When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This applies to the two files that you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons that are obviously copyrighted by Aftenposten which you have also been notified about at your user talk page there. __meco (talk) 10:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Brazzers has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/user/zzinsider. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New antisemitism
Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edits to the New antisemitism are not too bad, but they are probably in the wrong article. That article is dedicated to material that discusses new antisemitism. So the sources you use should contain that phrase. If the material is discussing antisemitism in general (without saying "new antisemitism") you should put it in another article, such as Antisemitism in Norway. For Sweden, you can easily create a new article named Antisemitism in Sweden. Just click on that red link and put your Sweden material in that new article. Does that make sense? --Noleander (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make the same point - what is described as "new antisemitism" is related to critism of Israeli policy (a theme which can be hotly debated). Your edits are more focused on traditional religious predjudice / bigotry, and belong in articles such as those Noleander suggested. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"New antisemitism is the name of the concept that a new form of antisemitism has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the left, radical Islam and the right, and tending to manifest itself as opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel."
This is the definition by the article. The Swedish material is solely about the rise of antisemitism in Sweden as a result of Zionism.
Shalalal: Your conclusion that the Sweden material is related to New Antisemitism is interesting, but editors are not allowed to draw conclusions like that. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research. The policy is that a source (book, etc) must make a conclusion like that. If you cannot find a source that says that the Swedish activities are "new antisemitism" then you cannot put the material in the New Antisemitism article. --Noleander (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your way thinking, but i'm not drawing the conclusions here. There are several quotes from journalists, politicians and spokepersons for Sweden's Jewish community that explain the rise in antisemitism with opposistion to Zionism. They do not specifically mention the word phrase "New Antisemitism", but i think the parallell is clearly obvious judging by the definition of "New Antisemitism" in the introduction.
No, the majority of the examples you give are similar to what has been going on for centuries. The article is focused on the concept of critism of Israel as a form of socially acceptable antisematism, and is not focused on rising right wing violence or right wing attitudes. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shalalal: Look at it this way: If you cannot find sources that use the term "new antisemitism" in relation to this material, what does that tell you? It means that no one else is making that connection. If it genuinely is "new antisemitism", it should be easy to find sources that use the phrase "new antisemitism" when describing those Swedish incidents. If you cannot find such sources, then I think a new article Antisemitism in Sweden is the route to take. --Noleander (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ive noticed you've pasted identical information on a number of pages. Wikipedia needs to minimise duplication as its easy for content to be forked and become contradictory. The information can be retained in one article, and others can have small summaries then redirect there. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deliberate duplication of information in multiple articles. This is a form of content forking WP:Content forking, and is not acceptible. Your edits will have to be placed into one article, with short summaries and links in relevent articles only. Continued cut and paste duplication will be reverted. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication of large swathes of content is rare in Wikipedia. The general form is to have short summaries (2 or 3 lines) in articles not directly to related to a topic, and then link to a page more specifically related to the topic. This avoids forking and redundancy, and ensures relevance (ie the material relevant to Antisemitism is not the same as New Antisemitism). This form of editing can be seen everywhere. For example Obama is mentioned on the Presidents of the US page, but readers are redirected to the page on him. As with Osama BL, he is mentioned on the Al Quaeda page, but profiled on his own. With independent duplication of large amounts of text, wikipedia would be impossible to update. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, thanks for your cooperation. The page Antisemitism in Europe still shows extensive duplication - it would be good if the section could be cut down to key points so it's no longer than the Spain section, since there's an independent article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure i'll do it, drop me a comment if you're dissatisfied.
Warning message
The warning message that was left on your page was placed there in error and has been removed. I apologize for the error and for my clumsiness in trying to fix my own mistake. Please excuse the error. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove other users comments at talk pages
Please do not remove other users comments, like you did here. Given that the comment you removed concerned your owned user account, it seems hard to assume good faith that this was an accidental edit on you part. Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Spankwire, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, 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. (See section A7 of 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Störm(talk)15:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
