User talk:Dr Lisboa

License tagging for Image:Michael Schumacher - The whole story.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Michael Schumacher - The whole story.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent comments on Jesus page

Hi, I noticed you've made a number of edits to the Jesus page, which I disagree with as it happens. I just wandered whether you'd read WP:Assume good faith, [[WP:civil], and WP:No personal attacks, because some of your comments seemed to contradict those policies. Basically, they insist that you should comment on the content, not on the contributor. You made statements about your beliefs about the reasons why other people were making their edits, which is forbidden in ordinary circumstances by those policies. That is especially the case when you believe that they are negative reasons.

The reason wikipedia has policies is to enable you to debate these things on content in a neutral way. Personalities and inner motivations should not come into it except in exceptional circumstances. If you really feel that there is a serious bias that you have no other way of dealing with, you can always file a request for comment, or something similar, to get a more neutral view from outside of the dispute. TJ 11:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasons given are really spurious. They don't stand up to any scrutiny at all. They are clearly based on intolerance - attempting to suppress any views that they don't share - which in itself is very un-Christian. I can not assume good faith when very clearly none is justified. It is often more effective to point out precisely what somebody is up to rather than to give any credence to what are merely spurious excuses for their intolerance. The culprits are, as you are, very prominently Christian in their views. They are planly verty biased in their views. The atheist section should be left to atheists to write, and not have to put up with excuses such as : irrelevant, not specific to atheists, unreferenced and similar rubbish. --Dr Lisboa 11:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, but as this dispute is being carried out on the talk page, where you are being disagreed with unanimously by christian and non-Christian editors, I don't think carrying out this dispute here is helpful. I just feel I should let you know that I've reported your violation of the 3RR (supposedly justified because you were reverting the 'vandalism' of all the other users) here. If you have any comments to make there in your defense, please do so.TJ 13:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Already have. --Dr Lisboa 13:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)