User talk:Tigris the Majestic

Welcome!

Hello, Tigris the Majestic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Americans dont monitor their children on the internet

There is no way that I can allow that to happen. You're right, his name is really Salvatore Lucania, but you can not name the article "Lucky Luciano" just because you feel that sounds better. That article is named "Charles Luciano", NOT LUCKY LUCIANO! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but is this like your period? Is this so important to you that you just have to have it your way? If that's the case, then why? Why is it so important to that this site isn't named "Charles Luciano"? Is your name "Charles Luciano"? Is that why you want the site named "Lucky", instead of "Charles"? Don't you have a job? GET A LIFE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, did I hit a soft spot there? Why would you bring up the "Emo"-thing? I haven't said anything about any emos, but maybe you're an emo. Maybe your personal opinion do have an effect on this article. I mean, maybe you're f*^cked up, I don't know. All that I do know is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Proffessional opinions, my ass... But hey, who don't you go kill yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

History of Islam in southern Italy

Your view has been opposed by three editors (incl. myself) and no other editor has come to support you. You have no justification, therefore, for going ahead with your proposed merger. Any more of this "redirecting" without engaging in discussion to generate consensus and I will have to report this as an "incident" to an administrator. I'd be happy to hear further reasons for a merger, but you have not responded to either my own or Pippu's latest points at Talk:Emirate of Sicily. Again, this is unacceptable and you must stop. Srnec (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to engage in discussion, but please keep the ad hominem attacks and the hyperbole to yourself. They serve no purpose. Another editor has reverted your redirects now. I told you to stop. Until you have support, you have no business redirecting articles (i.e. deleting content). Srnec (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific about your beefs with the lead? Really, you just throw around terms like "trolling", "blogging", "anti-Neapolitan", "anti-Sicilian", "Islamophilia". You also cleary have a strong dislike of Islam (and maybe Muslims) and its relationship to Italy especially. But I don't necessarily have a positive view of the whole thing myself, I just want to report facts. My problems with your lead are this: you removed a useful link to Islam in Italy in a sentence that establishes some context and you insist on an inaccurate "tips of Apulia and Calabria" while insisting on the word "interlude" in an attempt to downplay the significance of the whole thing. Maybe the above editor Charlir91 gave you a bad impression of Wikipedians, but I can assure you that editors such as I do not wish for anything other than accuracy and verifiability. And as to the issue of the images: it was not an attack on you or your editing (though I don't think the images add much to their articles), but a simple request that you correct certain errors of fact in the image descriptions. I'd do it myself, but I wouldn't know what the proper descriptions are. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The images you uploaded of Williams I, II, and III of Sicily, Roger I of Sicily, Conrad IV of Germany, and Ladislaus of Naples are not medieval depictions. They come from much later. They may very well be public domain, but you have to change the image descriptions. Further, the image of Charles II of Naples is of a tomb effigy. It is not a painting. Can you correct the image descriptions? Srnec (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English-language histories of the Regno

Gennarous,

Do you know of any good histories of the Kingdom of Naples under the Angevins (say 1262 or 1285 to 1435)? I'd like to improve some of the articles on Joan I, Charles of Durazzo, and various other Tarantini & Durazzeschi, but I've never found a good book in English on the kinstrife and civil war that wracked the Kingdom after the death of Robert. Any recommendations you could make would be appreciated. Choess (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eggplant/aubergine

The terms are both used in English. "Aubergine" is preferred in the UK, while "eggplant" is far more common in other English-speaking countries - and "eggplant" was previously very common in the UK as well. You may be familiar with the UK usage, but in cases where there are two clear variants, the policy is to go with the original usage on WP, and the page was created under "eggplant" in 2002. I don't know why you insist that "aubergine" is the only correct usage. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

Hiya, could use your expertise if you have some time? We're currently dealing with a POV-pusher who's creating a lot of forks on historical articles. His stuff usually looks good on first glance, but when we dig deeper there are usually profound sourcing issues, and he's actually on track to be put on an editing restriction at ArbCom. Anyway, today he created Arabo-Norman civilization. To my knowledge there was no such "civilization", though there was definitely a period of Arabo-Norman art and architecture. However, I'll be honest that I'm not that familiar with this particular time period, so could use an expert. Could you please take a look, and advise on the best way to handle cleanup? Should this be merged to something else, or perhaps renamed to something better? We've got some concerns listed at the talkpage, feel free to comment there. Thanks, El on ka 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. :) Do you see anything in the article that's worth merging? --El on ka 09:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of Jerusalem

About your qustion. I suppose, it wouldn't be a joke: Patrick Desmond Carl-Alexander Guinness is the eldest son of Princess Marie Gabriele (or Marie-Gabrielle) von Urach. And the House of Urach, in turn, have a claim for the Jerusalem Kingdom. -- Worobiew (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick is the heir-general of Maria, daughter of Amadeus IX, Duke of Savoy, while the Prince de Ligne de La Trémoille is the heir-general of Anna, another daughter of Amadeus. The birth order of Anna and Maria is not known with certainty, so either one could be the rightful heir to Cyprus, Jerusalem & Armenia. Choess (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP CIVIL

Please remember to maintain civility and not make personal attacks as you did in this edit summary http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiculturalism&curid=51885&diff=199328313&oldid=199253533 TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Gennarous, the edit was fine, but calling an anon "commie troll" in an edit summary, was uncalled for. Please try to avoid this kind of language in the future. --El on ka 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naples

The last time I saw the article on Naples it was a sorry mess. I was delighted to see that it is now a well organised and referenced piece, it appears mostly due to your efforts. Keep up the good work! Dionix (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. :) Gennarous (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had the chance to check out Talk:Italians#Appearance vote - to close 03/26/08? Dionix (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neapolitan provinces

Could you load on commons all those images representing neapolitan provinces' coats of arms please? Thanks and bye --Wento (talk) 11:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hiya, instead of edit-warring at History of Islam in southern Italy, could you please engage at the talkpage? I'm trying to follow along, but some clear and civil comments from you at the talkpage would be preferable to some of the edit summaries that I've been seeing recently. :/ Can you please try to ratchet the civility up a notch? Thanks, El on ka 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two Sicilies & co.

I think now it's good. Thanks for your help. I want to thank you also for your last uploading on commos. BYE. --Wento (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicily

Please do not cut and paste content to move articles. This move is controversial as it has been discussed extensively in the past. Please use WP:RM for such moves. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can a move putting a world power which is mentioned in the bible, at its correct location be "controversial"? This is a most simple and obvious move. - Gennarous (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) See the voluminous talk page discussions 2) Please don't ever cut and paste to implement a move. older ≠ wiser 17:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, after reading the archives as suggested, it would seem that the article is where it is because User:Newkai is one of the most ignorant human beings I have ever read the words of, despite it would seem many people trying to enlighten him. I'll go through the move ways which you said to get this fixed, WP:RM. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.[1] --El on ka 00:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was in reference to your above post about Newkai. If you disagree with what he is writing, you can of course change it, but it is not appropriate to refer to him as an "ignorant human being", as that is a violation of WP:NPA. I would recommend that you consider refactoring or deleting the post, thanks. --El on ka 00:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous, regarding your commentary at Talk:History of Islam in southern Italy, I strongly recommend that you try to focus strictly on the article and not on Srnec. Using phrases such as "You're really trying to stretch", "ignorantly trying", and "Srnec wants to Islamise southern Italy with misinformation"[2] are violations of WP:CIVIL. They are also not effective communication. If you are trying to persuade editors to adopt a different viewpoint, insulting them is not going to make them listen. Instead, just stick to the sources. If you think someone is wrong, point to a source that backs this up and say, "The article should say <wording> because that's how it's interpreted in <name author's work>. This will be much stronger than you offering what appear to be personal opinions that are not backed up by sources. You say "actual scholar" but you don't say which scholar. If you can be more specific, I think it would strengthen your arguments. --El on ka 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki behaviour

I'm noticing that in nearly ALL the articles you tackled, you also created mess, clashes, gave into personal attacks, repeatedly deleted others' respectable work etc, without caring at all if not about your opinion. I strongly suggest you to check Wikipedia pages about behaviour here. Good work. --Attilios (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomis

Okay, I'm taking a look at things. Thank you for being more civil, but please be very careful to not make any kinds of personal attacks. When at an article talkpage, for best results, try not to talk about the other editor at all, just stick strictly to discussing the article's content. Also, when placing a warning on an editor's talkpage, once is enough. If they delete it, just take it as an indication that they've read it. Most admins will routinely check page history to see what's been posted, so it won't matter if a warning is still on the page or not. Lastly, one more caution, be careful about using the "will be blocked" template, since you're not an admin and can't enforce something like that. Better on repeated warnings is just to leave a note with a diff rather than to escalate the templates. Oh, and to really make yourself look good, think about going to old posts of yours where you may have made personal attacks, and delete anything which may be construed as uncivil. Being willing to change older comments of yours is considered a mark of considerable maturity. --El on ka 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

Gennarous, I can see that you are trying to do better, civility-wise, but this comment by you was not helpful."I will partake in Elonka's advise by not calling the athiest people here the "C" word or the "B N" words. I know you feel strongly about the topic at Rab concentration camp. I sympathize greatly with the emotional reactions caused by this subject. But let me be clear, you must stop the personal comments about other editors. If this happens again, there will be further consequences, up to and including a block. Please do not make this necessary. --El on ka 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my caution extends to all articles, not just the Rab article. For example, at about the same time as I posted the above message, you made this edit, with an edit summary of "garbage revisionism" at the article on Southern Italy. Again, I am not commenting on the content of the article, but I am going to be quite insistent that your edit summaries must comply with WP:CIVIL from now on. --El on ka 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Catalonia

I've seen that you are interested in the history of the Crown of Aragon. I'd be pleased if you could improve this page: Coat of arms of Catalonia. Thanks ! --Jotamar (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look and see, but I'm about to improve the article on Aragonese monarchs first. Cheers! - Gennarous (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gennarous, I am really sorry to have to take this step, but I am blocking your account access for 24 hours since you violated Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy at Rab concentration camp.[3][4][5][6] You have already been warned about edit-warring.[7] You also, despite repeated warnings,[8][9][10][11][12] and even an ANI thread,[13] persisted in incivility, such as referring to other editors' good faith changes as "vandalism". When you return, it is essential that you must:

Discuss controversial changes at talk, rather than trying to impose them by edit-warring. Please be clear: Edit-warring is a completely ineffective way of imposing changes. If you feel that you have a point, bring it up at talk, support your views with reliable sources, and build consensus for your changes. If you feel that other editors are not adequately listening to you, file a Request for comment or suggest mediation. There are also other steps at the Dispute Resolution page which can be tried. Please note that edit-warring is not one of the recommended steps.
Also when you return, you must cease referring to other editors as vandals. The word "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. It it is for blatant problems such as when someone removes a picture on a page and replaced it with a picture of their genitals, or when they insert profanity, or totally blank a page and replace it with "I LOVE CARROTS". Those examples are vandalism. But simply disagreeing on article content, is not vandalism. See WP:VANDAL.

Please take this time out to review the various Wikipedia policies. I think that you have some valid points, but if you are going to participate here, you must present these points in a valid way, and you must be willing to participate in a cooperative and collegial way with other editors. If you think that someone is pushing an agenda, there are ways to deal with that, but edit-warring is not one of them. --El on ka 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, please read the changes and the talk. What you're requesting me to do, I did. This is not a revert, it was adding new wording and new information, with new specifically attributed references, explained on the talk beforehand such as International Herald Tribute, a source from the BBC, a source from the Guardian (about the Italian President's comment).

To call the wholesale reverts of these new, fully explained, heavily sourced pieces of information which were trollishly removed first by Lomis (who admits knows abosoutely nothing about the subject at hand, and is clearly just there to antagonise in violation of WP:STALK). And then by AlasdairGreen27 who as his talk shows, has had numerous clashes with various users over his strong anti-Italian stance and nationalist stance in regards to such articles.

I mean what do you expect me to do? I opened a discussion and listened to points made by Direktor . Created a new, more neutral wording on specific fields. Standardised the references for the things I put into the article properly and with full attribution. Yet after such hard work, this troll Lomis is just allowed to come in and wholesale revert the whole work, sources, attributions, etc without entering discussion on the page and I'm supposed to pretend he is acting in "good faith". He has proven to be stalking me and general trolling me around Wikipedia, yet he gets no block at all, or even a warning.

The article as it is now (the Balkan nationalist POV) aside from it been extremely bias to one point of view, doesn't even have a "POV" tag at the top to highlight its heavily disputed status. Non of its references are properly formated and put in a correct way of attribution, unlike the new version I produced. AlasdairGreen27 seems to think using a mirror page of Wikipedia itself is acceptable for a source on Wikipedia [14] despite User:Otolemur crassicaudatus telling him it can't. As well as there been deadlinks that don't work at all. All of this was brought up explicitly on the talk as you will see if you look. The fact that the AlasdairGreen27 (with a track record of dispute in regards to Italians) and my admirer Lomis just wholesale reverted that and did not even put these things in-line on their own POV version proves such edits are in no way "good faith" and are not in the interests of making the article either A) presentable, B) neutral. - Gennarous (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous, first, you must stop referring to other editors as trolls. What the other editors are doing is neither trolling nor vandalism. Now, it may be a violation of WP:V or WP:NPOV, but edit-warring about it is still not the way to address those issues. It is my recommendation that you choose this time to think hard about one specific change that you would like to make to the article. Pick one sentence where you feel that your case is strongest, and is best supported by reliable sources. Make a case for that change on the talkpage. List your proposed wording for that one change, and cite the sources which back it up. Choose sources which specifically mention the Rab camp. Stay civil as you are discussing it. I assure you, that if you have a specific, strong, and civil case that is backed up by reliable sources, that other editors will listen to you. If they do not, then there are ways that you can escalate the situation, per WP:DR. But to have the strongest possible case, you must remain civil, because as soon as you resort to name-calling, it completely obscures any other good points that you may have made. And please concentrate on small portions of the article. When you don't, and make sweeping changes, combined with lengthy talkpage posts, and incivility, it pretty much guarantees that no one is going to listen to you. Some won't listen to you because you're rude, some won't read what you say because it's too long, some will be overwhelmed by trying to understand multiple changes at once. So I repeat: Pick a small portion of the article to change, pick good sources to back up your argument, and stay civil. Then if you can get one thing changed, you can move on to other things. Step by step, it is possible. :) --El on ka 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's advice to avoid major edits to large articles all at once. Such edits are hard to follow and dissect. You correctly uprooted some bad POV at Southern Italy, but I think you placed some of your own POV in it. I think you also reworded sentences without regards for the citations on them and you added a citation about landfills to a long sentence about anti-fascism, the USA, leftist parties, and organised crime! The article now needs to be checked. Srnec (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous, just one point, if I may. Twice now you have said that I inserted a mirror image of Wikipedia as a reference. Once here [15] and once in your post above. I replied to you at the article talk page (15 hours ago now) pointing out that you were mistaken [16] requesting that you corrected your error. I also made the same point to User:Otolemur crassicaudatus at his/her talk page [17]. Since I am sure that you have read both of my posts regarding this, I would therefore politely but firmly ask you not to make such an allegation again. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Italy

While I applaud your attempts to make the article's "North-South Divide" section more balanced, I think to throw all of the South's post-unification ills on the shoulders of Garibaldi is a tad overcompensating. It's been a long while since I've read Croce or Dennis Mack Smith, the sources you cite, but I recall they both stated that the unification did very little, or nothing, to help the south; not (necessarily) that unification ended a prosperous, enlightened era which is what I gather from your edits. Perhaps it is true the House of Savoy was just another exploitative government, in this case for the benefit of the North, but wouldn't you agree the feudalistic land system and exploitation by the foreign courts in Naples had more to do with setting up a divide than Garibaldi, Cavour et al? Dionix (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the unification was for the benefit of two types of people, 1) the North-west Italians, 2) the few Southerners who owned vast land properties. Certainly a lot of the blame can be laid at the door of the likes of Cavour and the people who created the Italian government, because they lied to the lower classes of the south by promising the land reforms and then when Sardinian's invasion had been carried out, the promises turned out to be just a trick. Aside from the obvious lack of development, this obviously had an effect of pushing people towards crime. Only the early Italian government can be blamed for the monster they created IMO, because they had the power to decide which way history would turn. Thanks. - Gennarous (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question I put to you is this: "Did unification end an enlightened era of progress and prosperity for the South?" This is what I gather you are saying from your recent edits. If this is indeed what you are saying, you are making a very strong assertion and you need to provide proper references. I don't think the ones you quote (Croce, Smith) support that statement, at least from what I remember. If that is the case, your edits can be seen as POV. If this is not what you are saying, some re-write may be in order. There is no doubt the South saw some advanced times in its post-Roman history, but I think the seed for the North-South divisions were planted far before unification. As I said above, I strongly applaud your attempt to balance the section and I bow to your knowledge on this subject- especially the non-mainstream views- but, as it sits now, it comes across as confrontational. Dionix (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed some edits to the article: As it sits now, I haven't removed any of your additions- but I added back some of the previous views, to balance the article somewhat and because they come with reputable, scholarly references. I think both sides are now well represented and readers can understand both points of view. Hopefully you will agree. Dionix (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

See Talk:Lombards and Talk:House of Aragon. There is no consensus for a move to "House of Aragon". I oppose it, Sclua opposes it, and John Kenney opposed it. Only you and Enric Naval support it. I have presented copious sources for the "House of Barcelona" usage at the talk page, which you don't even seem to pay the least attention to. You are edit warring and ignoring reliable sources. As to the Lombards article, I tried a compromise edit, but you reverted it and added an unreliable 1847 source that you cannot properly interpret. And you haven't even looked at the talk page, where I have posted two comments without response. C'mon! This type of behaviour is unacceptable at Wikipedia. And again, stop politicising disputes! If you continue, people will begin to think that the one with the political motives is you. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal on House of Aragon to split the article [18], summarized more concisely on my next comment [19]. Do you agree to this solution as a consensus to avoid further edit wars? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Template group

Hi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATemplate_group&diff=207089049&oldid=204655456

Since most navboxes use a color very similar to #CECFFF as their titlebar background, it's now difficult to distinguish between them and {{Template group}}'s headings. ~~Okay, then, if I revert your edit?~~ ~~I could try adding a titlestyle parameter to {{Template group}} so a color such as #CECFFF can be set where this isn't a problem.~~ Just realized there already is a titlestyle parameter you can use, so have reverted your edit. Hope that's okay. Sardanaphalus (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATemplate_group&diff=207331421&oldid=207312668

In answer to your edit summary, I'd say a different color is needed if the template groupings are to be seen quickly and easily. It only need be slightly but sufficiently different. If you're not keen on the default color -- I'm no particular fan of it -- please suggest an alternative that isn't too close to {{Navbox}}'s default #ccf, #ddf, #eef and lavender colors. If you're not already aware of it, you might find this helpful. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Following a suggestion on the template's talkpage, I've now set the background color to white. If you're unhappy about this color too, please join the discussion there. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

You need to pay more attention to talk pages instead of constantly reverting: see Talk:List of Navarrese monarchs and Talk:Lombards and Talk:Robert Guiscard. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicily template

I 'ld appreciate an explanation for the recent revert of my changes to Sicily's template. Thank you in advance. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's preferable to follow what is applied in Italy, Spain, Greece, North Macedonia, Denmark, Crimea, Lebanon, Malta etc i.e. in chronological order, which is more "reader-friendly" -IMO. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:AncientPhonecian.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eli + 18:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

infobox on Crown of Aragon

Gennarous, we had a RfC on the talk page about the infobox. The creator of the infobox himself commented on it and told us that his infobox was inadequate for this article and that it was not designed for this type of entity. I finally agreed that the infobox could be taken out.

I'll just use the research we made on the infobox to improve the body of the article --Enric Naval (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certain?

The reason I did this was that images in at least 5 articles using it (as an example John Douglas (Queensland politician)) were taking up 2/3 of my screen, took me quite a while to figure out what was causing it, but it was ignoring the width and height attribute completely. The reason for the problem is most likely recent changes made to the MediaWiki interface. I'm happy to revert if a fix can be found for the giant image problem. Orderinchaos 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You probably need to remove the "px" part from the size attributes --Enric Naval (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--O s a m a K 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Domenico Scarlatti

The Domenico Scarlatti portrait[20] you've uploaded originates from Naxos[21] website and does not appear to be an original portrait, but a more magnified recreation of his most famous. The Naxos website instructs that licensing inquiries should be made before using it. Sicilianmandolin (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Troubadour

Did you know that this act of childish vandalism was made using your account? Ian Spackman (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gennarous, care to explain? Following me around and reverting me without a thought, even when I'm removing vandalism? Srnec (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism

It has come to my notice that you and User:Esimal are edit-warring over this article; I don't propose to get involved in that unless either of you breaks policy, but certainly you have already done that by calling him a "troll". This is uncivil. If you can't sort out a content dispute between yourselves, I suggest you seek a third opinion or other disupute resolution. If this continues, I will fully protect the page until the matter is resolved. --Rodhull andemu 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis of this advice it would seem that consensus is against you. If you feel strongly about User:Esimal breaching WP:3RR, I suggest you report him at WP:AN/3RR, but your conduct will also be examined. Meanwhile the page is protected to give me time to examine this in more detail. I will not be railroaded. --Rodhull andemu 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two are beginning to push my patience. If you don't stop edit-warring, whatever the venue, I am going to block both of you. --Rodhull andemu 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naples Waste Management Issues

Based on the fact that the "Waste Management Issues" of Naples are extensively elaborated upon in the Italian article (it:Napoli#Problemi della citt.C3.A0) and the (currently Featured) Spanish article (es:Nápoles#Camorra y degradaci.C3.B3n urbana), I replaced the old Waste Management Issues text that you had moved to the talk page. I am undoing your edit, because I feel that if it is mentionned in both these articles, it is not recentism and deserves mention. If you want to take it off again, explain your rationale in the talk page. M.nelson (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your message; don't know how to reply back....

Hopefully we can sort this out and come to a consensus before getting into an edit war.

Do you not think that if it is mentionned in a Featured article and the native language's article, it is relevant and should be mentionned? M.nelson (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, there is a specific article for "Waste Management Issues" in each of these languages, in addition to the section in the Naples article. Thus, regardless of whether or not there is a separate article or not, it should be mentionned here. M.nelson (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say that the Spanish and Italian encyclopedias have lower, and not higher standards? Regardless, who is to say that you get to choose what is recentism and what is not? Myself and five other users have commented in support of this issue having its own section, and you are the only one contesting it. Everything, other than your allegations of recentism, supports having this section on the main page. To fix your recentism problem, why not add it and have the ((Recentism)) tag applied? M.nelson (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Recentism is specifically stated as NOT being policy.
what specifically in the Manual of Style relates to this?
Notice the Wikipedia:WikiProject Echo tag: "WikiProject Echo has identified Naples as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Italian or Spanish language Wikipedias.". Wikiproject Echo is dedicated to "find information present in some other Wikipedia but not here, and repeat ('echo') it here". In its mere existance, this shows that information on other Wikipedias, ESPECIALLY Featured Articles, should be included in the English wikipedia. By saying that using information (or even basic ideas) from other language Wikipedia articles in the English article is wrong, you're saying that this entire WikiProject is wrong.

Anyway, I'm not going to continue this argument, as it's late here, and I'm too new at Wikipedia to get into an argument like this. However, I still believe that you are going against blatant common sense, logic and consensus in not having this section. In addition, it appears as though you have a history of a) going against the consensus of other editors (see History of Islam in southern Italy in your talk page) and b) editing Italian articles to put Italy in a better light (removing and downplaying negative points, such as in Southern Italy).

That being said, the only thing I can really do is suggest that next time you revert an edit, such as my first re-introduction of the section, is write in the talk page why (in addition to recentism, mention the fact that other Wikipedias should not be used as guidelines). --M.nelson (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Fra Diavolo & Bands of the Holy Faith.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fra Diavolo & Bands of the Holy Faith.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rebetiko

hello. I saw your edit in the article! I am not familiar with the term root music. I see that it prompts to the article Traditional music. If it is so, then it is not correct about rebetiko music. For the lack of another term I use "urban" or "urban-folk" and "popular"(I know they are not the best terms...) but its the translation of the Greek term (αστικό λαϊκό τραγούδι) just to separate it from folk music. Yangula (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kings of the Lombards

Hi, You effectively turned this from one template into another. I was wondering why you did this. (Also note you left the template at the bottom of the Ostrogothic Kings' articles, which it obviously shouldn't be now) - rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I had it moved back - rst20xx (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see you moved it back without making any attempt at discussion, and without addressing my issues with your original move. Care to discuss it NOW then, on the talk page? Or else I'm just going to have to get further input on this... rst20xx (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not completely proud of this, I just moved it back and reverted, and made it that you can't move it again to the same title. Now you HAVE to discuss things - rst20xx (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

Gennarous, please stop rewriting the lead for Fascism without discussing it first on the talk page. Bobisbob, Vision_Thing, R-41, Mamalujo, and I are trying to find a compromise.--Cberlet (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem disruptive to disregard discussions already in progress, and I suggest you join those discussions or risk being blocked. --Rodhull andemu 12:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now protected the page for 72 hours to give you and other editors an opportunity to discuss your changes and other proposals on its talk page. Please take advantage of this opportunity and bear in mind the advice I gave you less than a month ago. --Rodhull andemu 16:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on the conduct of a user

Since you edited Crown_of_Aragon recently, you will probably be interested on checking the RFC on one of the editors there. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sclua and feel free to comment there --Enric Naval (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem ♠Dil 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Europe

Hello! I notice you recently moved the Flag of Europe article to a different title. You probably missed the discussion on the article's talk page here, in which "Flag of Europe" was determined to be the proper title for the article. As such, I've reverted your move. Thanks and happy editing! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't stop moving Flag of Europe and Anthem of Europe (both of which have names agreed to by consensus), I'll report you on WP:3RR and I am pretty sure you will be blocked. Consensus on talk pages must be followed on wikipedia, no matter how strongly you think your arguments are over-riding all other debate. - SSJ ☎ 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for You do not own Fascism and I've now warned you twice, and that's without other warnings. Please discuss this article with other editors when your block expires otherwise your next block is likely to be your last.. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rodhull andemu 22:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your block is outrageous, look on the talkpage and see that I have entered the discussion as you suggest. Also I suggest you look at what Chip Berlet reverted especially under the "Italian Fascism" section, he is violating WP:OWN and intentionally holding the article back. How can you justify the removal of 50 citations? I will be taking this higher in regards to Chip Berlet's intentional holding back of the article and if you have not issued an apology, you will be mentioned in the report. - Gennarous (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While noting that you didn't actually ask for your block to be lifted when it was in force, I also note that you had changed the lead of this article back to your own version, pretty much against consensus. That is unacceptable. You are supposed to work with other editors. If you can't sort it out between you, there is always dispute resolution. Meanwhile, further disruptive editing will undoubtedly lead to longer blocks. It's not as if you are unaware of the rules here. --Rodhull andemu 12:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack warning

In this edit summary you called another editor "blatant trolling by notorious vandal" which is a violation of WP:NPA. This is a reminder that you review WP:NPA carefully. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

You obviously are quite well read and skilled on this topic, but two Wikipedia policies need to be applied.

1) "This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." That is on top of the discussion page for a reason.

2) NPOV requires all majority and some minority views be covered in the entry in a proper balance. All the current editors have shown a willingness to discuss their different POVs and seek a consensus before making substantial edits. Please join us in this collaborative effort.--Cberlet (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. If you continue with edit summaries in which you call Cberlet troll and vandal you will probably find yourself blocked from editing.

Concerning you edits on Template:Fascism sidebar, I find your addition of Figures section controversial. Among scholars there is no consensus about proper usage of the "fascist" label. Mussolini, Gentile and to same extent Hitler are uncontroversial, but there is no clear consensus about the rest of them. -- Vision Thing -- 19:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Personal attacks on other editors as here. This is unacceptable, especially as you have been warned less than 24 hours ago. "Comment on content, not other editors".. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rodhull andemu 02:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tigris the Majestic (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have read through the five pillars and would like to request an unblock now please. I will comment on the content and not on the editor. - Gennarous (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This request for unblocking has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
- If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas.
Click edit this page on that article and scroll down past the message informing you of your block.
Copy the source of that article and paste it to the bottom of your talk page under a new top-level heading (like this: = Article title =) and save the page before you improve it.
Propose some significant and well researched improvements to your article by editing your personal copy of the article.
When are you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{helpme|your question here}}" to your talk page. Thank you. — Sandstein 08:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm sorry but absoutely nowhere do I have a history of vandalism, I got blocked from commenting on an editor not the content. - Gennarous (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MIS Official Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MIS Official Logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Since I've had occasion to protest your behavior (Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#"Hoxharian propagandist") I figured I should let you know: I don't mean to blindside you with this. - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Action

I noticed only today your comment in Talk:Social Action. Long ago I tried to make the article more neutral. If you want to make more changes, you are free to do it! In particular, if you have any sources supporting what you wrote there, put them in the article! --Checco (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tigris the Majestic. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:AN/I regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Tigris the Majestic. Thank you. lifebaka++ 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New AN thread

Hi Tigris/Gennarous, there's a new thread at AN which directly concerns you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Tigris_the_Majestic. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlatti image

Hi. I noticed you (or the user whose talk page redirects here) uploaded File:DScarlatti.jpg. The link given makes no mention of the source of the photo, and it looks modern to me. I have placed a disputed copyright tag on the image. If you can show that it is indeed a contemporary portrait as claimed, I will very happily withdraw my doubts. Thank you! RobertG ♬ talk 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Xerxes I, the Great, King of Persia.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Xerxes I, the Great, King of Persia.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Engelbert Dollfuss.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Engelbert Dollfuss.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]