This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi! I was a bit mystified by your edit summary "Italy - Germany is a draw, but whatever Uris likes is a rule in this article, right?". I prefer to comment on the content of the article than on other users. Have you and this guy fallen out? What's the story? I couldn't find anything in your talk archive to explain it, but then maybe I missed it. Hope you don't mind me leaving you this message. -- Guinnog 21:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Check the talk page of the article. It is a debate about if a world ranking based on continental competitions is meaningful or not. It ended with the claim by Uris that a 2:1 consensus to add the ranking is good, a 3:2 consensus to remove it is not.-- Panairjdde 21:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy. Thanks for the link. I'm going to go ahead and "be bold again" as the link suggests and try to work it out by trying the new way for the flags. - RPIRED 23:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'll revert again, since, as I explained you, it is a matter of uselessness, not of dimension.-- Panairjdde 23:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm showing good faith here, just as the link you gave me explained. Simply reverting again is not in good faith considering the discussion on the talk page. I find them decidedly useFUL. - RPIRED 23:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith too, I assure you. The problem, here, is that the issue is that no flag at all should be allowed, according to discussion, so if you add them I (probably) revert them on the same basis. The policy I showed you requires you to be bold and add (and you did) wait for a revert (and I did) and then discuss. If you directly change the article, you are being bold without discussion, that is a pass of the cycle is missing.-- Panairjdde 23:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still missing where the discussion said definitively one way or the other. You're dismissing them out of hand as being useless without even considering the discussion. Whatever. I quit. Do what you want, siete re. - RPIRED 23:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You have already been asked by an admin to desist from your POV date warring. Since you have refused, and are now carrying it all across the encyclopedia, this is being brought to the attention of administrators. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 21:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You ignore an admin, you don't get community permission first, you get reverted as vandalism. CRCulver 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Otherwise, people might consider your edits to be vandalism. Thank you. . Please stop date edit warring across the encyclopedia, get some consensus first, edit later. Please read WP:BRD abakharev 00:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not "edit warring across the encyclopedia", I am just keeping my article polishing routing on. Only this Codex Sinaiticus found my edit problematic, as well as CRCulver.

Futhermore, how long should I wait to settle this matter? Are you going to deal with it? If not, asking me to stop indefinitely is actually endorsing CS POV.-- Panairjdde 00:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling other established users "troll". It is a personal attack and not conducive to dispute resolution. If anything, you should discuss it with the concerned editors on the articles' talk pages when your changes are reverted (as stated in WP:MOSDATE: "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Removing the AD/CE notation completely is probably worse, as it is often expected of dates). Circeus 22:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If I look to your edits, I'll find that you scolded him too, for calling my edits "vandalism", right? As regards the dispute, see Talk:Montanism, I already addressed your concern (it is the section with a "NO!" written in bold)-- Panairjdde 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I had not been aware of Crculver's comment, as the only I saw was yours on my watchlist. However, he does have strong point in that you persist in making edits that generate disagreement without even attempting to get a consensus. This is disruptive behavior an harmful to the encyclopedia. In any case, I ask you to please stop this editing until some sort of agreement can be reached through discussion. How about requesting helpfrom an informal mediator?

In any case, from looking at Montanism, it is obvious that both (and here I mean CS and you, crculver being only marginally involved) of you have edit warred over this in several articles (remember: it takes two to tango), and I would advise the whole group to stop doing so at least until some sort of agreement can be reached. Circeus 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would. My major problem is this: how to actually get agreement, if one (or both) of the contenders has an immutable position? Our "case" was under the spotlight, and several came and asked to stop, like, but noone actually took position. This matter will fall into oblivion, and since non consensus is obtained, what will happen? Shall I be prohibited to edit according to (at least in my interpretation) is the MoS? Wikipedia has a lot of ways to settle disputes, but none of these can actually oblige people to come to a compromise or to a final decision. This kind of problem promotes the keeping of the status quo in situations, like this, in which no enough number of people are interested, but which is important (at least for its partecipants) none the less.-- Panairjdde 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried launching a discussion over the specific reasons for changes over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)? Have you tried a content-related Request for comment? Have you actually considered my mediation suggestion, as the mediation commitee will mediate for content and style-related cases? If you ahve not consideredor done any of these, then you haven't really tried to get community consensus on this issue. It is via consensus that wikipedia establish such things, and edits that clearly violate established consensus can be deleted. Consensus is considered binding. Circeus 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion and Manual of Style. I am not sure about RfC. I tried it in the past, but noone showed up. The problem I presented in my previous post, however, still stands.-- Panairjdde 00:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Copy --

Your will to cover all this matter is quite suspicious, Andrew.-- Panairjdde 11:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, I apologise if my remark was too personal. Please believe me when I say this -- my only feeling is that, whatever is decided, we should do less talking about it! I worked as a librarian for 25 years, so I know that library cataloguers waste thousands of words over trivial matters like this, when they could be doing more important things. If I seem impatient, this experience of mine perhaps helps to explain my impatience! Andrew Dalby 11:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I was more than a little upset at you taking down the .gif of Zidane's headbutt. [This is an unsigned edit from 209.177.252.178]

I reverted the article to restore the additional types of images/video links in this article. By the looks of the edit summaries it looks like you did it accidentally.-- Andeh 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you deleted the violent conduct links. They are relevant and should have be retained. Viewfinder 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a collection of liks, not an encyclopedic contribution.-- Panairjdde 15:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The links were added to make a useful and relevant contribution to the verification of the claim that "Materazzi has also been involved in several controversial incidents", and to provide animated illustration this claim. Links are frequently useful for such purposes and frequently contribute. Please supply a less vague reason for removing them, otherwise I will reinstate them. Viewfinder 15:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding some random movies of unstated source is not encyclopedic. If you add them, I'll revert.-- Panairjdde 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, the source of the link I added is clear. "itv" can clearly be seen and is a well known broadcaster in the United Kingdom. I am no expert on football and I have no wish to engage in an edit war, but you really do seem to be playing the trigger happy censor, and again I ask you to provide a correct reason why the link I added should be removed, otherwise I will take the matter to arbitration. Viewfinder 16:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "Further examples of his violent conduct can be seen at [3] and [4]." No introduction, no explanation of what happened, when, and what was the outcome (was he yellow awarded, red carded, or sentenced to jail), no statemente of source. In a word: nothing. This is not the way you edit an encyclopedia, doing a research on youtube or google and posting a direct link to it, mr "happy editor".-- Panairjdde 17:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to fill the article with details that can be found on the link. I am tempted to re-insert the incident, with the appropriate footnote references and details. I will think about for a bit longer before deciding. I do not know if he was carded. Perhaps you can tell us. But as we all know, unlike the cameras and commentators with the benefit of slow motion replays, match officials do not always see these incidents correctly in the split seconds they have. Scores of cards are shown inappropriately - and vice versa. The commentator used the words "savage", "brutal", "violent" and "assault", are you suggesting these words were slander? Viewfinder 18:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the words used by the commentator were over the top. Therefore I have decided not to reinsert the link. But I still maintain that the link was sourced and that links are appropriate. Viewfinder 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the original context in which I relayed the incident between Zoro and Materazzi, it was not phrased as proof that Materazzi is racist, but rather a highly relevant incident; additionally, it is not rumor, but rather something that Zoro relayed himself as being told by Materazzi (as described in the article). I respect your desire to avoid branding someone a racist; but I feel this incident is important to include if done in a proper way. That is, the mere fact that a newsworthy incident involving someone involved race should not be precluded from being mentioned. -- AstroLad 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not a matter of racism, rather a matter of opportunity. The bad thing that happened to Zoro was the bad behaviour of the people watching. If you describe all of this, and then report the exchange between Materazzi saying something like "Zoro exagerated" and Z. answering "I don't mind your opinion", that is an irrelevant fact.-- Panairjdde 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my wording of the article cited in the Materazzi article, please take it to the talk page rather than using edit wars. Xombie 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I can remove the text I think is wrongly inserted. Now it is on you to show why it should go there.-- Panairjdde 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well You Are.

I have blocked this anon for 24h for his blatant 3RR violation at Italy national football team. Circeus 14:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism (and similar conduct, such as blatant POV, spam and OR) cannot be construed for 3RR. If the edit has the potential for being constructive and the revert is moreof a content dispute, though, both parties may be blocked. Circeus 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention to the names arguement, though I see it as a bit of a non issue though if you're interested I personally find the latinized forms more elegant. -- Peteranthony 18:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, I just had a look at your edits to Honorius (emperor), & I am disappointed at what you did. Until now you have not made any bad decisions that I know of, & I have considered you a solid contributor to Wikipedia. I thought your statement that you were going to abandon this crusade of removing "AD" because you had no support demonstrated good judgement. However, putting "AD" in front of year in that article serves no other purpose than to make your point, & raises suspicion about whether you were sincere in letting the matter drop.

I'm asking you to stop this disruption immediately. Obviously, you have an issue with the style "AD" for reasons other than redundancy; I would suggest you spend your efforts on explaning them in the appropriate place. If you ignore this request, as an Admin I will be forced to take appropriate actions. I sincerely hope that this will not be necessary. -- llywrch 17:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion on Manual of Style talk page ended with me taking back my request because my POV that redundant AD (and CEs, you are wrong on this) should be removed was not supported and ADs were introduced because "we are also trying to encourage clarity" Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Alternative_proposal_for_section_.22Eras.22. I did everything I could to settle this matter, asked for third opinions, making proposals and so on, and the result is that editors can add AD / CE whenever they feel like it is important.

Now, how do you dare removing my ADs from Honorius (emperor)? In which your edit is different from Codex Sinaiticus' ones in Montanism? Why the same rule is applied liberally to CS, and restrictively to me?

In the end, if you feel like I am "disrupting" (but you should be sure it is a disruption, and I don't see why my version of Honorius article is disrupted), you are free to adopt whatever action you like. Being "nice" does not pay on Wikipedia, this is what I learnt in the last years here.

I have enough of retreating in front of stubborn editors like CS, who have their views only because they do not actually want to collaborate, but to make their POVs prevail: I am going to start being stubborn myself. Whatever it takes. -- Panairjdde 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As above. See [1]. I have reverted a few of your edits; perhaps you could do the rest yourself? -- Guinnog 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't. I strongly believe the same rules should be applied to every contributor, so if others have the right to "twist" (from my POV, of course) the rules to their taste, I should be allowed too. The issue is very simple, as the MoS claims one thing and CodexSinaiticus clearly misinterpreted it. I asked other opinions, and many were eager to ask me to avoid edit war and look for consensus, few said they agree with my position, but nobody (nobody, I repeat) ever supported my points. I feel tricked, there is an issue that (always according to me) is easy to solve, but since very few are interested in, the position of a stubborn editor prevailed. Ok, I understand and accept, but now, if I apply this stubborn editor POV, I expect nobody to complain, since nobody did anything to settle this matter when it was needed.

also note that this kind of editing is not "disrupting": you may not agree with this kind of usage, as I used to do before I was obliged to accept it, but it is perfectly accepted by Wikipedia rules (Manual of Style and its interpretation in Talk page), and therefore it is not "disrupting".

I won't revert the articles edited by Guinnog, but keep on adding ADs wherever I feel like. -- Panairjdde 18:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked you nicely, & instead of taking a deep breath & seeing how close you are to the edge you continued to be disruptive. I'm blocking you for 24 hours for disruption. Use the time off to think about the matter. -- llywrch 19:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider your block punitive of a non-disrupting editing policy. When/if the block will end, I shall keep on editing the way I did before.-- Panairjdde 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Better. As a form of protest against your prevarication, I shall close my account. Thanks a lot.-- Panairjdde 19:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Panairjdde for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Hello, someone claiming to be you (or the person who once had this account) left a message on my talk page asking to be unblocked, Could you email me (by means of my user page) confirming (or denying) that this message is from you? If it is, I am very much open to discussing the lifting of this block. -- llywrch 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't, since I nobody has the password to this account — it was changed with a random one... that's what I meant when I said the account was closed.

P.

In that case, what good would it do to unblock you? You would still have the same problem keeping you from logging on... ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 00:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I left my email address on my talk page. -- llywrch 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As you are a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user, you are also now blocked indefinitely. Stifle ( talk) 21:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A good user, a good contributor, maybe an uncivil person, but here this shouldn't care if you make a good job. Unfortunately, this is Wikipedia, not a free cultural project. Regards. -- 82.61.59.136 10:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (ex- Necronudist

They are trying to delete the lists we've work so hard on help put a stop to it. List of J-pop Artists Vote to keep our precious list!!! - Bilaber 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingdom of Italy 1810.png. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — An gr 09:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User talk:Beamerized, by Beamerized, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User talk:Beamerized fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User talk:Beamerized, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate User talk:Beamerized itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. -- Android Mouse Bot 2 03:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Panairjdde green-white-red flag.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Reisio 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flag of Repubblica Cispadana1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{ GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Himasaram 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)