarn

Nobel Prize in Economics

Please stop with edits like this one. As you are aware of, your suggestion to use Nobel Memorial Prize instead of Nobel Prize has been rejected. If you want to reopen that debate, please do, but until that refrain from unilateral changes. -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's don't compare apples with cement trucks here. The article name is one thing, that it's called within articles is another thing. By the way, please stop introducing lies to Wikipedia. That may be considered vandalism. // Liftarn

I would advice you to stop misrepresenting the edits of other editors. To use the most commonly used name in the English language is not a 'lie' but an acknoledgement of fact. Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive, and if you don't like the way English speakers use their language, I'm sorry. --Uriel 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, using slang terms while presenting them as actual terms is a deception and yes, also a lie. If you don't like what the award is called I suggest you write to the Nobel Foundation and ask them to rename the prize. // Liftarn

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent violation of WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Ronnotel 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Liftarn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No three reverts and reverting vandalism doesn't count.

Decline reason:

Disagreements about content are not vandalism. — Sandstein 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Liftarn (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please stop block waring and stick with the original block, thank you

Decline reason:

Not currently blocked. If unable to edit, please follow these instructions. — Yamla 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm willing to unblock if this is true but I didn't see vandalism, just an ongoing dispute over the title of a template. Can you explain? Ronnotel 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nott 100% sure about it, but to knowingly insert false information in an article may be a form of vandalism. // Liftarn

I don't think your edits were really vandalism reverts. It seems to be a content dispute over the title of the prize (to my knowledge, I thought it was Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics). I think the other users' edits are under the category of "unintentional misinformation", which does not fall into the realm of vandalism. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vision Thing's edits are intentional misinformation. He also reverted (all recent edits) Liftarn's edit of "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" [7] and changed it to "Nobel Prize in Economics" in the Milton Freedman article, as well as my edit from the official and cited name of "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" to "Nobel Prize in Economics" [8]. Despite being asked to stop removing the official name on his talk page, he continues to do it anyway. He is intentionally not allowing any other name, including the official name, to be used in lieu of a common name for the prize (which many have already pointed out is a misleading name in a few discussions). What is WP's policy about this? –panda 18:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may be vandalism, but only "simple vandalism" reversion are exempt from 3RR. Either way, a 3RR block was appropriate. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what is WP's policy about this issue? It's spilling over into all of the articles associated with the econ prize and it would be nice to know how to handle this. VT has been very adamant in his insistence that the prize be called "Nobel Prize in Economics" despite protests from others. –panda 19:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems like a dispute, so the pages can be protected (judging on a case-by-case basis) or you can raise the issue at WP:AN/I and seek the input of a larger group of people. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any other forum to ask for input from a larger group of people? WP:AN/I doesn't look like the right place but I can post something there if you believe it is. According to the related page's history [9], it is unfair to only block Liftarn since User:Vision Thing and User:Lost.goblin ganged up on him to avoid violating WP:3RR. –panda 23:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag team reverts. Aren't that covered by 3RR as well? // Liftarn

Unfortunately no, tag team reverts are not covered by 3RR for reasons that can be found in Wikipedia talk:Three-revert rule#Are cartels allowed?. That being said, I do think that only blocking Liftarn in this case is unfair as he was only trying to put more correct information in the template, versus less correct text. In the future, could you please ask for an outside opinion instead of edit warring? There are many editors who hold the same opinion as you about this issue and it doesn't help when one gets blocked. –panda 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would love an outside opinion, as the current situation is ridiculous, already many months ago I pointed out in Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Economics#Name_used_in_other_articles that we probably will have to ask for arbitration because consensus seems impossible. --Uriel 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting developments here. Rebecca unblocked me with the comment "I don't see this as being justified. He's a very long-term user in an edit dispute where the warring parties have behaved just as badly, if not worse.". Not really needed as the block would have expired anyway, but then Ronnotel slapped a new 48 hour block for the same 3RR. Now that was uncalled for. User:Ugen64 slapped on a one week block. It looks like I'm in the focus of a block war. // Liftarn

I think you're looking at old block comments. You shouldn't be blocked anymore. –panda 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Please review the block log again. The block that Rebecca lifted was in July and unrelated to the 3RR violation for which I imposed the block. I took no action other than what I described in that 3RR report. Ronnotel 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it seems to work now. Looks like I ran into some autoblock side effects. // Liftarn

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Awards and prizes naming conventions - proposal

Thanks so much for starting this thread! Excellent idea! I was wondering, though, why is it not located at the bottom of the page? (Your sig isn't time stamped so I don't know when you started it and I haven't looked at the history.) –panda 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHECKUSER#Liftarn

FYI. Vision Thing has filed a WP:CHECKUSER#Liftarn suspecting that User:Liftarn and User:Lensor are the same user. –panda 06:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... That is so obviously false a checkuser shouldn't be necessary. // Liftarn

Vision Thing

In case you didn't notice, the only thing Vision Thing did on 11 October 2007 was comment in Talk:Nobel Prize or follow you around and revert your edits. [10] I believe that would be considered wikistalking. A warning on his talk page may be called for. –panda 16:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's difficult to prove. It may be just a coincidence. // Liftarn

Assuming good faith

WP:AGF is policy, not just a polite note. I don't think getting yourself blocked for incivility is a particularly good way of winning this argument. For what it's worth, I'm in broad agreement about your version of the title, but it's evident that a lot of people still disagree, and they're not going to be persuaded by allegations of personal malice. Please try to establish current consensus rather than turning this into an edit war. Chris Cunningham 10:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...actually, looking at your history, I see you actually have been blocked for this before. Seriously, do you think the outcome will be any different this time? Please change your tactics. Chris Cunningham 10:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a slip-up. That won't happen again. And as far as I know facts don't require a consensus. // Liftarn

Actually, they do. On Wikipedia, being right about something doesn't give you carte blanche to attack others or have your way. You'd be much better served by avoiding personal attacks, not least because it reduces the chances of you being blocked. I'm not sure what you mean by "slup-up", but it seems like you're indicating that the block was a result of others' actions rather than yours. This definitely doesn't seem to be the case.

Again, the title you've picked sounds like the correct one to use to me, but it's unlikely that you're going to get your way just by continually reverting to it. Chris Cunningham 11:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked anyone. It was a slip-up (and I slipped-up then typing it as well). Reverting people who knowingly inserts false information fullfills several goals, a) the information is corrected, b) it makes it possible to bring it to discussion (if you just leave the errors they will ignore the talk pages). // Liftarn

That's a perfectly valid argument for reverting something once or twice. It is not a valid argument for reverting something until one is blocked for 3RR, and then returning to do so again afterwards. Misbehaviour by other editors is not a license to do the same yourself. Taking the topic in question to WP:RFPP until it had been discussed would be much more effective. Chris Cunningham 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would mean a whole lot of pages would have to be protected. I have tried to bring it up at WP:ANI, but that didn't do much good. I was also reccomended WP:RFC/USER so I did that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Camptown. // Liftarn

I did bring it up at WP:RFPP, but it was rejected. // Liftarn

I can't see how it is helpful to call 'liars' and 'vandals' people who are just doing what they think is right. --Uriel 21:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liftarn. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

-- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SO you decided to template a regular? // Liftarn

Michael Nobel Energy Award

FYI, there's a comment for you on Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Michael Nobel Energy Award. –panda 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for econ prize

If you plan to change the name of the econ prize in one of the templates, could you please be consistent and change it for all of them? Thanks!

–panda 16:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have done it yourself you know. Btw, should the template names be changed as well? Perhaps a later issue. // Liftarn

I was just repeating the edit summary left by Lost.goblin and as explained on his talk page. Let's leave the name of the template for later. –panda 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]