User talk:Panarjedde/Archive 1

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Panarjedde in topic Offense?

Your edits

edit

You must really love edit wars. You got yourself into one now. Kingjeff 18:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed you haven't made any recent changes to them other then the edits from your little edit war with me. Kingjeff 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You should always be polite with other wikipedians. Comments such this are not welcome, and do not help solving issues.--Panarjedde 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do to the ones that don't cause me any problems. Kingjeff 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism

edit

It's a bad faith nomination. Kingjeff 18:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

ha. You gave an archiving warning? That's very funny as you don't archive yourself. Kingjeff 17:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Notable vs Famous

edit

I don't think it makes a difference which one it is. Kingjeff 18:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Personal attacks

edit

That isn't a personal attack. The fact is I really believe you do bad faith reverts. Kingjeff 00:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dear Panarjedde

edit

I'd like to repeat that I haven't anything against you. When you offer reasonable motivations to your edits, I can agree with them, so no problem. However, sometimes (I've also just seen Talk:Syracuse, Sicily) your behaviour causes upset to other users. As for the banning proposal, I can excuse of it; as I already wrote you, at the moment I hadn't even watched your edits, only the page on your talk listing all your infractions and 3RR accusations, and I was simply proposing the procedure for what seemed a blatant vandal. As I partially changed idea thenceforth, I'd like if you could remain here and add good edits as you do regularly, but in respect of rules, with less agressivity and maybe with more conciliant attitude. That's why I invited you to the WikiProject:Italy. Bye and good work. --Attilios 18:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

When?--Panarjedde 18:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE: "Smartness"

edit
According to this guy, I had his football images removed because I hate... I don't know, some unidentified club.

Ah, so now we understand the motive behind targeting those specific player's images[1]. What you don't seem to understand is free alternatives for those images cannot be found, as I searched for them first before uploading the ones currently in place... so what you are attempting to do is pointless, as if they are deleted, they can be re-uploaded because there are no available free alternatives to go in there place. - Deathrocker 22:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Australia national football (soccer) team

edit

It doesn't count with bad faith (vandalism). Kingjeff 02:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Looks like it counts, he got blocked

Footballer Images

edit
This guy accepts removal of footballer images...

Sure, go ahead and nominate those for deletion, you have my permission. Images in that class of mine were already deleted for their nature, so that applies to these as well, and I've accepted that they were not free images. Whoever was cleaning the images out last time apparently just didn't find all of mine that I'd uploaded that wouldn't work. Get those deleted quickly so I can have a perfectly clean slate on images again. Sorry for any trouble. -KingPenguin 21:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

...this one, instead, did not understand what we were talking about. After all, he was contacted by my friend, the King
Just a note here - I think you're probably being a bit overzealous on this issue, as Wikipedia:Publicity photos seems to suggest that press kit photos are fine until such time as someone adds a free image to the site. It doesn't seem to suggest that the mere possibility of such an image being created precludes the use of a publicity photo. MisfitToys 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Did you read WP:FU? It is a policy of Wikipedia (and not an essay like Wikipedia:Publicity photos), and it requires that fair use images must be unreplaceable to be kept here.--Panarjedde 23:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

edit
Persecuted

This policy says this policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Remember, you were following around my every edit at the time you nominated the photo for deletion. That is bad faith. Kingjeff 01:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

What...

edit
He did not read the boilerplate, yet. Nice title, however. Oh, it was fo the "minchione" he got blocked.

Are you hoping to achieve out of this?... what is the purpose for you messing around with images that already have apropriate tags? Can't you find something more constructive to do on here, minchione. - Deathrocker 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Images

edit
Yet another one bites the dust. Fooball fair-use pictures, of course

Please don't add useless tags to my images. ALL OF THEM ARE COPYRIGHTED AND FREE FOR NON COMMERCIAL USE, so I can use them here. Please remove the tags ASAP :) KaragouniS 14:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you can't use "free for non-commercial use" images on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia's terms of use allow people to take anything on Wikipedia and make a profit from it.  OzLawyer / talk  15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok my friends, explain me what to do in order to be ok. Should i ask from the stadia.gr administrator to give me images without logo or what else? (see also http://www.stadia.gr/terms.html). KaragouniS 16:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you get it, now, don't you, pal?

User:Panarjedde/appo

edit
friendship is a wonderful thing

Why is my name there? Kingjeff 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

("there" is the page with the list of his personal attacks to me)
Because I like to keep all those important to my heart in a handy place.--Panarjedde 22:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Assuming good faith

edit

Sorry, Panarjedde, but your comments in the Julian the Apostate talk thread fail to assume good faith. I called you on it. You are free to "consider that rude," but I've no intention of removing my talk page comments to make you comfortable. Several editors were having a very amicable conversation, and you inserted yourself into it by immediately accusing one editor of misconduct and then accusing me of "acting unilaterally" (when, in fact, I didn't act at all). You do need to relax. I suspect I'm not the only person who's given you this advice recently; consider taking it. Dppowell 16:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If someone agrees with him, they are having an "amicable conversation" (is this a forum?); If someone does not agree with him, he accuse him of not assuming good faith. In any case, he is allowed to act unilaterally, commenting with rudeness, and issuing paternalistic messages.

Images & fair use

edit
Another one who understands well fair use...

Panarjedde, every image I upload in this server is copyrighted BUT the authors permit its non commercial distribution only if their name/site link is mentioned in here. So please explain me what should I do to be ok? Thanks. KaragouniS 16:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the images should be commercially distributable. You should find free (as in speech) images.--Panarjedde 16:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


Legio XIII Gemina's "motto"

edit
He looks amicable...

I reverted you edit, as "Pia Fidelis" is not a motto, but a name.--Panarjedde 13:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

My mistake! Sorry :) - Vedexent (talk) - 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Consistency please!

edit
Still amicable...

If you don't agree with that reference format in Legio XIII Gemina could you change the McBride ones then. Having dual formats for references is annoying, and while not yet confusing as there aren't that many references, it will become so as the article expands. One or the other, not both. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why confusing? MacBride is a source for the article, CIL for the name only. Even FA use this approach.--Panarjedde 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
As for bold text author titles, it is not a convention, no - but it is an accepted practice, and useful where there are multiple sources for a given point: it helps separate multiple references. See Third Servile War, which is also an FA. Admittedly, Legio XIII Gemina doesn't have any such citations yet. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Either way, I'm not trying to get into an edit war :) I'm perfectly happy to let it stand the way you have it now. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


Legio XIII Gemina

edit
No longer amicable...

Would you please stop removing the portal link! Yes it is also in the info box. However it is convention to add the appropriate portal badge to an article. It is not a common case to have it also in a template in an infobox which is part of the article - but removing that would damage many other pages with include that information box. - Vedexent (talk) - 22:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you please stop duplicating information? The link is already there, there is no reason to have it twice.--Panarjedde 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
After watching your behavior with regards to Legio XIII Gemina, and observing you general Wikipedia behavior, as evidenced by your own talk page above, you may find it useful to read the Wikipedia policy on WP:OWN, and consider applying it to the Legio XIII Gemina article. If you prefer, we can just refer the matter to the admin in charge of the military history wikiproject. - Vedexent (talk) - 22:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
"as evidenced by your own talk page above" is priceless. Another smart guy proud of himself.

Offense?

edit

Moving an article from BC/AD to BCE/CE is a serious offense? How's that? Show me any Wikipedia bylaw and I will gladly and willingly follow it; otherwise, consider yourself warned of harassment.--SOCL 02:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Guess? It is.
  • Like I said, I will gladly and willing follow any Wikipedia bylaws as they are stated. There is no need to have an attitude about it—personally, I wouldn't have overdramatize it by calling it a "serious offense", but that's just me... I don't have any "excuses", as you put it, just mere ignorance on my part to that particular detail. Chill, and have a good day.--SOCL 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
    Starting a discussion with "otherwise, consider yourself warned of harassment" is not the most amicable way of interacting. As regards the "serious offence", it is, as several people have been blocked for this reason. (Please, don't delete my edits.)--Panarjedde 11:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply