User talk:Panairjdde~enwiki/Archive2

your recent vandalism
please stop vandalising pages by removing diacritics. the spelling and use of diacritics conforms to MESA (Middle east studies association) / IJMES (Intl Journal of Middle East Studies) guidelines and is the standard for academic writing, including the new, 3rd edition of Encyclopedia of Islam. furthermore, they provide a useful assistance for readers who are not native speakers of Arabic, Persian, or Hebrew, since they indicate the presence of long vowels or discriminate between similar letters in english. Dgl 13:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Your spelling only bears confusion. Baghdād, Tel-Avīv, Sāsānian and Saddām Husayn could be MESA/IJMES standards (and you are referring to journals dealing with a specific matter, linguistic), but the common spelling (ASCII standard) are Baghdad, Tel-Aviv, Sassanid and Saddam Hussein. I am not against citing your spelling, but I'll keep reverting this silly behaviour of using unusual spelling when common ones are available and established.--Panairjdde 22:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * since you are not an academic, you are clearly not familiar with MESA and IJMES. MESA is the primary academic organisation for middle east studies. IJMES is its journal. the encyclopedia of islam is the primary reference for all things related to the faith. if you go to a library and open a copy of the encyclopedia, you will notice that it is standard for academics to use diacritics, particularly in an encyclopædia. please stop your vandalism. not only is it uncalled for, but it's quite rude. Dgl 13:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read again my comment. Baghdād, Tel-Avīv, Sāsānian, Saddām Husayn, Madinah, Makkah are not common spellings in English. According to Naming conventions (people) and WP:NAME, the names should be the most generally recognizable to English speakers.
 * And, as a side note, it would be better if you avoid calling "vandalism" changes you just not agree upon. And mark as "minor changes" your controversial changes. And, since you subtly claim to be an academic, you should know that in order to publish on an academic publication, you must comply with its rules: so use MESA and IJMES standards when you publish on these journals, and stick with Wikipedia standards when you write here. --Panairjdde 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * MESA is not a journal. it's a scholarly association. and wikipedia guidelines clearly state (if you look at the arabic naming conventions) that the PROPER DIACRITICS TRANSLATION should be used. you are incredibly rude for going through work thaht has been put in over several months and changing it to reflect your personal views. even if Baghdād is not 'common' in english, nobody has a hard time to know what it is. and it assists for those, like you, who would not know whether there is an Alif after the Dal or not. Dgl 14:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * you wrote 'mark as "minor changes" your controversial changes' ... you realise that it is YOU who is making controversial changes. i am merely restoring the prior version.


 * Any reference for your claim about WP policy? Baghdād is not common, as you kindly agree, so you should not use it, apart in Baghdad own article, where I would look for information if I shall ever be interested in knowing "whether there is an Alif after the Dal or not". According to Manual of Style (Arabic), since Baghdad has a primary English translitteration, you must use it. And the same goes for Tel-Avīv. As regrads Sāsānian, Saddām Husayn, Madinah and Makkah, these are not common and non clearly related; I am not stupid, but it took me the context of the article to understand that Makkah is actually the Mecca!
 * As regards controversial changes, you reverted several times my changes, so you can't claim everybody agrees with you, therefore your (and my) edits are controversial, therefore you should not mark them "minor changes".--Panairjdde 14:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * really, what is your problem? why are you going and changing articles that have been spelled properly like this? do you not have better things to do? i'd suggest going out of the house, going to the library, and opening up an 'Encylopedia of Islam' Dgl 15:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you or your sound contribution.--Panairjdde 17:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * please do not threaten me. especially empty ones in a context that makes you a hypocrite -- you will notice that you initiated the changes and continued to make them repeatedly. however, i will take you up on the offer to mediate this issue. i tried to do it myself but i am not sure how, since i do not really spend that much time doing wikipedia, not remotely as much time as you appear to spend on this. if you start this process within a few days, i will be patient, but if you dont, i will revert your vandalism. the use of diacritics is perfectly acceptable academic standard, i am not creating a new system, but using a commonly-accepted modified version of that used inthe Encyclopedia of Islam. regardless, i am sure that we can come to some agreement, where the use of diacritics will be preserved and -- well, i am not really sure what your intent is at this point, besides pure antagonism. Dgl 02:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Musei Capitolini-testa bronzea di Costantino-antmoose.jpg
Hi, colleague. Please check my edit: I just moved that image from the section where it doesn't belong, Constantine and the Jews, into an empty space next to TOC. Feel free to fix the caption or move it elsewhere, but not back to that section: it has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to check the article's history to see who added the word "contemporary" and ask them.
 * Since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews, please keep it out of that section. Cheers. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you call my edit a vandalism? ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was a mistake. I wanted to write "rv to DominusVobiscum version", and firefox gave me the option for "rv/v to DominusVobiscum version" (you can check, I did a vandalism revert with that edit summary), and I did not notice the "/v". I think the image was far better placed were it was, and that, even if it has nothing to do with Jews, the article is more balanced with that layout.--Panairjdde 00:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me understand: when the image is in the section Constantine and the Jews, the word "contemporary" is OK? That image doesn't belong there, please find a better place for it if you don't want someone else do it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Civitate reversion?
Why'd you revert the Civitate article back to the old and small version? Just because I had questions about the Latin passages doesn't mean I think the rest of the article was bad. It was a fine article, the Latin just stuck out at me. If you were to add sources (as in, saying the name of the author after the Latin, or footnotes to the Latin phrases - agricola portat aquam ad castra) I think the article would be just fine. Awiseman 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed it now Awiseman 19:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Italy leader's etc
Not quite sure why you reverted the change I made earlier (and incidentally restored a link that someone reckoned was spam). I was trying to get a (temporary) compromise position which would stop people endlessly changing the name of the President. It possibly wasn't the prettiest solution, but I think it would have worked. A possible alternative would be to put an html comment in the text which hopefully people would spot before actually trying to change the leader. It could easily become a problem today as one of the Main Page news links refers to the election of Giorgio Napolitano as President, so people might see that as contradicting the (correct) info in the Italy article. David Underdown 12:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Kurdish inhabited region
I noticed you removed the category from Rome. I think you may want to comment at -- Cat out 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Japan national football team/Agony of Doha articles
Can you explain the changes you've made to Japan national football team and Agony of Doha? In Japan national football team you added China to Japan's "principal continental rivals" and changed "squad" to "roster".
 * China is not, by any reasonable standard, a principal rival of Japan. There is a huge disparity in international standing. Unlike South Korea, China has achieved very little on the international stage, qualifying for just one World Cup and failing to qualify for even the final qualifying stage for the 2006 finals. And unlike Iran, China has not had success at the Asian Cup either. A team that is not at the same level, historically or currently, cannot be considered a rival. I'm going to remove this but we can discuss this in the comments.
 * Why the change from "squad" to "roster"? "Squad" is the standard usage for a World Cup team. It's not wrong, but I'd like to know why you felt the change to a non-standard term was necessary.

Similarly, why was the change from "soccer" to "football" In Agony of Doha necessary? Unlike "roster", "soccer" is a perfectly acceptable (if not always widely used) shorthand for "Association Football" in English speaking countries. Football vs soccer is a matter of preference. Again, I don't think it's wrong, but I'd like to know why the change was needed. Thanks. Ytny 13:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, let me state that I do not see this as a major point. I mean that I am not an expert in this particular area, so, if you feel confident I will let you make the final decision. Please note that my only intention is to write the best, unbiased article.
 * Let's start with Agony of Doha. My changes were:
 * writing the number names instead of the numerals. I think it should be clear that this approach is better. Numebers in the range 1-20 are usually written as nouns, rather than as numerals;
 * formatting of minutes. WP policies require that only the article name is bolded, so I removed the bolding from the substitution numbers.
 * soccer to football. Ok, I admit this is a vanity change. I think football is better than soccer, but soccer is just acceptable. Note, however, that the article is Football (soccer), and you are writing about "Japan national football team", so I think here "football" is better than "soccer".
 * As regards Japan national football team:
 * I agree China is not a football power, and, currently, nowhere close to Japan. However, my impression from outside (I live in Rome) is that something happened in the final match of the last Asian cup that can be considered "rivality". On this particular point you are free to decide for the best;
 * Roster is better than squad, because not all of the player in a roster actually are part of the squad that plays a match. Feel free to change it, if you prefer.

--Panairjdde 14:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree that they aren't major points, but matters of style and preference - I just wanted to know the justifications for them.
 * I agree with changing the numerals to words, and other style changes.
 * Football vs soccer isn't a big deal for me, neither is better or worse than the other. I can live with football.
 * I'm not sure if the fan hostility could be considered part of a rivalry. My interpretation was that the tournament simply happened to coincide with the rise in anti-Japanese sentiments - and that's just my subjective opinion, I admit. But the two teams haven't played each other much, especially in China or in matches that matter, and I don't think there's anything to suggest that what happened in 2004 was anything more than an isolated case.
 * I thought "squad" was preferable to "roster" since both FIFA and media outlets refer to the squad of 23. I do see your point, but I think you can differentiate between tournament squads and match squads. --Ytny 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point as regards China, and I agree. As regards roster/squad either is fine with me.--Panairjdde 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Theo I's coins
Hi Panairjdde-

On our recent little mini-revert war on the Theodosius I page: I admit that the golden coin with Valentinian's face on it is not a good top image for Theodosius I's article. However, the coin picture I added when I made the change is not the one that has been at the top of the article for a while; the inscription says it's a Theodosius portrait:



I can see the resemblance to the 19th century image -- in fact, this may be the coin from which that image derives. But I do think that a contemporary image is better than a centuries later print based on a contemporary image. What do you think? --Jfruh 17:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I should have looked at you contribution. My only excuse is that the edit summary was not clear about the introduction of a new coin. I reverted my edit. Insert non-formatted text here


 * Yeah, I realized after the fact that I should have made it clearer in the edit summary that the coin was a new addition to the page. Sorry about the confusion! --Jfruh 17:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Greek Names
Please see my response on the Talk:Constantine XI page. The ODB is the current English-language standard and is gaining universal usage in new works. To revert to older usage is to antiquate Wikipedia and its contents. Moreover, please note that I had nowhere altered the actual naming of articles or removed pre-existing content, while consistently using the current standard in the contents of articles or through piped links. Best, Imladjov 17:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please cease to edit the standardized forms of Greek names in articles on Byzantium. You do not have a consensus in favor of your preference and we have been applying ODB forms which do represent a consensus in the relevant area of scholarship and current English-language usage. Also see further replies on the Talk:Constantine XI page. Best, Imladjov 23:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You started changing a WP standard without gathering the consensu first.--Panairjdde 23:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a WP standard. The English WP standard is to use common forms in English scholarship.  The ODB is the consistent standard in current usage.  If you wish to obtain consensus on the issue, by all means seek it.  But do not pretend that a consensus in favor of Latinization exists.  Most Byzantine articles reflect the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica edition.  This is hardly a model for a current standard.  Best, Imladjov 23:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Moreover, in your eagerness to impose Latinization, you are creating misleading situations, such as "(Greek: Andronikos Palaiologos)" instead of the correct "(Greek: Ανδρόνικος Παλαιολόγος)". This is not only wrong, but it also destroys additional information.  Imladjov 23:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall assume good faith, and let you kindly know that the information you are claiming I destroyed was not there in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andronicus_Palaeologus&diff=54267427&oldid=48843668 --Panairjdde 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in this particular instance, which I simply offered up as an illustration of the difference between Greek and transliteration. But in several articles your reverts swept away the actual Greek.  You can check the page histories yourself. Imladjov 00:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be nice to cite at least a single proof, when attacking someone.--Panairjdde 00:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here you go, how about 13 single proofs:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eudocia_Palaeologina&diff=54267323&oldid=54231547
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andronicus_Palaeologus&diff=54267427&oldid=54226242
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_II_Palaeologus&diff=54267438&oldid=54226569
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexius_II_Comnenus&diff=54267837&oldid=54252967
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_VII_Palaeologus&diff=54268222&oldid=54235091
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_II_Palaeologus&diff=54268651&oldid=54233447
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andronicus_II_Palaeologus&diff=54269659&oldid=54237572
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_IV_Lascaris&diff=54269733&oldid=54239039
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_II_Lascaris&diff=54269743&oldid=54239905
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irene_Lascarina&diff=54270018&oldid=54240721
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexius_V&diff=54270501&oldid=54242719
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_II_Angelus&diff=54270532&oldid=54243828
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_VIII_Palaeologus&diff=54269679&oldid=54238380
 * As you can see in these instances you have deleted the actual Greek and made it seem as if transliteration is the Greek. Other effects of your reverts have included the incorrect reign-length for John VII Palaeologus (it is 5 months, not 6), the totally novel form Kantacuzena (it is either Cantacuzena or Kantakouzene) in Theodore I Palaeologus, and the wrong spelling of the Greek name Λάσκαρις (as Λάσκαρης) in Theodore I Lascaris.  You should really be more careful, when correcting someone.  Imladjov 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You should be honest, and add that you sneaked the name addition in the revert.--Panairjdde 09:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What name addition? There were a couple of articles in which I had not originally added the Greek spelling and they do not feature in the list above.  Check the page histories!  If you are referring specifically to Theodore I Lascaris, look again: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_I_Lascaris&diff=54270487&oldid=54241944 and: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_I_Lascaris&diff=54272307&oldid=54241944
 * I do not appreciate your misleading allegations. Imladjov 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Check better. Notice history for Michael_VIII_Palaeologus, Isaac_II_Angelus, Alexius V, Irene Lascarina (I checked only these), and you will find that you introduced the name in Greek while reverting my edit. As regards my comment on your honesty, please forget it.--Panairjdde 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Kindly stop wasting my time with this pointless argumentation. You can check the article histories yourself and see that there is no such difference between my last reverts and my earlier text.  So I had, for example, "Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus or better Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos (Greek: Αλέχιος Ε΄ Δούκας Μούρτζουφλος)" on 20:39, 20 May 2006, which you changed to "Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus (Greek: Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos)" on 00:00, 21 May 2006, and which I reverted to "Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus or better Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos (Greek: Αλέχιος Ε΄ Δούκας Μούρτζουφλος)" on 00:14, 21 May 2006!  Where have I "snuck in" the Greek text?  The same text, I may add, that your revert obliterated, replacing it with the incorrect notion that the ODB transcription (which in this case happens to coincide with the scholarly transliteration) is the same thing as the name in Greek.  This is also the case with the examples above.  It is not I who should be worried about honesty here. Imladjov 16:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you even able to use the history button? This is Alexius V example: your first edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexius_V&oldid=50536070) has "Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus or better Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos". I reverted (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexius_V&oldid=53685206) with "Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus (Greek: Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos)". Only at this point (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexius_V&oldid=54242719) you write "Alexius V Ducas Murtzuphlus or better Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos (Greek: Αλέχιος Ε΄ Δούκας Μούρτζουφλος)".
 * Do you understand, now?--Panairjdde 16:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. But that does not address my point at all, and I thought you were supposed to be responding to it.  Do you believe that "Alexios V Doukas Mourtzouphlos" is actually Greek and that "Αλέχιος Ε΄ Δούκας Μούρτζουφλος" (which is Greek) does not belong in this article?  If not, then what, may I ask, is your point here?  Once again, I am concerned that you reverted my text which was factually correct and replaced it with information that was both less complete and factually incorrect (as outlined above). Imladjov 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All of this started degenerating when I wrote "You should be honest, and add that you sneaked the name addition in the revert." I never said that should be removed, just that you reverted my edits and added new content, thus when I reverted the new content disappeared as well.--Panairjdde 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I will assume good faith and chalk this up to a misunderstanding, but please be more careful about your choice of words and the way you edit articles in the future. Best, Imladjov 16:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And you should consider to discuss a dispute before starting an edit war.--Panairjdde 17:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think you want to begin another debate on who started it. I had referenced the reasons for my editorial choice throughout and I think I have the background requisite for an informed conclusion on what constitutes a form common in current scholarly usage.  Let's leave it at that. Imladjov 17:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

But that is exactly the point! I am not saying you are not qualified to state "what constitutes a form common in current scholarly usage"! I am just saying that, if you want to make a conspicuous change to Wikipedia, such as marking a standard as obsolete and set a new one, you (the proposer of the new standard) should gather consensus before starting the changes. Think about this: imagine we settle this matter by saying that we shall keep the Latinized names. Someone (you?) will have to revert all the edits you did on the names. Instead, if you had already gained consensus, by setting a new standard (OBD) for Wikipedia, you could have already finished, with the help of other editors,including me, who would have followed the (new) Wikipedia standard. And this is precisely a matter of who did what.--Panairjdde 17:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated that the "Latinized" rendering of forms exists as the standard. Alongside the article on Alexius III Angelus, for example, I found that for his wife to be Euphrosyne Doukaina Kamaterina. One entry is in the old Latinized form and the other in the ODB form (although that really ought to have been Kamatera).  A future editor (and not just me) is far more likely to create new articles or correct old ones on the basis of the ODB and ODB-based literature than on older works.  Such feedback as I received on forms was positive, and in the apparent absence of consensus against it, I did not feel it necessary to seek another consensus.  Imladjov 19:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You found one exception among many other articles conforming to the standard, and you think this makes the standard void? And then you change all the other articles to comply with an external (to WP) standard? --Panairjdde 22:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, stop pretending there is a specific WP standard on this issue. I am following the actual (and current) English standard, which is all that WP can ask for.  The point of the open editing of WP is to improve the information contained within.  Supplying more accurate forms (and ones conforming to the current and improved standard) is certainly within the scope of that spirit and intent.  If you are not familiar with the products of current scholarship, that does not give you leave to attack its standards.  Imladjov 00:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like you do not know what Wikipedia is. Here everything workd with consensus. And when consensus is reached, a standard is set. You recognized that the Latinized form was (is) a standard. Here on WP we used (mostly) Latinized names for Byzantine rulers for a long time. If you want to change this standard, you must gather consensus first! And no, your opinion as a scholar that Greek names are a standard does not constitute consensus on Wikipedia. You must accept Wikipedia rules, if you want to contribute, otherwise do not contribute.--Panairjdde 09:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Thanks for the invitation, Panairjdde. I've added my threepennyworth and look forward with perfect equanimity to the result! Andrew Dalby 19:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You one of those who already showed interest in this matter. It would have been unfair not calling you. Best regards.--Panairjdde 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, I don´t know for sure, but I think you are going to lose this one. Modern scholars are really writting english history books as the Oxford Byzantine Dictonary mandates: First the english personal name followed by the "more correct" greek family name like: Michael IX Palaiologos. I checked my own books and found out that I also have one: Byzantium a history, ISBN 0-7524-2343-6 written in 2000, and I quote: "...names will, therefore, be presented usually in their Latin form for the period before the year AD 600, and in their Greek form thereafter. this leaves many contradictions but is the best that can be done." Greek form refers to the family name only. Flamarande 13:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is not how scholars call them (and notice, on Talk:Constantine XI how not of them use this new convention), but how normal people call them. If Palaeologus is the most common form, we should stick to it, even if all the scholars call them Palaiologos or something like that. Furthermore, if it is only a matter of fairness and recognizing they were Greek, why call them John instead of Iohannes?--Panairjdde 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Iohannes is Latin, Panairjdde. The Greek would be (in Romanized transliteration) Iōannēs, and some books in English have actually used this form (although without the diacritics, which seem to cause irrational fear among some people).  But the ODB standard is specifically intended as a compromise, pairing the relevant common English forms (i.e., John but not Nikephoros) with transliterated non-English forms (e.g., Phokas).  Personally, I would have no problem writing Iōannēs Tzimiskēs, but that would not be standard usage.  Imladjov 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That points out that OBD is just a possible standard. What if someone raises and asks to change everything to Greek, just because they where the names they called themselves with? English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia gathering the knowledge from, somehow, English culture POV. This is not an universal encyclopedia written in English.--Panairjdde 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the ODB is the standard, Polemis' book on the Doukai (which uses Ioannes, Konstantinos, etc) is not (in fact it was written long before the ODB). As for "English culture POV", perhaps you ought to reconsider Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  The ODB is written in English, by English, and for English, and is the current standard English work of reference on Byzantine matters, whether you like it or not.  In this field, it sets the trend followed by most current scholarship, whether specifically Byzantinist or not. Imladjov 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Normal people don´t name them at all. Normal people don´t know anything about the Byzantine Empire. Normal people are a mass of ignorant fools who care only about their football club and their soap opera. Normal people are plain ingnorant. Flamarande 13:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am part of "normal people". And probably you too. I am speaking about people who studied history at school, maybe like to read history book, but who are not scholars for a living. And I care about what is happening to WP pages of history.--Panairjdde 13:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And you are not the only one to study history in school. What makes you assume that everyone used (or will be using) the same books that you did?  In my studies (both early and recent), I have seen both types of forms.  But I am willing to give the relevant scholarship a chance and to defer to their preferred standard.  For someone who claims such an interest in these matters, you appear extremely close minded towards the very hand that feeds you (with knowledge).  And one more thing... did you study the Byzantine empire in Italy with English books?  I thought there would have been pretty decent treatments in Italian.  Imladjov 15:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your sarcasm. That said you agreed with the fact that the Latinized form is a standard, otherwise you should not have kept the Latinized forms for article names. Now, the point is, now, in this precise moment, the average Wikipedia reader (not the Byzantinist) would be more familiar with Latinized or Greek forms? My position is that, for the average reader, the Latinized forms are still commoner.--Panairjdde 15:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop falsifying my words! I have explained why I did not change the article names already.  At this point the average English reader may be expected to look for the ODB form no less than the "Latinized" form.  At future points the average English reader may be expected to look for the ODB form more often than the alternative.  This has to do with the output (which, forgive my presumption, tends to be produced by scholars) available to the English reader, scholar or not.  If only an older fraction of that output has not been available to you, I am sorry.  But that does not reflect the overall state of affairs. Imladjov 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not able to keep a correct discussion. This conversation ends here.--Panairjdde 16:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers
Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate that you took the time to let me know, it's very kind of you. It's a great topic and I am really interested in it. I will definitely take part. Take care. Ciao. Dr.K. 15:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't want to vote. It makes no difference to me. If I voted I'd vote for all three options. Miskin 12:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Korean?
Panairjdde: Unfortunately, you are really coming off as a bitter Italian football fan with a vendetta against Koreans. Your editing that includes adding unimportant negative "facts" (that seem very POV and relying on no sources or unreliable sources) in various Korea-related articles makes you come off as an anti-Korean.

For example, you added this (in italics) to the following paragraph:

Since the 1950s, South Korea has emerged as a major football power in Asia, winning several prestigious Asian football championships, including the first two Asian Cup tournaments, but lately lagging behind other teams, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia. The South Korea national team has also played in five consecutive World Cup finals from 1986, for a total of six World Cups.

Can you prove this? More importantly, is it really necessary to add it to that sentence (making it even longer than it should be)? Do you know that as of May 25, Japan is ranked 18, South Korea 29, and Saudi Arabia 34, according to the FIFA rankings? How is this "lagging"? And yet, you've claimed that China, ranked 68, is a regional rival for Japan?

I don't think you should edit any Korea-related articles as it seems you are editing out of spite. At least that's what it appears to me. It seems that a case of "sour grapes" sounds about right to describe this situation...--Sir Edgar 08:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't comment on my alleged anti-Koreanism. As regards my edits, I always try to write neutral, balanced and objective articles. As regards the statement you are talking about, I was referring to the fact that in Asian Cup, in the last six editions (since 1984, I think this qualifies as "lately") Saudi Arabia got three first and two second places, Japan three first places, China two second, one third and two fourth places, while South Korea got one second and one third place. Do you agree that, with this meteric, South Korea lately lagged behind other teams, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia?
 * Please, let me know other edits of mine you find uninmportant, non-NPOV, and/or non-referenced.
 * Best regards.--Panairjdde 09:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

well pointed out sir edgar...when i was browsing that article, i got the same impression as well. that was absolutely unneccesay to add such negative statement - lagged behind japan, KSA and china lol who are you kidding, i would have to consider putting how italy has been lagging behind greece in recent European championships! 202.37.167.156 04:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Conversion at death
I've noticed you've been adding cite tags for this fact. It's actually pretty commonly known, I've seen it in many sources including biographies of Constantine, it's nothing controversial. Are you requesting cite tags because you don't believe it or just never heard of it? --Stbalbach 13:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do not know anything about this, but since the matter seems a little controversial, and since this seems to be a final proof for one side of the controversy on Constantine's faith, it would be better to add a citation, somewhere. Possibly from an authority.--Panairjdde 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please use article talk pages to dicuss article content
I prefer discussing articles on their respective talk pages. El_C 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I am noting your aggressive conduct, toward other contributors in that talk page, too. Please review WP:WQT and modify your conduct accordingly. Thanks. El_C 12:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that your conduct of not answering questions is quite irritant. Before menacing, you should learn to answer questions. Where is the "intimidation" in the name Beersheba? Who is aggressive, in this case?
 * As regards writing about article content in user pages, notice you wrote: "I did not fail; see above re:instant polls.", and "re:instant polls" is in your talk page, which gives that you can discuss things in a talk page and I can't. Is this you interpretation of "collaborative enviornment"?
 * Please cease repeating the falsehood that I failed to answer anything. You failed to read the talk page closely, and you acted in an intimidating and aggressive way toward other contributors who expressed an opinion which differed from yours. Please temper whatever feelings of irritation and try to approach discussions in an objective, detached fashion. El_C 12:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's return to approach discussions in an objective, detached fashion. A regular survey was conducted, and 5 against 1 voted for a name change. You added a non-NPOV tag, claiming non neutral point of view in the name choice, that the discussion was "very unwikipedia-like", and that the discussion (or was it the name change?) was "intimidating". I read your points, and saw that you tought the new name was incorrect (I am referring to the fact that the second b in Beersheba is uncorrect), but failed (repeat: "failed") to explain why it was non-NPOV. I asked you to provide reasons for the choice of a non-NPOV tag, and you kept answering that you already provided them (but you did not the little effort of quoting your words). The last contribution on your side was to say you removed your objection, because Britannica used Beersheba, but you used Talk:Beersheba, User talk:Panairjdde, and User talk:El C to say that: I hope you'll find the time to re-read the whole matter, and understand your behaviour was quite "agressive" and "intimidating" and not respecting a collaborative environment, not mine.--Panairjdde 13:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cut on the innunendo and exclamations, and try to gain the experience needed for a collaborative enviornment in general, and Wikipedia, specifically. (What exclamations?)
 * [I do not withdraw] my objection regarding Panairjdde's aggressive style. I'll be keeping an eye on his/her contributions to see if it's extended elsewhere.
 * Also, I am noting your aggressive conduct (where?)
 * Please cease repeating the falsehood that I failed to answer anything. You failed to read the talk page closely, and you acted in an intimidating and aggressive way toward other contributors who expressed an opinion which differed from yours. Please temper whatever feelings of irritation and try to approach discussions in an objective, detached fashion. (You did not say what made the new name non-NPOV — could you please take time and answer now? —, I did not menace you of investigating your behaviour, you did. And it is you who started putting it on personal, asking me to be detached?!)


 * Example: And I am merely commenting on your opinion, that is "expressing my view".What's the point?" Naturally, I dispute your interpertaton that I acted aggressively, rather, I feel I was treated unfairly via the instant poll, which only lenghtened and heightened the dispute. A discussion is always more suitable for early stages of debate. Once again, I explained in some detail why the name was nonnpov wrt to clear phonology and vowelization. See my first and second comment on the talk page. El_C 13:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Questions:
 * Answering someone who just said he has the right to say whatever he wants, that I too have the same right is "aggressive" and "intimidating"? (and notice that user called my edits "vandalism" and me "vandal")
 * Note it where? El_C 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm speechless. I provided you with the link: look here. The question is still valid. --Panairjdde 16:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel I was treated unfairly via the instant poll, which only lenghtened and heightened the dispute. That means you were treated unfaily just because someone (not me) decided to settle the matter with a poll and you lost, as it seems to me by your sentences?
 * On the contrary, I did not lose the poll, I protested against it and did not participate in it. El_C 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Amend "you lost" with "your proposal lost", the question is still valid.--Panairjdde 16:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reference you ever made to some sort of non-NPOV is I object to the vote and its irrational, anglocentric nature. Do you think English Wikipedia should not be Anglocentric? If there is an established English spelling, should not we use it because there is some different, nation-spread, spelling? And, furthermore, do you notice the irony of claiming "Beersheba" as "irrational and anglocventric", and then removing your objection because you read "Beersheba" on "Britannica"?
 * No irony. I removed it as per Britannica because it's good enough and I can't be bothered. I don't see how you can claim the govt. of Israel has less professional scholarly resources, English-language wise than EB. El_C 14:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll rewrite the question: If there is an authoritative resource for English culture (Britannica, Oxford Dictionary of English, et cetera), should we adopt its conventions, or the guidelines of a foreign (i.e., non-Anglo-Saxon) country?
 * I truly believe that the way of behaving in a collaborational environment is to accept other's reasons, and if yours is not accepted, bear with it.--Panairjdde 13:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Polls should not to be used at such an early stage. Some discussion needs to ensue first or it can effectively become an extraeditorial mechanism. And it's important to adhere to WP:AGF. Claiming I chose the tag randomally tends to defeat this. El_C 13:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me split your comment:
 * "Polls should not to be used at such an early stage. Some discussion needs to ensue first or it can effectively become an extraeditorial mechanism." I did not created that poll, I just voted in it. But the fact it is not timely does not mean that it is "intimidating", as you wrote.
 * "And it's important to adhere to WP:AGF. Claiming I chose the tag randomally tends to defeat this." I read a tag claiming a non-NPOV on the article, go to the talk page (I assumed good faith, otherwise I would have reverted you tag addition), and find you claim Beersheba is uncorrect because contains a spelling error. So my question is, why non-NPOV? And your answer, "I said it clearly". And notice, until now, you never, ever, told me why Beersheba is non-NPOV! Is it so difficult? It would have ended this long time ago, saved much effort, lowered the tension, but you chose to repeat "I wrote it here and there, read on your own" (and I found nothing).--Panairjdde 13:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) It does indeed mean that when my protests to that effect are ignored, and the comment thread they are apart of remain unanswered.
 * 2) As mentioned, it is nonnpov because there is no b in Sheva and no ee in Be'er. I agree with the govt. of Israel's encyclopedic decision to call the city Be'er Sheva in English. Again, my first and second comment on the talk page. It's a much more rational choice than Britannica's, and as authoritative. I simply don't care that strongly on how accurate the city's title is, but I stand by my criticisms and hope all parties involved would be able to draw the propper lessons: responsiveness &mdash;not ignoring my comment and starting a poll instead&mdash; and assuming goodfaith &mdash;asking me directly to move it back while the discussion takes place (I only moved it without notice because I thought they'd be no objection) instead of initating an RfM, and not presuming that any established editor inserts tags randomally. Again, you should have read the talk page, since, as I keep repeating, all my points regarding the title are there. El_C 14:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "intimidate: to make timid or fearful : FRIGHTEN; especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats" (Merriam-Webster). You can claim your points were ignored, not that the change was intimidating. Furthemore, it is clear that you are basing you support for Beer Sheva on a phonetic (phililogical) basis, while the others on the diffusion of the term Beersheeba in Anglo-Saxon world; the two positions are not conciliable, so a poll was made to see if there was consensus, and five against one is a consenus, maybe (consensus does not mean unanimity).
 * non-NPOV means that the article does not keep a neutral point-of-view. The name of the city, in English, is Beersheeba, with "b", even if the Israelian name of the city has "v". Even admitting that this is a "mistake", why is it non-neutral? I really don't get this. If your answer is that it is not neutral because it shows the Ango-Saxon "point-of-view" (if this is not the case, ignore the following remarks), well, this happens because this is the English (i.e., Anglo-Saxon) Wikipedia. You are complaining because the English wrote, at some point, Beersheba when it was Beersheva; what should Hungarian say, that English call them country "Hungary" when it is "Magyarország"?
 * --Panairjdde 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly felt intimidating. And my favoured title isn't philological &mdash;I suspect yours in fact is&mdash; it is modern and phonological.
 * Don't "suspect" anything about me, and I shall not about you and how could you feel intimidated by the poll.--Panairjdde 16:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The npov tag was added because it is not an objective title. I am interested in what the Govt. of Hungary titles things in English . El_C 16:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, according to you, "uncorrect" is equal to "non-NPOV"? And now, please, answer this question: if the Government of Hungary decided that their country was to be called "Magyarország" in English, would you drop Hungary?--Panairjdde 16:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gross distortion of how the name sounds is nonnpov to me. RE: Magyarország: Yes, as per the Union of Myanmar. El_C 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Great! I am very happy, because we finally arrived to the end of this! The difference between you and me are a) the concept of non-NPOV, and b) the role of English culture in this Encyclopedia. This simply means that we can't find a compromise between our positions, so some sort of tie-break is necessary. The poll, for example (yes, I know Wikipedia is not a democracy, but in particular cases, as ours, supermajority can be applied).--Panairjdde 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I am not disputing the use of polls to determine some outcomes, but in our case, it was introduced far too soon, with my attempt to facilitate a discussion ignored in a very early stage, and it wasn't consensual. El_C 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not there in the beginning, but I can tell you that your position is totally incompatible with mine (and possibly with the others, who voted for Beersheba because cared more of English culture that of Hebrew phonology). This means that either you or me should step back in order to settle this matter, and to see where consensus is gathered, a poll is (was) perfect.
 * As a side note, completely irony-free, let me suggest you to choose better your words. I mean, "non-NPOV", "intimidating", "aggressive" are words having their meaning. Your are free to think that a "gross distortion" is a non-NPOV, but this is not what others (at least me) will read.
 * Best regards, Panairjdde
 * A lot of energy could be spared by responsive discussion, I titled its opposite for what it is. Regards, El_C 17:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear with me, I am not native English speaker: I do not understand your last comment, can you rewrite it more clearly? (I am writing this because I really did not understand what you wrote)--Panairjdde 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor am I. I meant, had the original discussion wasn't circumvented by the poll, it'd been better. El_C 17:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation request
I have taken your case (Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-05-23_Names_of_Byzantine_rulers), so if you are still willing to participate in/in need of mediation, please go there. If you don't need mediation anymore, please leave a message on my talk page, and I will close the case.-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 23:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted a second response at the mediation page.-- digital_m  e ( t / c ) 17:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers Follow Up
Greetings. As a recent contributor to the survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI, you may be interested in the following. A mediation sought by Panairjdde resulted in the recommendation that "that proposal two from this page be implemented in the short term, until a consensus can be reached about proposal three". Accordingly, before resuming the editorial process, I am seeking feedback on whether option 2 or 3 of the former survey is more acceptable. Please state (or re-state) your opinion in the follow up survey on Talk:Constantine XI. Thank you for your time, Imladjov 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Santa Agnese Fuori le Mura
''I noticed you wrote the article Santa Agnese Fuori le Mura. Actually, there already exists Sant'Agnese fuori le Mura, so the articles will be merged. In future, would you please check the article Churches of Rome before starting an article on a church of Rome, just to avoid waste of effort?''


 * You are assuming that I knew to check for Churches of Rome before creating the article. ;) Folajimi 19:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just kidding! :P In fact, to guard against duplication of effort, I usually check deletion logs and search for information in the encyclopaedia before creating new articles. Of course, there are times that the search engine's inadequacies are just glaring. A good example would be Lvov, Poland &mdash; I had to do some checking via Google before I figured out that it was synonymous with the target. --Folajimi 21:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: your question at Talk:FIFA World Cup
It has been changed. I've taken out the women's rankings portion and have moved the Men's ranking down to the "final tournament" section. What do you think? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cispadane_Republic_1797.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Cispadane_Republic_1797.png. 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. 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Legio VI Ferrata
Certainly. Most of the info came from Stephen Dando-Collins' book "Cleopatra's Kidnappers: How Caesar's Sixth Legion Gave Egypt to Rome and Caesar" ISBN 0471719331. I hope this helps a bit. I'll also start putting in cites in the article where people think they may be appropriate. Thanks, and have a good one Pat Payne 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Socceroos article/Bresciano
I've restored Mark Bresciano to the list of Australian-Croats in the Australia national soccer team article as he was at one point eligible to play for Croatia if he so chose. Please see the last item in discussion for more. Thanks. Ytny 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me
Do you the world cup finals or the world cup?

Grazie,

Jean-Paul 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me


 * ???--Panairjdde 13:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse Me 2
Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit_wars. Your references in the South Korean national football team is uncited. No, wikipedia is not its own source or reference. If that was the case, then I could link all references to some article that I create that is bogus and untruthful. If Korea is really lagging behind, please provide a non-Wiki source.

Another thing, I understand that you enjoy football but please, go edit the Italian team article, not the Korean team article. Why are you so interested in the Korean team article if you are not biased and if you do not resent the Korean team? The way you're handling yourself does not look good in front of other's. The people editing the Korean team besides you are not all Korean, in fact, I doubt anyone who's updating most of the page is not Asian. Quit arguing with other people and just leave it at that until you have cold, hard proof. Thank you. --Nissi Kim 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ciuna
Ciao, sono Horatius ("di cui" -credo- hai tradotto una "battaglia" lo scorso anno) visto che hai lavorato un attimo su quella linkata, potresti dirmi dove trovare elementi per questa battaglia che non trovo in Livio? L'autore dello stub è scomparso da mesi e all'interno delle Sannitiche Livio racconta di un sacco si scontri minori senza dire dove si sono verificati. In it:wiki MM ha (giustamente?) cancellato la battaglia dalla lista Battaglie romane e mi piacerebbe riammetterla  con tutti gli onori. Grazie. Vale! --151.37.230.65 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Question
Not sure as to what you are asking. That is a picture of a Moor. --Gnosis 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken sir. The photo has appropriate information at the bottom of the picture. Please be sure of your comments as I am in the process of correcting previous pic posts and I don't have thhe time to review comments that aren't true.--Gnosis 19:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Football/National teams
As per your suggestion, I've added my say in the formatting guide for football. As to show I'm not a poor sport, I've made the necessary changes to the England article so you can see the changes. However, if this still doesn't sit right with you then let's reach some kind of agreement on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams. --142.76.1.62 19:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation process
I am the mediator for the case. I hope to focus all discussion regarding the articles involved on that page. Could all concerned parties attend? Thank you. -- Evanx  (tag?) 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture
The logo was not on their uniform if I do believe. It is however the logo used for the USA's world cup campaign this summer. tag? 13:16 June 15 2006 (UTC)

Block for violation of 3RR
For content disputes, be sure to contact the user on their talk page, linking to appropriate policies. A novice user probably won't recognize "weasel words." See Dispute resolution and WP:OWN. Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't customary to add the edits according to which the block has been decided? If you decide to apply a "special rule" to my case, you should explain which one and why, as a matter of fairness.
 * I see:
 * no more that three reverts to the article.
 * that User:82.92.94.108 has three reverts as well, but you forgot to block him too.
 * that 82.92.94.108 was well aware (, ,

, ) his claims were not backed and POV, but kept editing
 * that at least three users had warned him (User Talk:82.92.94.108) not to reinsert that text
 * that User:82.168.59.236, who is with high probability the same user (see their contributions), has been blocked for the same reason
 * --Panairjdde 17:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No it isn't customary, as to if anyone else has or hasn't been blocked is irrelevant, it is you behaviour which has got you blocked. --pgk( talk ) 20:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That means that I can get punished without knowing why? Some one writes "3RR" and I am out??--Panairjdde 20:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Blocks are not punative. The reason for blocking for WP:3RR is that edit waring is disruptive, we expect users to work together constructively. Blocking stops the disruption and prevents further disruption. The policy WP:3RR explains this in the intent of the policy, it also notes that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, you may be blocked for less or you may "get away" with more. The real way to avoid being blocked is not to edit war. If you believe the block is unfair you can post an unblock tag and ask someone to look into it they should be able to work out why you've been blocked or ask the blocking admin. Mistakes do happen and people do get unblocked. However when looking to request an unblock be aware that generally "lawyering the rules" is not received well, if you behave disruptively but don't break the precise letter of the rules, but do break the spirit of the rules, you can still expect action to be taken to prevent further disruption. --pgk( talk ) 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just asking for what reason I was blocked. I am aware that the 3RR give no right to revert three or two times, but I feel that the blocker should write it explicitly. And I expect that he applies the same rule to the other users involved.
 * And if blocking is to avoid an edit war, why it is not used on all the parts of this edit war? My "opponent" reverted my edits several times; I reverted his several times; other people reverted his several times; other people and me tried a settle the matter with him reaching a compromise but he did not answer (he does not even put a reason in the edit summary); I ask for Administrator intervention against vandalism and what happens? He is not blocked (error happens), I am blocked (error happens), but I do not even deserve to know the motivation??? Would have it been better to keep on reverting the article without lettin you admin know, or better, let a low quality article stay there?--Panairjdde 21:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why a given editor is blocked in a given circumstance whilst another is not is something you'd need to take up with the blocking admin, each circumstance is different. It maybe one just gets warned whilst the other from their history/block history already knows so shouldn't need further warning. But as I said it is irrelevant to an individuals block someone elses poor behaviour is never an excuse, two wrongs don't make a right etc. Reverting of simple vandalism is exempted from the 3RR rule, but do not make the mistake of judging edits you simply disagree with as vandalism, it is quite possibly a content dispute. WP:AN/3RR can be used for reporting 3RR violations, WP:AIV is for vandalism, content disputes are not vandalism. "let a low quality article stay there?" well if an edit is lowering the quality is a judgement call, sometimes someone might be removing information because (say) it is not cited or the cited sources are unreliable. Policy dictates we cite from reliable sources, so in that case removing the information would actually be improving the quality. (similar for removing original research) Policies WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Additionally the policy does not require the admin to decide if one participant in an edit war (non vandalism) is "right" or "wrong", the war itself is disruptive there are constructive ways (i.e. discussion) to resolve disputes. There are also other dispute resolution processes. If a "lower quality" version exist for a day or two longer whilst editors engage in constructive discussion, little is lost. An edit war (a) is confusing to anyone looking at the article seeing it frequently change between a couple of version (b) off putting to new editors who maybe interested in contributing (c) a waste of time for those involved in the war. etc. etc. --pgk( talk ) 21:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with all you said. The problem is that it does not apply to this case. Thanks, however.--Panairjdde 22:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My apologies for the whole mess. I missed his edits, and he has since been blocked for the same period of time that I blocked you for. I haven't yet read all of the above statements by Pgk, but I will later and I will come back and share my thoughts on them. In the end, the user in question was blocked for 27 hours, while you were only blocked for 3. Sorry for any inconvienence. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Pgk has said: I felt that the edit warring was disruptive, and I have semi-protected Turkey national football team as a result of constant edit-warring. Your edits that I found was disruptive (and meriting a 3RR, despite only reverting 3 times, and not 4) were:


 * 
 * 
 * - This is the one that convinced me the most -- your edit summary qualified it as vandalism (it wasn't -- merely a content dispute). However, as time has progressed, I see that the user in question is just changing articles to disrupt the integrity of the article, despite being warned and blocked. I am feeling more and more that my block was unjustified. Hopefully, this satisfies your questions. If you have further questions, feel free to contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Roman Legion Names

 * Sorry, I forgot to add a note. According to what I've read, "Fretensis" was an unofficial nickname of the Tenth Legion. Neither Tactius or Cassius Dio mentioned "Fretensis" as a title of the Tenth, even though they were both in the habbit of giving legions their full names in their writings. Furthermore, Fretensis means "of the Straits of Sicily", which is a very unusal name for a Roman Legion to carry. So while it could have been an unofficial nickname, it was almost certainly not an official title.
 * There was also some incorrect information in the Roman Legion List, it said that the Tenth was disbanded. This is incorrect. While a large number of legionaries were allowed to retire, the acutually legion remained intact until at least the third century. --YankeeDoodle14 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are still forgetting to provide sources for your claims. And notice the presence of "LXF" on countermarks, as well as other historical proofs.--Panairjdde 21:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, my sources are Tactius, Dando-Collins, Caesar, and others. Also, I never said that "Fretensis wasn't a nickname of the legion, I just said that it wasn't the official name. Thus a legionary might have added the F since it was a name used amongst themselves. I even added "Fretensis" to the infobox under "nicknames". --YankeeDoodle14 21:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The normal English name for legio decima actually is Tenth Legion; let's use it. Septentrionalis 00:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be, but how do you distinguish between Legio X Fretensis and Legio X Gemina? Furhtemore, it was the Tenth of Caesar, but later it was re-formed by Augustus, so it is a different legion.--Panairjdde 00:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm; that is a real problem; combine the two articles? The should certainly have headers directing from one to the other. Septentrionalis 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? Why? They are two completely different legions (try to follow the links), why should they be combined? You are referring to X Equestris, Caesar's legion, which was disbanded and reconstituted as Fretensis. Why are you going to touch X Gemina?--Panairjdde 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Gemina needs to be fixed because whoever wrote it confused it with what you call the X Equestris. It was really founded by Galba in in AD 68. However I think Septentrionalis might have been refering to combining the articles for X Equestris and Legio X [Fretensis]. I may be wrong about that though. If he does want to combine the two, I fully agree. Yes, it was reformd by Augustus, but so were all of Rome's legions. It kept the same name, standards, and troops still serving from its previous enlistment. --YankeeDoodle14 01:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But Gemina wasn't the legion founded by Caesar. It was founded by Galba after Nero died. --YankeeDoodle14 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have his book on me at the moment, I'll get back to you on that. However, I thought that our agreement was to create separate pages for each of the tenth legions. So Tenth Equistus, Gemina, and Fretensis ahould all have different pages. --YankeeDoodle14 00:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You wrote the Legio X page, and you claimed that Caesar's Tenth and Gemina were the same legion. Are you really that hypocritical? --YankeeDoodle14 17:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Listen, if you want to collaborate, you should carefully read what ia agreed upon. "I" created the pages, and therefore "I" stated my position there, since you have to prove, yet, yours. If you think you have good references for you points, show them, in the relative article page. You are claiming some "new discovery", so the burden of proof is on you, not on me.
 * And use those talk pages, not mine.--Panairjdde 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What you agreed to:


 * "Since the whole matter seems to be if Caesar's Tenth legion became X Fretensis of X Gemina, why don't we create three articles, one for Fretensis, one for Gemina, and one for Caesar's Tenth (Tenth Legion, if you like)? The former articles will start with augustan reconstitution of the legions, while the latter will deal with Caesar's legion and the "succession problems".--Panairjdde 10:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)"


 * Am I missing something here? --YankeeDoodle14 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. That after I did the split, instead of improving the articles, you just put some "disputed" tags around.--Panairjdde 10:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's because not everyone has tons of free time on their hands. --YankeeDoodle14 20:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is fun. You dispute some facts, and others should solve them because you have no free time?! In that case, avoid disputing at all. Or expect your disputes to be dismissed.--Panairjdde 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that others have to solve this, I said that currently I am too busy to write extensively on this subject.
 * ...and your "solution" is to disseminate disputation tags? Do you expect me to write the article according to your POV, that I (and Flamarande too) dispute?--Panairjdde 12:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Rome Mosque
Why did you removed the reference to Mosque of Rome? In Rome there are not only churches, but many other important religious places, of mostly all religions. --Dejudicibus 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * when why what.--Panairjdde 15:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (cur) (last) 20:31, 20 June 2006 Panairjdde (rv/v to Panairjdde version) --Dejudicibus 17:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Check better, before attacking other people. Thanks.--Panairjdde 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OK thx my ap.--Dejudicibus 14:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande
I replied in the talkpage of the Roman republic article and I await for your reply. Please read carefully what I wrote. thanx. Flamarande 21:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I checked other books namely the "In the name of Rome" by Adrian Goldsworthy and I found the following: "The garrison of his [Caesar's] great province of the Two Gauls and Illyria consisted of four legions, numbered VII, VIII, IX and X,....". a bit later he writes: "Ceasar went back to Cisalpinee Gaul to fetch his three legions camped at Aquileia and raise two new formations, XI and XII." I guess this is in Dando's favour (not that this excuses somehow other mistakes that Dando made).

I tried to find the email address of Goldsworthy (which seems to be highly regarded amnog scholars), one can always ask. But I fear that I am not savy enough to find it.

I also put the whole matter on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities but there wasn't any replies yet.

I hope you won't object that I improve the article Legio X Gemina about his founding matter (perhaps tomorow). No, I won't present the version of Dando as an "absolute truth" but I will write something like: "The circunstances of founding of the 10th legion is unclear, 58 BC is widely considered ... but the followings facts deny this:" and I will write a truly fair text (with proper links to the proper books). Ok with you? Flamarande 21:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The only problem is that is "your original research", and I am not sure it is allowed. Furthermore, you make some assumptions, about the numbers of veteran and non-veteran legions, that are speculative.--Panairjdde 22:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dando wrote it, making it somewhat legal. As for the number of the veteran legions it is clearly writen as such in the "Gallic wars" and if I provide the proper links to the proper sentences... I believe that it would "original research" if I didn't had Dando's book. But I promise that I will be careful in not crossing the thin red line. Flamarande 13:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see
I'm glad to see that you are keeping the compromise we reached in Korea Republic national football team and even editing out "highly controversial" by other users. I have more respect for you now. Thank you.--Sir Edgar 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Australia's loss to Italy
Hi there. Unless I am very much mistaken the article in The Age was meant to be taken seriously and I think the ideas have some merit.

In any event given that in Australia football is a minority sport (in terms of adult players and spectators) and fourth behind Australian Rules and the two Rugby codes in terms of revenue and TV coverage. You also have to remember that the A League plays a lot of its season over the Summer to avoid clashing with the other codes. I think that Europe and South America can thank their lucky stars that so many Australian athletes don't take up the game at senior level. Imagine if a small proportion of such people were to take up the game it would present some problems I think.

In nay event the World Cup has really made an impact in Australia so things may change.

Cheers Albatross2147 10:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a note. Average European player (as well best South American ones, since they play in Europe) plays more than 55 games in a season, excluding WC, distributed among league (Serie A, Liga, Premier League, Bundesliga, Superliga, La Ligue, Eredivisie, and so on...), national cups, international cups (UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, UEFA Supercup, Intercontinental Cup, and so on...), and national team matches (among which, UEFA World Cup Qualifications). I think extra-European teams can thank their lucky stars if they can play against weakened European/South American teams at end of the season, and get some points.--Panairjdde 10:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cisalpine Republic 1801.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Cisalpine Republic 1801.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Conscious 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Refereeing Germany 2006
Okay first off, I'm a new wikipedian and am still getting the hang of it so if this isn't the appropriate place to do this, please let me know, thanks.

The following is an explanation of why Australians, like The Age writer, have written about a need for rule changes in soccer or complained about refereeing in Germany 2006. And yes, I know it looks long and intimidating, but I hope you'll read it anyway.

What I meant, and what I think the author of The Age article meant, was that yes, the rules apply to all teams, but are they applied fairly? I'm not the biggest soccer nut, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there only one referee on the field? One individual who decides exactly how the rules are carried out through out the course of the game? That's a lot of pressure, especially when you have two teams of passionate, dedicated players who desperately want as many decisions as possible to go their way. There are many situations that it would appear that the referee is, consciously or not, favours one team over another, or conveniently misses a crucial moment where perhaps a penalty should have been awarded.

What I saw of the games of Germany 2006 was restricted to highlights packages as the actual times the games were played live were too early for me (Australian time) and I realise media coverage can be incredibly biased, but the segments I saw were all littered with refereeing mistakes (and not just the ones effecting Australia). How come a highlights package of a soccer game can be so focused on the referee and his lack-of-action, as opposed to the real action on the field? It's a rhetorical question and one I don't except you to have the answer to, but it's one that many people who have only a passing interest in soccer are or will be asking.

Australia and Australians, as you may well know, love sport and we are more than well catered to by footy (Australian rules) and rugby (Union and League) as well as a constant flow of other sports. Soccer barely makes a dent in terms of interest, most people don't have the time. However, the Socceroos getting into the finals this year after more than thirty years certainly sparked the nation's imagination. People, en masse, braved cold winter mornings to watch the Australian games at public venues across the major cities. Suddenly a sport that didn't have a regular mention on commercial news programmes was the lead story every night. You may say, so what? And fair enough, who really cares what Australians think of soccer. But suddenly the world game was the world game.

People were talking about Kewell and Schwarzer and Viduka and Bresciano. Suddenly everyone were experts on the offside rule. And everyones' favourite man was Guus Hiddink. And then the unthinkable happened. First a dodgy call in the Australia v Japan match, apparently even the ref apologised over that one, but the public's disgust was cooled by the eventual result. Next on to Brazil, we knew we didn't have a chance, and the result was unsurprising. Australia v Croatia, the do-or-die match, and once more it was a game filled with refereeing mistakes. Over and over again, commentators replayed the incident of Viduka being tackled by a Croatian rugby-style, but once more the result was enough for the public and media to move on, we were through to the Last XVI, first time ever! (NB, if you're still reading, thank you!)

Now here was the perfect opportunity to cement Soccer in Australia. Does that mean Italy would have to loose for Soccer to finally achieve its deserved place in sporting culture in Australia? Most certainly not. Australia v Italy was acknowledged by every Australian to be a David-and-Goliath event. We hoped we would win, but honestly we knew otherwise. Had the final score been 3-0 Italy, we would have coped, but was more important was the game was fair. It wouldn't have mattered what the score-line was as long as soccer proved itself to be as honest and fair and exciting as it claimed to be. And unfortunately, that's not what happened.

We saw a game that was officiated in a lopsided manner, yes an Italian player (I'm sorry, I don't know how spell his name) was red-carded, but have you seen the footage of the Australian player tumbling across the field? That's got to hurt. And then in the remaining few minutes/seconds that shocking penalty decision, that was no penalty, but we can argue til we're blue in the face over the penalty's validity, fact is, that single moment in that game may be enough to ruin soccer for this generation of Australians. Mention soccer from now on and everyone will mention that one moment in one game.

That particular instant brings me to another point. Possibly the single greatest problem Australians have with soccer is the way in which a player falls to the ground, clutching their knee/ankle/shoulder/stomach/etc as if they are dying whether or not they even made contact with an opposition player. It's this manner of pleading/begging/convincing the ref to hand them a penalty kick that gets soccer labled a game for weaklings (to put it mildly) in Australia. We want to see men take to the field and play like men and unfortunately for soccer, every other football code in Australia provides us with this notion. The fact that soccer refs seem to fall for the act only serves to have soccer written-off even more. The actions of the Italian player and the referee have done absolutely nothing for the sport.

You're probably thinking, if Australian's don't like it, why should anyone else care? Many teams, perhaps all teams have unfair decisions made against them. But that's the point of The Age article, if there so many situations that are caused by refereeing mistakes, perhaps the rules or the way the game is officiated (ie more refs) should be changed. And if soccer really wants to be considered the world game, perhaps it should consider the voices of smaller nations, the Asians, Africans, Oceania and North America. If European and South American countries don't want that, then they should stop promoting soccer as the world game, call it the 'sport for Europeans and South Americans only', it doesn't sound as catchy, but at least the rest of the world can stop trying.

Thank you for reading, --Colourblind 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr Colourlind,
 * first of all, thank you for taking time to explan your position on the matter. Even if out national teams played one against the other in a controversial match, we can still discuss about this game with civility.
 * My major point is that I am aware of the problems with football, about the great importance of the referees, about "cheating", and so on. And even if emerging powers — like Australia, South Korea, US, Japan, and so on — will take some space from established ones, I am happy we can have a common activity we both can enjoy, even if we live on the opposite sides of the world. I would like these problems to be solved, I would like better refereeing, better players behaviours, and (even more important) better fans behaviour. :But if the price of this improving of the game appealability for extra European/South American countries is a noteworthy change in the game, I really prefer this to stay the way it is. The main reason is that I like this game as it is now, and the fact that it did not change (apart than in some minor rules and in equipment) since the beginning of the 20th century. Knowing that this is the same game I played some years ago, that my father played more years ago, that my grandfather played even more years ago, gives me the will that my son/daugther (this is the only major change I'll accept willingly) will play in some years.
 * Tradition is an important point in my culture, and knowing that, despite the years passing, Francesco Totti could play football with Silvio Piola makes me (sort of) proud.
 * And yes, controversial calls there will always be, and they will gather mainly against "smaller" teams. But consider also that now everyone in Australia can discuss about football and Luis Medina Cantalejo, and maybe produce something like we did after Italy- South Korea WC 2002 about Byron Moreno  :-)
 * Best regards.--Panairjdde 11:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a few of points I'd like to add, I'm actually female, so Ms not Mr would probably be better suited, but that's okay, it's an easy mistake to make.
 * Secondly, Italy has a proud history of football/soccer, as you are more than well aware, countries like Australia need to be encouraged to even watch the sport. Less than a week following the Socceroos elimination, soccer gets the barest of mentions in commercial news broadcasts. Following the incident four years ago, I'm guessing that soccer would still have been a major part of (sporting) life in Italy, despite the controversy. Unfortunately, in Australia, an incident like the one in Germany is enough for the sport to loose much of its hard earned popularity in this country.
 * Like I said previously, mention soccer from now on, one of the first things this generation of Australians will think of is without doubt, the way in which Australia was eliminated from Germany 2006. As a country that has appeared in 16 (correct me if I'm wrong) world cups, Italy and its citizens would probably find it difficult to imagine what it is like to have appeared only in 2 world cups with more than thirty years between them. There is a whole generation of young Australians who, until this year, weren't even born when Australia was last in the world cup.
 * Germany 2006 had a 32 year build for Australia and Australians, we had high hopes not only for our team, but for the sport in general, we hadn't really seen the game played at such an elite level. The disappointment, not such much of the defeat, but of the way the sport presented itself leaves a very bitter taste in the mouths of Australians and some get the feeling that we might be waiting another 32 years to be back at a World Cup.
 * My point is, when Italy was eliminated in 2002, however disappointing and controversial, Italy came back in 2006, Australia on the other hand, will we ever see the Socceroos make it to the world stage again? It's a question that reflects not only the nation's dashed hopes, but also reflects the way in which soccer/football presents itself.
 * Thank you for reading,
 * --Colourblind 01:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Korean Team page
Do you revert just to revert? Do you think only your formatting opinion is ok? An expanded format is more clear and matches other team pages. If you think that the compact format is better, than you have to lobby to have -all- other pages to match that format. I think being consistent is useful, and we are not trying to save data here. Are you going to save a few bits with this "compact" format?
 * Sign your posts, and gather consensus before changing pages.--Panairjdde 23:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The format is already against the consistent format. Someone should get consensus to change the format across teams then.
 * Sign your posts. What does "The format is already against the consistent format" mean?--Panairjdde 00:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It means the format you somehow prefer is not a consistent format with what is used on the other team pages. Do you understand the meaning now?
 * Do you understand "sign your posts"? You still have to prove why it is not consistent. It is used in:
 * Angola
 * Costa Rica
 * Côte d'Ivoire
 * Croatia
 * Czech Republic
 * Ecuador
 * Togo
 * Trinidad and Tobago
 * Tunisia
 * Ukraine
 * Yemen
 * Vietnam
 * Uzbekistan
 * just to name a few. Could you provide any reference where your format is used?--Panairjdde 01:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is fun to see you get worked up over signed posts. Keep saying it!  It is inconsistent, because either you have to go on every team page and compact any event that happens over once, or not at all.  Entertaining that you went through and tried to find examples.  The irony is that you have proven my point!  For example, why is the Czech 1998-2002 not compacted?  Why even on the Korean page was 1986-1998 Round 1 not compacted?!?  Give me a break, your own compact format is not compact.  You must be either very bored for angry to see anyone make changes.  I don't care if it is compact or not, but it should be consistent, and the original one you so blindly defend was not even consistent in ITSELF!

I shall ignore you. Any further edit to my talk page by you will be reverted.--Panairjdde 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)