This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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 [1]) I think the article would be just fine. Awiseman 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
I noticed you removed the category from Rome. I think you may want to comment at [2] -- Cat out 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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".
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)
-- 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I prefer discussing articles on their respective talk pages. El_C 11:44, 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)
I have taken your case ( Wikipedia: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)
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)
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?
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)
I put the source links for the images. Rshu 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Do you the world cup finals or the world cup?
Grazie,
Jean-Paul 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me
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)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
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! [4]-- 151.37.230.65 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:OWN. Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[7], [8]) his claims were not backed and POV, but kept editing
The normal English name for legio decima actually is Tenth Legion; let's use it. Septentrionalis 00:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
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)
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)
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?
I shall ignore you. Any further edit to my talk page by you will be reverted.-- Panairjdde 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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 [1]) I think the article would be just fine. Awiseman 19:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
I noticed you removed the category from Rome. I think you may want to comment at [2] -- Cat out 13:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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".
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)
-- 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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I prefer discussing articles on their respective talk pages. El_C 11:44, 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)
I have taken your case ( Wikipedia: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)
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)
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?
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)
I put the source links for the images. Rshu 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
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:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Do you the world cup finals or the world cup?
Grazie,
Jean-Paul 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Talk to me
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)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
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! [4]-- 151.37.230.65 21:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. |
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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and WP:OWN. Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[7], [8]) his claims were not backed and POV, but kept editing
The normal English name for legio decima actually is Tenth Legion; let's use it. Septentrionalis 00:14, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}
.
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)
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)
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?
I shall ignore you. Any further edit to my talk page by you will be reverted.-- Panairjdde 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)