User talk:Palffy/Archive 2

User Talk:Palffy/Archive 1

The second 32KB of my talk page (August 2006 - November 2006).

Personal attacks
 This read was continued from here. -- Palffy 05:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, since I'm here trying to keep you two apart, I should mention that even if you feel you are being harassed, personal attacks such as this are innapropriate in Wikipedia and it only serves to make tense situations worse, so I must ask that you remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot and remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia. This fighting on and off the article namespace is simply unproductive. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 19:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, provoking him will not help things, either. Remember to focus on the content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for that, but I have never had anyone take over my own talk page like that. I usually expect people to realize their mistake and at least apologize for it. I have lost my cool before and but I have always done my job to make amends with the person I fought with. However, I feel that with the exception of that one disparaging comment, I have been relatively good and have not resorted way that would potentially escalate this. I also feel that I have been maligned and this has not been taken into account. Initially, I was fine with him leaving me alone and continuing a discussion about the Uniforms to reach some sort of consensus, but the user has consistently taken steps to argue/prove me wrong. I personally don't think you have reprimanded him enough, because as you can tell, he still keeps barking back even at you on your own talk page. Imo, the user has learned nothing from this inpasse, and will continue to make aggressive remarks with other fellow WPs in the future. I am also not an expert at this, but I think a CheckUser is in order. I feel that my evidence is strong enough to merit the check---there are just way too many similiarties for the two accounts to be different. I'm aware that your primary goal is to simply establish peace between us, which I'm more than willing to do (I have not resorted to retributions/talking back/any other negative behavior), but there are some aspects that are greatly looked down in Wikipedia such as sock-puppetry (and 3RR that stems from it). Thanks for your help because it looks like the other admins are too busy on WP:ANI. -- Palffy 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You could go to WP:RFCU for the sockpuppet allegations, though I'm not too familiar with the specifics. There are privacy concerns involved with checkusers and it is a difficult process, so unless there is strong reasoning to do so then it may be rejected. Cowman109 Talk 19:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll keep this in mind and hold off on this then for the time being. I really have no intentions of busting anyone, but if it allows someone to break basic rules of Wikipedia... -- Palffy 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Palffy, do you recognize any of these comments (clearly examples of good behaviour and of the will to avoid escalations):
 * You don't deserve anything from me, you're the lousiest Wikipedia editor I've ever seen.
 * this is not a legitimate warning, you are spiteful, and if you don't stop I will report you to 3RR for editing my talk page!
 * User:Kwame Nkrumah reported by User:Palffy (Result: No apparent violation)
 * now you're just presenting false information...their jersey never has and never will look like that...I would refrain from editing again since you will be banned--Kwame Nkrumah 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What part of this sentence in English don't you understand..."Stop posting on my Talk Page"? I was very emotional since you deleted MY OWN TEXT from my userpage and did not even bother to apologize or correct it yourself. My second comment was because you have persistently posted on my page and you've been told that you're unwelcome to do so. How else would you like me to warn you? I think you a very aggressive person who does not listen to simple requests. Period. I also reported you because I happen to believe that you're using a sock-puppet; as far as I'm aware, I'm allowed to do that..Your 3RR report of me on the other hand is unwarranted because I did no such thing. My last comment was because you were reverting with no comments or discussion on the talk page. If you have a serious discussion with other posters, there's always room for compromises.. -- Palffy 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't ban a user to post in your talkpage, particulary when you happen to attack that user here. And I never removed anything from your userpage (see yourself)
 * I added a 3RR tag that you removed. You can get emotional if you want, but you removed a warning tag, which is something wrong.
 * The 3RR tag was legitimate, since you did three reverts in 24 h
 * Even if you think I am using a sp (you gave no proofs, however, so it is still your opinion), you are not allowed to hint continuously to this alleged sockpuppet; there are other ways, I discovered here, but continuously provoking me is not allowed
 * you reverted too, avoiding carefully any comment on the article talkpage
 * You took a content dispute on the personal side, you could at least avoid accusing me of being aggressive (I got signalled on incidents page without any warning!)--Kwame Nkrumah 20:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Enough - this has gone on long enough. I have asked the two of you to leave each other alone, so please respect that and remember that we are here to build an encyclopedia. This petty grudge against each other gets nowhere. If you feel you are being intimidated or harrassed, please do not respond to the other user. Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 20:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Palffy, this is your final warning. Concerning this diff, such comments insinuating that you don't believe an editor "belongs" in Wikipedia is incivil. Remember to focus on content, not on the contributor, as such comments serve no purpose but to further escalate matters. Please stop making such comments immediately, thank you. Cowman109 Talk 22:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well (my post on the other admins page was made on the same topic, but I posted it before reading this). All I'm asking for is for fairness and action. I feel that I have made my case on both pages, and I will no longer contribute to either discussion. Whether this person (or even me, if you think I'm the one gravely at fault for this) belongs on WP or not will be left upto you. I have made some uncivil comments today, I am sorry that I've had to make them, but please understands the circumstances under which they were made. -- Palffy 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:ANI
I endorse Cowman109's good advice to both editors. Please see especially my response to Kwame Nkruma's post on WP:ANI. Bishonen | talk 03:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC).

 Hope you enjoyed the read!! -- Palffy 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your VandalProof Application
Dear Palffy,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - Gl e n 18:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I must be going senile in my old age! You are now approved, welcome msg follows:

Welcome to VandalProof!
Hi,, thank you for applying for VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now authorized for use, so if you haven't already, simply download VandalProof from our main page and install it, and you're all set!

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either:  (which will add this user box) or   to your user page.

If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Gl e n 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandal
Well, I just reported him to WP:AIV - that's the thing to do if they still don't stop vandalizing, and you request an admin to block him. –-  kungming·2 | (Talk · Contact) 21:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Go under the menu "User Tools", and click on Report to AIV. Then type in a description (short is best) of what he's done, and then click ok. VP should do it automatically. =) –-  kungming·2 | (Talk · Contact) 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added you to my VandalProof whitelist, and I've seen a lot of great reverting work being done!–-  kungming·2 | (Talk · Contact) 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Are you sure?
It might be, but in order for it to be blockworthy you'd need to (1) describe it as vandalism on AIV, and (2) warn the user several times since he hasn't contributed in a while (he wasn't warned at all). JYolkowski // talk 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello
Hey Palffy, I noticed you added all the great infoboxes for the Ukrainian stadiums. Nice! I was just wondering if I could find some info on the planned Upgrades to the Dynamo stadium (30k, etc). Really interested in this, is there any internet link for some info? Couldn't find it on the website, I wanna find out more about it! Xioyux 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yea, I read about it somewhere recently. I'll get back to you with a source shortly. =) -- Palffy 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Xioyux 00:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

hi
i dont think it was anything bad i said buddy....if you type the word "porn" in your search engin...much more bad things appear than what i said...plz do reply. 221.128.151.67 10:39, August 15, 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Metalurh_Stadium.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Metalurh_Stadium.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Kwame Nkrumah again
I see you recently reverted a good deal of Kwame's edits - but it seems that his edits were indeed proper. The images were improperly tagged, and the disclaimer at soccer-europe.com clearly states: "The contents of this site may not be used without written permission of the webmaster," and as such the images were improperly tagged. Could you direct me to where the talk was that you used as the basis for your revert? Also, I'd recommend you just go directly to discussion before reverting any of Kwame's edits that you find questionable just so things don't escalate any further. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 17:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I agree that its unfortunate that we have to use images from this source, since soccer-europe.com required us to tag all images with a "copyright soccer-europe.com" etc, but reasons provided by (see 14:49, August 19, 2006 Sebastiankessel) and  (see 13:40, August 19, 2006 Slumgum). So the images themselves can stay, as far my understanding of the copyright policy goes. The issue comes down to Kwame not liking the fact that the copyright line must be there, because otherwise the images aren't problematic at all. I will certainly join the discussions as I have during the previous arguments that we've had over the past week, but I still find many of his edits detrimental to WP, such as flagging Ukrainian footballers photos for IFD,  after my reverts. Do you understand why he's adding those IFD tags? I certainly don't. This is the same type of random behavior that makes others work hard to revert unwelcome edits. Here's Kwame's reasoning on the USSR jersey, . This man/boy won't be bargained with. Seriously, WP is not Burger King, he can't have it his way.. -- Palffy  17:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I found his reasoning for the IFD, . How legitimate is that..? There appears to be no practicallity in that.. -- Palffy 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so permission was indeed given to use the images? It might be a good idea to state that somewhere on the pages of the images so that is made clear - it looked like an improper tagging to me. Is there a diff link that shows explicit permission by the web author? Cowman109 Talk 17:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there's definitely permission to use them (see ), but I'm actually starting to believe fellow WPers make good points here, and there appears to be relative concensus on the issue . The 3RRs probably could have been avoided if along with his edits (as opposed to a "rm image with heavy copyright request"--his reasoning was, which is unacceptable in my opinion), he would've put a link to a more acceptable reasoning such as that under WikiProject football in his summary, but there's still no excuse for breaking the rules over and over again. And, the problem will still be that others who aren't aware of this link will try to rv his edits, etc. -- Palffy 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The other thing I have to consider is the Ukrainian player images that Kwame is deleting, could all technically be reclassified as Template:Promotional, since they are all taken from their respective club websites for promotional uses (is my reasoning correct here?). -- Palffy 17:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian Templates and FC Dynamo Kyiv history
Hello again Palffy. I have a few questions and things I might need some help on. Firstly, for some reason numerous Ukrainian team templates have been deleted, damaging the UPL Article... I'm not sure where to argue the case to try and get the templates re-uploaded. Should I just, for the time being, edit the links to the team without the template (for example instead of - notice it doesn't exist anymore, to FC Shakhtar Donetsk)?. Secondly, as soon as I have some time to do some serious editing, I would like to edit the Dynamo Kyiv article to add a pretty good chronological history of the club, like in the ManU article. I'd be able to organize everything efficiently in the article, expand it a lot (and the stadium article too)... However I was wondering, would it be okay to use the history on the official website for the article []? Some of the few other chronological histories of Dynamo Kyiv I can find are [] and []. I don't think any of these qualify are reliable sources, but since there is a little bit of history in the current article I think I might as well expand it. Would it be okay to expand the article based on sources like these? I'd really like to seriously expand the history. Xioyux 23:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I sent a message to the admin who deleted the templates to sort out what happened in the past couple of days. Secondly, I actually think an expansion of the article would certainly be interesting, and I think that citing from Dynamo's official website is certainly acceptable. Only thing I would suggest is not translating verbatim (for plagiarism reasons--ie, other users have been known to flag directly translated text), but as long as you put it in your own words, I don't see it being a problem. Also, I don't know so much about the last source that you've listed, but I actually know this author (he's a notable Uke figure on the web) and I would have to say that he's a pretty reliable source, though I'm sure he has cited other references to come up with that history. Let me know how it goes and maybe I'll edit some of the article along with you. Cheers! -- Palffy 23:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, great! I have a lot of work this next week, so I won't be doing editing until the weekend, but this week I'll make sure to go read and brainstorm every history of the club I can find, then probably on the weekend I'll make a draft. As soon as I'm done with the draft I'll let you know if you want to review and help me tweek it a bit. Thanks for the advice as usual! Xioyux 00:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

GIen's RfA: Thank you!
'''PS: YES YOU'RE RIGHT HARRY POTTER USES A BROOM! (BUT GOOD MOPS ARE HARD TO FIND!!)'''

Re: Serbia National Team
Thanks for the suggestion based on what you have done in Ukraine national team article. I agree that the version you are using is more clear, will probally switch over sometime soon. --Laughing Man 03:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I finally got around updating the style. Someone else did combine the split up current squad into the standard template, and I used the style you suggested for the "recent call-ups" section.  It seems ok now, but I'm curious what you think.  Of course it would nice if there could be a standard template for this and it seems there currently is a discussion on what to do about this section on the Wikiproject football talk page.   I'm just not sure myself so I haven't commented yet. :)  Regards // Laughing Man 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bordering flags
Could you please tell me how I can border so I can in the future not get worked up about not been able to do it. Cheers. User:Tom from 8L. Thanks Palffy for the information. Could you just clarify something up. You've typed in Copy the selection on Paste. Do you mean Copy the selection and Paste. If you could clarify that you know where to find me.

"Anas the Great"
You seem to have run into this guy making fictional changes to Shakhtar Donetsk. I've run into him making fictional changes to the rosters of two of our American clubs. An English fan found him making fictional changes to the bio of a former American player for Shrewsbury Town FC. Is it possible that all of his contributions are vandalism? Bill Oaf 07:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I'll be watching him from now on, but I will be reverting his edits, because I know that he did make fictional edits to roster of New England Revolution. He made those changes only minutes apart, so I'm sure that they must all be false. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. -- Palffy 07:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:FCBukovynaChernivtsi.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:FCBukovynaChernivtsi.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 09:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Arena Slavutych.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Arena Slavutych.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there 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. Panarjedde 14:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Palffy, while I've had my disputes with Panarjedde, I think he's doing a good job with the "copyright policing". You and others have been uploading copyrighted images and misrepresenting them in order to pretty up some articles, which clearly cannot be allowed.  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1st, is there something wrong with the image I uploaded? 2nd, thats fine and dandy that he is getting rid of supposedly bad promotional images, but let me ask what you think of this. Let say that there is an article on a prominent football player, say . And as of August 30th, he has a promotional picture from the club's official website of him up on his entry and everything is fine with everyone. But according to Panarjedde, "These images of football players are claimed to stay under fair use copyright. However note that the same bolierplate used in the images page clearly says that the images are fair use if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information", and being these football players still alive, a free-license picture could be taken." I can technically re-upload them under the promotional copyright, since that is what the club is doing by posting their pictures there. But the entire point off all of this, is what is really the point of deleting them? If someone has a better picture of him (I can't imagine anything better than a Uefa or a club-sanctioned mug-shot of the player), then they're replace the pic in question once they have it. But as far as I'm aware, our members don't have regular access to take pictures of those players to post them on WP. As a result, the player has no picture and people interested in seeing his picture have to resort to going off site. That in my opinion is dumb considering those pictures are perfectly legal the way they are.


 * Lastly, I think my opinion of the job he's doing is more accurate than your opinion, cause I happen to know this person a lot better than you ever will. -- Palffy 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please quit with the personal attacks on Panarjedde, as you have been continuing to do so on Images and media for deletion/2006 October 10. You have been warned enough times and you will be blocked from editing if you do not stop. I don't care if you have a beef with him in the "real world" -- keep it off Wikipedia.  howch e  ng   {chat} 02:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your history with this person. Even if everyone who has dealt with Panarjedde agrees with your side of the story, that's still no excuse to be uncivil. Stay professional and stop the personal attacks. Comment on his contributions -- argue policy, not character.  howch e  ng   {chat} 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Panarjedde
I haven't concerned myself about him since I convinced him to take a 2-week wikivacation some time back; I've been meaning to drop him a line. However, I'm saddened to see that he's in trouble again. -- llywrch 21:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is in response to your message on my Talk page. I am not going to address the points that you raised; instead I am going to focus on how you wrote to me. Quite honestly, leaving extended rants on my Talk page will not either persuade or educate me about what you want me to know. And based on the first message you left on my Talk page back in August, I believe you'd rather educate me than rant at me.

First, be as brief and detailed in your comments as possible. For example, the only thing I got out of your long message was that you didn't approve of how some ADmins were handling P., & that you were the wronged party. After all you wrote, I have no idea exactly what he did that you object to, how the two of you came into conflict, & so on. Just provide diffs to show what he did, so I can form my own opinions. For example, I am basing my opinions on how he has behaved in the last few months; if you can find evidence that he has consistenly misbehaved before that, I'd be interested to see it.

Second, using CAPITAL LETTERS to emphasize words is at best annoying; with some people, each word you type in capital letters deducts credibility points from what you write. A better solution is to use italics for emphasis. However no matter how you emphasize your words, keep in mind that this trick is more powerful the less often you use it. Emphasize one words or phrase, & it stands out with power; emphasize many words, or entire sentences, & people will tune out what you write.

Third, if there are Admins who agree with you, ask them to contact me. You mention that Ryulong has been involved recently: I'm willing to listen to anything he has to say.

I'm explaining all of this because you misunderstood my warning about going before the ArbCom. I was not making a threat, & I did not mean for you to understand it that way. However, if you continue to leave long rants on people's Talk pages, & to act aggressively towards other editors you disagree with, your fellow Wikipedians will gradually trust you less -- regardless whether you are in the right or not -- & seek to have you removed. But if you make an effort to present your side in a careful, rational manner as I tried to describe above, you will be moer effective.

And lastly, I assume good faith because every time I fail to do so, I end up doing the wrong thing. Assume someone is acting in bad faith, & eventually that person will begin to act in bad faith -- even if she or he did not intend to at the beginning. A lot of unnecessary conflicts on Wikipedia begin because two (or more) people start treating each other like vandals or partisan warriors, & this begins a cycle of conflict that often ends only when the ArbCom makes its judgement. I would like to make an effort at stopping a few of these cycles before they get out of control, & assuming good faith is a useful tool in this effort. -- llywrch 01:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd
This wasn't really vandalism, per se, as it actually is true. I wouls have reverted because it was already discussed more thoroughly later in the article. Overall, good catch, but be careful about dropping the V-bomb. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy hoy) 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)