User talk:Panarjedde/Archive 1

Your edits

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

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

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

Personal attacks

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

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"

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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"

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!

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

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?

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]