User talk:Panairjdde~enwiki/Archive1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, nice work updating the Football World Cup 2002 article. Cheers! --maveric149

Images and copyrights

Image sources

I see you're uploading some great ship imagery, but there is no mention of where they're from or their copyright status. Look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags to see the standard options for copyright tagging; if you don't know, use "unverified" or some such. Stan 15:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right. They are all from the Italian Navy web site, and are copyrighted but of free use. Sometimes I forget to add the tag, I'm trying to put it back in all the pages.--Panairjdde 16:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

L/R

Why this tight-assed rigidity about where images are supposed to be placed? Its true, many images are better suited to the right side, but some -- like upper body portraits -- look great on the left, which is were I place many of them, at least in the biographical articles I create (what others do is their choice). Aside from their intrinsic value, images are also useful to break up the visual layout of the page, and in that respect a certain randomness is all the more welcome, as much as stylistic consistency is important in other ways. I will proably revert you in this one particular case, but it is not like I think something this trivial is worth getting into an edit war over. Ciao. -- Viajero 17:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image alignment

There is no need to be dogmatic about the alignment of images. See Formatting pages on User:Wetman. -- Viajero | Talk 21:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Photo

Hi, i would like to upload this photo to the german Wikipedia. Could you mail me the clearence of the copyright holder? My Address is "Benowar-at-gmx.net". Thanks a lot. --Benowar 11:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:RNGorizia.jpg

Panairjdde~enwiki/Archive1 — In case you aren't aware, there has been a significant change in policy. Images that do not have proper copyright information may be deleted within 7 days of uploading. I am bringing this to your attention, because you have uploaded an image, Image:RNGorizia.jpg, which does not have any copyright information. If you do not insert any copyright information within the next few days, this image may be deleted. If you have any questions on how to insert this information, please visit my talk page. Ral315 21:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Ral315 00:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

added copyright information.--Panairjdde 09:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Severus Alexander bust

Sei sicurissimo? Ritratti di Alessandro Severo sulle sue monete • ritratto su Livius.Org, fonte affidabile • e sempre su Livius.Org, ritratto di Marco Aurelio. Bill 10:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See the talk page of the image (Image talk:Marcus Aurelius busto-Musei Capitolini.jpg). Furthermore, the original author of the picture confirmed it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/antmoose/17433741/ (Note: I think you are referring to Septimius Severus, not Alexander Severus). Complimenti per il tuo italiano, e grazie per la cura con cui collabori. --Panairjdde 11:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Italian destroyer Andrea Doria (2008).jpg

(pasting this question from ou talk page on Commons, in case you don't check it often)

Hello ! Would you happen to have more specific information as to why Image:Italian destroyer Andrea Doria (2008).jpg is under a Free licence ? Like a mail, correspondence or web policy of the site that you could point to ?

Also, when this is done, do you think that the image [1] and possibly [2] could also be obtained ?

Sorry to insist, but it is very necessary to have ironclad proves that the image is under a free licence. Congratulations on finding these images, also, I have been desperate to get photographs of the Forbin for some time myself ! :) Cheers ! Rama 14:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Ship prefix

On Talk:Ship prefix you wrote:

The Italian Regia Marina adopted the 'R.N.' (Regia Nave) prefix for its ships, and 'R.S.' (Regio Sottomarino) for its submarines. Should this prefixes be included in the table? Any objections? As an example, see the page for the RN Leonardo da Vinci in La Spezia. --Panairjdde 13:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you have an official reference that confirms this? I note that the Marina Militare's own database of Italian ships [3] contains no ship prefixes. Gdr 01:03, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

The current formal prefix in "Nave" (Ship), e.g. Nave Garibaldi (the aircraft carrier). Up to the end of the Monarchy, the prefix was "Regia Nave", as correctly stated. This prefix can change if referring to the ship's category, e.g. Regio Cacciatorpediniere (destroyer), Regio Incrociatore (Cruiser) and so on. BTW, I am the author of the referred picture, and it can freely used as far as the source is referred. (Stefano Sappino)

Italy national team

Hmmm, valid point. I guess they don't consider the league qualifying? Weird... It can go either way, I guess. Your choice. --Dryazan 16:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Squadra Azzurra

Well, I grew up in Brazil hearing this was the traditional nickname of the Italian national team (as the Uruguayan one was known as [i]Celeste Olímpica[/i], our own Brazilian team was [i]Canarinho[/i] and such). Maybe this is a Brazilian view which is not founded in actual practice in Italy, so I might be wrong. I did a perfunctory Google for the sentence, though, and found plenty of ocurrences, mostly in Italian, some in French or Portuguese. Not all of them related to football (soccer), but as far as I could check they were all or almost all sports related. It might be a matter of local preference; some people prefer referring to the players ([i]Azzurri[/i]) while other prefer to mention the team directly. Generally speaking, though, in Latin countries the standard naming practice for teams is to refer to the team, not the players. For instance, the Brazilian "Corinthians" football team is always referred to in the singular, despite being named after a British team -- which would be referred to in the plural. So, you might refer to [i]the Azzurra[/i] (the usual practice here in Brazil) as well as [i]the Azzurri[/i], depending on your personal preferences. MCBastos 15:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello Panairjdde.

Currently we have something that looks a bit like this:

• Italian Navy
  • Regia Marina
    • Regia Marina ships
      • Regia Marina cruisers
        • Condottieri class cruisers

Because Condottieri class cruiser is already part of the category Condottieri class cruisers it is encouraged not to list the article again on any of the parent/super categories to prevent cluttering and ambiguity. Otherwise, it could applicably go on ALL of its parents. Please refer to the Subcategorization guide for more information. Oberiko 17:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work on the new categorization BTW. Oberiko 19:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Italian Social Republic

The image that you just removed was a very interesting one that illustrated an intereting vignette of life in the ISR. Unless there is a copyvio issue, why not include both that image and the flag image that you put in? Kevintoronto 15:08, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Putting a link as you suggested helps, but something is not clear to me: the article to which you linked does not mention the ISR, except in the caption to the image. What was that brigade's role in the ISR? (I am not an expert in Italian history.) Thanks. Kevintoronto 15:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Italian Motto

the motto was proposed by Mazzini and later adopted by Garibaldean's Army. It has simply never been officialised by Italian governement due to incomprensions(hate?) between Cavour and Garibaldi.

the end result is that it is not Italian motto, but only Mazzini's and Garibaldi's --Panairjdde 09:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Garibaldi

Hi,
I saw the changes you made to Giuseppe Garibaldi. Many of the stylistic changes you made to the latter part of the article are good, but don't bother; it's in the process of being rewritten (check the edit history). However, I'm quite puzzled by some of your edits. I'm really hesitant to challenge you on this, because you're Italian and I'm not, but I'd rather get this straightened out than let factual errors into the wiki.
You changed sites of Garibaldi's progress up the Calabrian peninsula from 'Cosenza' and 'Eboli' to 'Cadenza' and 'Ebola'. According to the relevant article, Cosenza is indeed a town in Calabria. I'm not sure what cadenza means, but I can't imagine that there would be a town by that name, and the wiki lists none such. Likewise Ebola. Given this, I really have no choice but to suspect you of vandalism. I've watchlisted your talk page; you may reply right here. --Smack (talk) 04:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gack. My mistake - you're not the one who made those changes. Sorry for the confusion. --Smack (talk) 03:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John of Taranto

Hi, Wikipedia policy is to use the name most commonly known to English speakers. I've moved this article back. RickK 09:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It appears you are right. I apologize. I'll change it back. RickK 09:27, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

You weren't too harsh, it wasn't a problem.  :) RickK 09:38, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

This sort of discussion should be made in the pertinent discussion page of the article itself. Here, and spread somewhere, it fails to reach others, and others were not easily able to join that discussion. Please put your arguments on the page I referred, it is Talk:Giovanni Antonio del Balzo Orsini. My opinion, resons menmtioned there, is that it should be "John of...", already because of the consistency of Wikipedia article titling. 62.78.106.188 14:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roman legions

What a nice work youve been doing with the legions! muriel@pt 15:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, but, to tell the truth, I added little content, I only re-organized a little.--Panairjdde 15:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please do not convert names into Italian up to the point of ridicule

I happened to see that you made some changes, leaving a name as "Caterina of Taranto". And there seems to be other cases too. Of course that is ridiculous italianization. Against the English language, indeed. At least, it should be left such that it is not against the English language, i.e Catherine of Taranto (I now believe that name form Taranto is allowed in today English - but certainly not Caterina). 62.78.106.188 14:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current president of the French Republic is Jacques Chirac. I do not think you consider "ridiculous [frenchization]. Against the English language, indeed." calling him Jacques instead of James.--Panairjdde 06:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That example shows how badly you understand. Firstly, the ridiculity would be if you call him for example Jacques of Chirac. As you did with Caterina of Taranto. Secondly, currently living persons are treated differently than persons of history. Thus, you chose (deliberately?) an example without any meaning in the original question. For example, Juan Carlos I of Spain, not necessarily John Charles I of Spain. Thirdly, feudal lords are usually treated similarly with historical royalty, whereas persons who were civil servants, are not. Thus, we could have French finance minister Jacques Necker, but we have Philip, Duke of Orleans, Grand Duke Francis of Tuscany, Catherine Medici (queen of France), as well as James, Prince of Morea. Please read carefully those Wikipedia standards that deal with names and historical persons. 62.78.104.96 05:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't quite as black-and-white as you try to make it out. Some names are commonly converted, e.g., fr Jean->John, because "Jean" is also a valid English name. But sometimes the conversion is inconsistent; you see things like "John de Brienne" where only the personal name is converted. And some foreign names are largely accepted in English: one might or might not translate "Giovanni" into "John", as Giovanni is unambiguous in an English context. In any case, a quick perusal of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) reveals the dictum "use the most common form of the name used in English if none of the rules cover a specific problem". Since no one ever appears to have used either "Catherine of Taranto" or "Caterina of Taranto" to describe this individual, I personally would favor moving it to "Caterina del Balzo Orsini", but I don't imagine I'll get a warm reception... Choess 06:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

The "warm" welcome depends very much whether she was a lowly noblewoman without any significance outside her local community, in which case she could be equivalent to those civil servants etc (and her insignificance will be duly noted e.g by a paragraph in her article), or if she was a feudal princess, in which case she should be under her "international" name, and redirs take care of all national and other variants of the name. 62.78.104.14 17:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:RNBande Nere Gorizia-Second Sirte.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:RNBande Nere Gorizia-Second Sirte.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Ok, added.--Panairjdde 12:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gioachino Rossini

Well I know your edits, and you're almost always right; but not on this one. Much to my surprise, since I had the same reaction, and nearly made the change too; but — having been caught out a few times — checked: and sure nuff, Gioachino (one C) is in fact the absolutely proper form. Mind you, Gioacchino with 2 C's is the standard form for the first name, so even among Italians there's a strong tendency to back-form Rossini's name with the others; but strict accuracy does require Gioachino. Best, Bill 10:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I edited those pages because I thought it was a typo of some sort (there were two Giacchino as well); It is also true that the name, in its proper Italian form is Gioacchino, and I am Italian. That said I am no Rossini expert, so if you are sure he was Gioachino, please, feel free to revert my edits.--Panairjdde 10:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed just now that you are the webmaster of LacusCurtius: great site, very useful!--Panairjdde 10:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grazie amico — e anche un po' sul centro dell'Italia, innanzittutto l'Umbria. Bé nemmeno io non sono esperto in Rossineria, e perciò volevo cambiarlo come hai fatto tu, in Gioacchino. Invece, sulla Wiki italiana trovo sempre Gioachino, anche con reindirizzamento; senza discussione. In Rete, per quanto vale!, 110 mila "C", 157 mila "CC". Nel complessivo, visto che "CC" fa norma per il nome non-rossiniano, 110/267 + il parere della Wiki Italiana mi sembra conclusivo???? Ho fatto alcune altre ricerche, senza risultato; nella mia biblioteca a casa, l'unica fonte autorevole sull'argomento, Oxford Companion to Music, dà CC; la Rossini Festival scrive C. Bisognerebbe trovare una firma autografa. Cmq, non faccio nulla: ti rilancio la palla.... Cordialmente, Bill 13:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Donatio Constantini

Why did you change the Latin title of the Donatio? I don't think it has an original title, does it?, but it's almost always called "Donatio Constantini" (in English "Donation of Constantine") or "Constitutum Donatio Constantini" -- "Edict (called) the Donation of Constantine". Why "Edict of the Lord Emperor Constantine?" (By the way, I really like the work you're doing on the history of the Legions.) Frjwoolley 13:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I found on Catholic Encyclopedia that:

In the oldest known (ninth century) manuscript (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, MS. Latin 2777) and in many other manuscripts the document bears the title: "Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris". [4]

However, I know nothing about the title, just thought it was a transcription error. feel free to revert it. And thanks for the support.--Panairjdde 14:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Italy

Hi there. I noticed that you deleted this paragraph from the Italy article;

Italy has experienced a lot of controversy through out history. One of Italy's biggest controversies of today is the separatist organization, Northern League (Lega Nord). The goal of the Northern League is to have Padania (an area of Northern Italy) secede from Italy and become an independent country. This type of politics has been popularized in part by a separatist Northern Italian political party that views Southern Italians, particularly the Mezzogiorno region in Southern Italy, to be inferior to Northern Italians, and view Southern Italy as an economic burden on Northern Italy.

This information is a fact and is very encyclopedic, I found nothing wrong with it. Your thoughts? Thanks, --Gramaic | Talk 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I just would like you to cite your sources, as regards separatism and (most of all) racism of Lega Nord. What I am saying is that it is now a government party, and neither claims are currenlty presented as Lega Nord government program; if you have knowledge of facts I have not, pleasecite your sources.

Furthermore, even if these claims are true, and I think you should support them with evidence, they do not belong to "History", butto "Politics" of Italy section.--Panairjdde 14:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Panairjdde, I just removed this paragraph from the article until I find some cited sources. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 04:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Aëtius

I am moving your query to the disambiguation page Aetius. --Macrakis 14:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

National teams, belgian/italian World cup qualifying

Hi, i just noticed your remark on Talk:Belgium_national_football_team#Qualification_record, a few months later ;) I replied there, and as you see, italy did have to qualify only 6 times, they automatically entered in 1986 i believe ;) --LimoWreck 20:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Roman edits

Greetings, Panairjdde! I appreciate your recent corrections to my addition to your Aurelian Walls article.

I am sure you can see that I did some edits to some of your other articles. I admire your knowledge on Roman topics, and I hope most of what I did were helpful in tidying up the language a bit. I am a little new to this Wikipedia thing, and I'm intrigued by the opportunity to see what else you have collected on all those little bits of Roman trivia.

I look forward to coming across more of what you have written! --Mlouns 14:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I noticed your work, and was happy with it.--Panairjdde 15:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Pipe sorts

I just noticed your edit of S. Agnese fuori le mura to read [[Category:Basilica churches of Rome|Agnese fuori le mura]]; so this is to save you some time in needless editing in the future. The purpose of the "pipe sort" (the word following the "pipe" = | character) is merely to put the article in its proper alpha listing. It is sufficient to put the first word, or indeed ANY word beginning with the same letter; everything else is ignored by all the Wiki software. As a demo, I've just put "Apple pie" there.... If there were two articles in the category both sorted under A, S. Agnese fuori le mura would be sorted, despitse "Apple", under "Agnese"; it's a very strange set-up. Anyway, you can ignore anything after the first word from now on.

A proposito, complimenti per il tuo inglese. Alcuni pochissimi e piccoli errori, che forse corregerò ormai, ma finora non ho voluto farlo senza avvertirti, per non darti offesa. Ma sono veramente pochi!

Best, Bill 13:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Are your sure? I tried a test. In Category:Churches of Rome there are Sant'Agnese in Agone and Sant'Agostino (Rome), in this order, since the first is piped with "Agnese", the second with "Agostino". I changed the pipe of Sant'Agnese in Agone into "Agustino", but, instead of being lister before Agostino, as you stated above, it was listed after it. (I am reverting both testes.) E grazie per in complimenti!--Panairjdde 14:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.... Ho imparato qualcosa; mi ero affidato (come mai? sono di solito un tizio sospettoso!) a ciò che un vecchio Wikipediano mi aveva detto i miei primissimi giorni qui.... Bill 10:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Roman navy

Please, excuse me for my english. I'm spanish. According to numerous experts who have studied the Cantabrian Wars the classis aquitanica took part in this war. The fleet came from Gallia Aquitania, probably disembarked in Portus Blendium (Suances) or in Portus Uictoriae Iuliobrigensium (Santander) and gave supported to the legions surrounding to the cantabri. In most of the studies about this war is mentioned this navy unit:

González Echegaray, Joaquín; Cantabria Antigua -> The Ancient Cantabria
Martino, Eutimio; Roma contra cántabros y astures. -> Rome against cantabri and astures
Schulten, Adolf; Los cántabros y astures y su guerra contra Roma -> The cantabrians and astures and their war against Rome
González Echegaray, Joaquín; Los Cántabros -> The Cantabri

It looks like that Aquitanica was the name of the fleet that supported the Cantabrian Wars, rather than a provincial fleet, and which was disbanded after the war. If you agree, please unlist it from the imperial fleets, maybe it could be listed under another section. --Panairjdde 08:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

OK --Politono 10:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Commons

Why you don't use Wikimedia Commons? I transfered about 50 of your images and that's not a funny work. Please think about prefering Commons so that all projects could use your material and nobody has to clean up behind you. --Saperaud 00:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

1) I am not obliged to use Commons.

2) You are not obliged to transfer anything.

3) What are you talking about?

4) Thanks a lot. --Panairjdde 07:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is obliged but it's better to have all material f. e. at commons:Category:Roman coins then Category:Images of ancient Roman coins. If I want to illustrate articles I need images like these, so I have to move them. That's a lot of work and it would be completely unnecessary if you would use Commons instead of Wikipedia. On the other hand there are dozens of similar images from other projects, so articles from en WP benefit as well as others.

3) "Why you don't use Wikimedia Commons?"

1) But why you don't use it? --Saperaud 17:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are images like Image:Follis-Constantine-lyons RIC VI 309.jpg from? The license tag is definitely wrong. --Saperaud 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Listen. If you check [5], you can see I use Commons, so your statement "Why you don't use Wikimedia Commons?" is wrong; and in your original message you did not tell me whta images you were talking about. You complained with me for a work I did not requested you to do: if you don't like the way I work, you can ignore me, revert my edits, or do your transferring, but you can't complain with me. Furthermore, I obtained permission to use those images, but this don't qualify them as public domain or under any other free license. Furthermore, I started uploading before Commons was available, and I kept uploading in the same way for consistency. If you move the images, you are responsible for their licensing. This is the end of the story, for me. --Panairjdde 08:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't my intend to "complain" me about something but to make clear that these images make two times more work then necessary. "I obtained permission to use those images, but this don't qualify them as public domain or under any other free license." You put them under {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|CNG coins (http://www.cngcoins.com) is cited as source}} and you are responsible for these licenses, which are free. Some others are problematic and I think I have to delete them at Commons (some I#ve uploaded already). I thought first {{money}} is the result of "I forgot to use CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat" (or a joke), then I noticed there was no CNG in the image descriptions (I use upload managers so I don't read everything). The license money is wrong here, it's not a validated currency protected by any institutions or country, thats a simply "private" image and I've you don't have a licensing agreement it's fair use and as such illegal outside US (or even in US under certain circumstances which are given here in my opinion). So they were wrong licensed and yes it's my responsibility that I don't noticed that earlier. --Saperaud 10:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No response? One thing is still left: you wrote in these images "Used with permission." What type of permission did you get from CNG? --Saperaud 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at my page User:Panairjdde#Roman coins for the authorization by CNG.--Panairjdde 08:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm now finished to track my failures back. The following images are on Commons and will be deleted in the next time (perhabs you can save some of them):

• commons:Image:Denarius-Julia Soaemias-RIC 0237.jpg
• commons:Image:Denarius-Faustina the Elder-RIC 0339a.jpg
• commons:Image:Tremissis-Aelia Verina-s4344.jpg
• commons:Image:Sestertius-Aelius-RIC 1057.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus Tetricus I-RIC 0080.1.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus Tetricus II-s3191.jpg
• commons:Image:Solidus-Constantine IV-sb1151.jpg
• commons:Image:Solidus-Michael II Theophilus-sb1640.jpg
• commons:Image:Follis-Constantine-lyons RIC VI 309.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninius Balbinus-s2395.5.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus Claudius II-RIC 0137.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus-Gallienus-l7claudia-RIC 0348-j-v.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus Philip the Arab - Seculum Novum.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus Trebonianus Gallus-s2777.jpg
• commons:Image:Antoninianus Victorinus-s3165.2.jpg

The rest of Category:Images of ancient Roman coins is marked as fair use.

To collect the images from CNG I made commons:Template:CNG. I should have done that earlyer but ok, now I have to sort them in there. You asked for only some images and the answer was "please cite us". That's 90% perfect but not 100%. It would be fine to have writen down "yes wikipedia can use all of our images as lang as they are licensed under Cc-by-2.5" (FreeUse with citation is similar). --Saperaud 11:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CNGcoins representative wrote "You have our approval to use our coin images..." that means that I can use any of their images. Furthermore, that means that the images are {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat|CNG coins (http://www.cngcoins.com) is cited as source}}, as I stated. I don't care about the commons images, provided that all the images on en.wikipedia.org are preserved. I am responsible for uploading to en.wikipedia, anyone else who wants to upload them anywhere else _must_ be sure of what he/she is doing. --Panairjdde 11:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Condottieri class cruisers

I see that you have deleted a lot of information from this article. What was your reason? Much of the removed text - not all - seemed relevant to the concept of these ships and in line with similar articles for other warship classes, so is the information available elsewhere within Wiki? Folks at 137 17:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See my answer at Talk:Condottieri class cruiser. --Panairjdde 08:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

38th SS Division Nibelungen

Why did you remove much information from 38th SS Division Nibelungen? lease, explain in the edit summary such big changes.--Panairjdde 08:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to wikify that and it included a lot of very difficult to understand information, I thought it would be better to have it clear rather than in half-german. I will revert it though if you'd rather deal with it :) - cohesion★talk 09:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The order of battle is just a list, I think you can keep it.--Panairjdde 09:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hanchi "Rome"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Town

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A17537-2004Feb29&notFound=true

"For the Chinese, the issue is one of civic and human rights. "These rules are simply discriminatory. They apply only to Esquilino and only because of the Chinese," said Daniele Wong, an Italian-born Chinese activist who has mediated with city hall over the issue. "There's an atmosphere of yellow peril hysteria in Rome."

The article has it wrong. Esquilino (where I work) is already a sort of Chinatown, with most of the shops owned by Chinese immigrants. The problem is not the presence of foreign people, but the fact that most of the new shops are wholesale outlets, and "There are no butchers, no laundries. I have to go miles to buy mortadella," as the article stated. The law just requires that all the new owners of a 15 years old shop keep the same kind of business for two years; it is not related to the nationality of the ower. Furthermore, neither the major of Rome, nor the Romans, could use "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" as a rallying cry, because this is an English saying, not an Italian one.

Please, amend your contribution to Rome page accordingly.--Panairjdde 10:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

List of country names in various languages under attack !!!

Caro Panairjdde,

The List of country names in various languages, List of European regions with alternative names, List of European cities with alternative names, List of European rivers with alternative names, and others, have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Grazie! (da pugliese a pugliese, essendo io nato a Barletta...) Pasquale 16:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. In exchange, could you please take a nice shot of the Colosso, and release under a free license? The article is in desperate need of an image.--Panairjdde 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Taranto

Ciao, avevo notato che tra il 500 BC ed il 400 BC si nomina Aristotle, il filosofo greco fissuto dal 384 AC al 322 AC: impossibile. Da miei riscontri si tratterebbe invece di un tiranno di nome Aristophilides (vedi it:storia di Taranto) Maximix 09:40, nov 4, 2005 (CET)

No, il riferimento ad Aristotele è una citazione dalla Politica riguardo al trapasso tra monarchia e democrazia a seguito di una sconfitta nel 466. Comunque grazie per la nota. --Panairjdde 09:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(in Italian) Strategia della fanteria romana

Ehi ciao! Sono venuto a conoscenza da R.D.H Gohst in the machine che sei molto esperto di romanità e di amenità varie :) Vorrei chiederti un tuo possibile aiuto e parere su un'articolo che io R.D.H abbiamo quasi scritto, si tratta di Roman infantry tactics, strategy and battle formations, non posto il link perchè non so come si fa, scritto basandomi sulla traduzione dal latino di De re militari di vegezio. Grazie anticipate per ogni tuo possibile aiuto. F.S.S.S (Filippus suum salutem dat) Philx 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Philx Philx 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Non credo di essere un esperto. Ad ogni modo, se posso dare una mano lo faccio volentieri. Fammi sapere dove si trova l'articolo, però. --Panairjdde 08:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

l'articolo è Roman infantry tactics and battle formation, ma ti consiglio do arrivarci attraverso il link in legio, perchè il titolo è provvisorio... Philx 12:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Philx Philx 12:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Grazie per le tue correzioni! Che ne pensi dell'articolo? Philx 13:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Philx Philx 13:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Saluto Panairjdde! I referred my friend Phil to you, since you are the best I know on Wikipedia when it comes to Italian history and Roman topics. Thank you for your help with our article! We need you to clear something up for us, though- Phil mentions the following from Vegitus: Legionaries were trained to carry their shield as a "bag" (?) this means that the legionary's arm was inserted in a perpedicular way to the hook of the shield,not like medieval infantry or greek one, because in this position they could better defend themselves because the hand was supported by the arm and the shoulder giving more defensive strength. 1 We talked about it on the article's discussion page HERE. Phil understands what it means. I don't so I cannot translate. He's read Vegitus recently in the original Latin, I read him nearly 20 years ago as an English translation. Other than that we've had no real problems communicating and it has been a joy to work with a friend across the ocean who shares a common interest in and knowledge of the great empire and its military system. Any help you can give us with this troublesome passage would be appreciated. Thanks again,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 23:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ehi panairjdde! Te lo dico in italiano perchè in inglese nonostante tutti gli sforzi del mio amico R.D.H ghost in the machine non siamo riusciti a renderlo in inglese!. Quello che ti voglio dire è che la fanteria romana inseriva il braccio nello scudo in senso verticale e tenevano lo scudo come se fosse una 24 ore, dicendo questo intendo che tutta la spalla era a supporto del braccio, sperop che tu possa scriverlo in inglese decente e grazie ancora !Philx 09:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Philx Philx 09:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Intendi dire che portavano il pugno alla spalla, o che lo portavano contro il fianco, quando tenevano lo scudo verticale? Quindi l'immagine a lato è corretta o no? Sembra che portino il braccio parallelo al terreno.

--Panairjdde 09:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

L'immagine di lato non'è corretta, il pugno lo inserivano al contrario di come si vede nell'immagine, lo inserivano in senso verticale, hai presente il manico di una valigia' beneil manico dello scutuum era cosi, e lo impugnavano come se fosse una valigia,il braccio era parallelo al corpo, ma in senso verticale! Hai presente, dei soldati sull'attenti, con il braccio lungo il corpo? Bene immagina che i romani tenevano il braccio nello scudo in quella postura esatta! Spero di aver chiarito l'enigma! Grazie ancora per la tua disponibilità ! Philx 11:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Philx Philx 11:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, try: Legionaries were trained to carry their shield as a "bag": when holding the shield, the arm was disposed vertically along the body, and the shield was wielded through a handle; in this position the shield was supported with the arm and the shoulder, and the soldier could apply more pressure. --Panairjdde 12:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Grazie! Philx Philx 14:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

AH that makes sense now! The picture helps also. Thanks Panairjdde!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Pro populo romanoque senato!

To Panairjdde for his many outstanding contributions on Roman military history, I hereby award this Aquila. Sapere aude! --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not allow it to fall into barbarian hands!

I am honored. Thanks! I shall defend it with my life!--Panairjdde 12:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is well earned, my friend, VIS ET HONOR:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

History of Rome

Hi, this is Attilios. Why do you delete the material I add? Is it bad written? I think it's informative anyway, and I seem I didn't delete so much from your former version. I don't know if this is an edit war (I'm relatively new here). Writing such a long article to cover all the historical holes, especially from Middle Ages onwards, is a true fatigue, so please don't destroy my work if you can. I think I'm simply adding things in the Wikipedia spirit of providing the more informative articles as possible: so if there's something wrong or bad written you can correct it of course. Let me know and good work.

I didn't understand your question. There's only one "Rome under the HRE" section. Thanks anyway. Attilios

AS Roma

Sorry, sir, why did you revert my edits on the second shirt? D'you consider it the third shirt? --necronudist 22:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Football teams names

Because you'll never hear a fan referring to "la" Roma as A.S. Roma. It's the commonly used name. CapPixel 10:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The official name is reported in the infobox, just under the logo. CapPixel 10:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Caratacus, Claudia and Martial

Panairjdde, I notice you've made some edits to the early Christianity section of the Caratacus article. I have spent the last week researching this, and Claudia Rufina and Aulus Pudens really do appear in Martial's Epigrams - they are not Jowett's inventions. Identifying them with any other Claudia or Pudens is tenuous at best, but those two are real. I hope the new wording makes this clear. --Nicknack009 15:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Panairjdde, can I draw your attention to Caratacus again? We have another British Israelite crank (or possibly the same one under a different name) spewing the same discredited stuff. I don't think I have the patience to go through all this again. Help! --Nicknack009 20:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have less time now, but I'll check the contributions. I do not like pseudo-history, and I'll edit against it.--Panairjdde 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Put only official sites under "Official sites"

Hello,

as you can see at: http://www.parks.it/indice/Epremessa.html, and also in the index page of each protected area, the information published is provided by each Park Authority (about 180!)

And, above all: each Park Authority also communicates info on nature conservation in its area, and not only on sustainable activities (agriculture and tourism, among the others).

So, how you can say in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Italy (External links) that Parks.it is an "unofficial" site, and how can you limit it to touristic interest as you have done by moving my edit twice to "Tourist sites and photo galleries" ?

Pirawik

I can say that it is not an offcial site because it is not an official site, but a private one, made by "ComunicAzione". The fact that they gather information from official sources does not mean the site is official. I could get infos of the Burundi government by official Burundian sources, and put them on my site, but this would not make my site an official Burundi site.--Panairjdde 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Mondadori is the real author of Eneide !-) Nice reading...

You don't get the point. Mondadori is not the author of Eneide, but at the same time you can't say that Mondadori's Eneide is the official one.--Panairjdde 09:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because Virgilio is not here to tell you !-) If you want, you can send an e-mail to Gran Paradiso National Park to check who is deciding for each point of the content of the page http://www.parks.it/parco.nazionale.gran.paradiso and following ones, or just call Federparchi for http://www.parks.it/federparchi , or anyone else of the authors for their pages. The point is that ComunicAzione merely publishes online the content provided by the authors of Parks.it, and the fact that one or more of them wants the information published also elsewhere does not mean that the content of Parks.it is not official; I'll make it easier, and transform the author from an authority to a person: were the articles by Montanelli in Corriere della Sera less official than the ones published in La Voce? Of course I don't believe you think something like that, but on the other side you haven't replied when I stated that in the parks tourism, however important, comes after the protection of nature: therefore, it seems to me that the official nature of Parks.it bothers you. Am I wrong?

png vs svg of the Italian flag

I noticed that you have reverted change to Image:Flag of Italy.svg twice at Template:Country flag alias Italy. Please do not revert to the png version. The flags are all being changed to svg, and if you think the colors are incorrect in the svg version, correct that image file itself (svg uses xml, so correcting the colors of the three rectangles in the flag is easy) rather than switch back to png. If you still can't figure out how to edit the svg file, point me to an official site that tells me the correct colors to use and I'll change it myself if the colors differ. – Krun 15:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Composition of pictures on Julius Caesar article!

Dear Panairjdde!

I noticed you changed the new composition on the Julius Caesar page. Recently I added my picture of the bronze bust of Caesar, below the marble bust picture. The contents box, nor the text is changed by this. I believe it makes an better impression with two bust portraits of Julius Caesar at the beginning. My reasons for this is that early on the readers of this artice should get two impressions (only one isn't enough) on how Caesar looked, and since both busts are or cast from originals; this is the way Caesar looked. Early on the readers of the artice should have an clear picture of how Caesar looked, in their head. This would only be achieved by having the readers exposed in the beginning to his look. It is also my belief that it would be prefered that people who want quick information of Caesar and traditional looks of him, should get two, instead of one detalied bust views of how he looked, and don't have to search in the article for the second bust photograph, as would be the case with the prior modification. You could also notice that now the space is used to it's maximum without any empty space below the picture of the marble bust. It was because I thought the article needed more views on how Julius Caesar looked, that I took the picture of the bust from my collection, and cut it so it would suit Wikipedia perfectly. If you disagree, I would be delighted to know your view on the matter.

BTW, I have removed the claim about that the picture of the bust isn't allowed to be modified, so the picture does not conflict with Wikipedias policy.

Thanks for reading this!

Sincerely: Jduxen

I changed the layout of that page for two reasons: (1) your image was not free at the time, and (2) I did n ot like the layout. As regards the image, I am happy that you solved the problem, and I am going to remove the deletion request; it would be nice, since you allow modification, redristribution and commercial use for the image, to license it under Creative Commons Attribution. As regards the page layout, I must say I do not agree with you about the double image. The two pictures show two busts of Julius Caesar, one belonging to the 18th century. The position of the images is not correct, since there are foru busts in a row, with the most ancient picture of JC, the coin, last. Furthermore, even if there is a requirement for attribution of the picture, this should only go in the image page, not everywhere the image appears.

I noticed you were prompt to revert my edits. I am not going to do the same, however I expect you to deal this matter with me.--Panairjdde 15:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Panairjdde!

First of all I wanted to thank you for the swift removal of the deletion request. I am sorry that I reverted your edits without discussing it with you further, since I didn't change it back to the former layout with two busts side to side, but instead placed the picture of the bronze bust under the marble bust picture, so neither the text nor contents box wasn't changed a bit, I thought you wouldn't disagree. My reasons for the current layout are: (1). Readers of the article should get an clear picture of how Julius Caesar looked like to start with, they should not have to read through the whole article and at the end when they are nearly finished, being able to picture Julius Caesar in their head. The text becomes more lively and vivid if readers could imagine how Julius Caesar looked and therefore could imagine him act out the different situations in the text. Only one picture of him, isn't enough. Yes, the bronze bust is from the 18th Century, but it is sculpted from an original, so it captures Caesars look just as authentic as the marble bust.

(2). People who are writing about Julius Caesar, and are doing a quick search for pictures of Julius Caesar, shouldn't have to scroll through the whole text and carefully look, to find different likeness of Julius Caesar.

The current modification have three Caesar busts nearly in a row, but I wouldn't believe this would be a problem, since in the case of the two first ones, one is made of marble and one of bronze, so they are not that similair, and I refer to my arguments above as to why two likeness should be provided in the beginning. Concerning the third bust, that is placed there because Caesars early life begins there and that bust portrays Caesar as an young boy.

Regarding the description of the bronze bust, you could see on picture 4, where a photograph is provided of a sketch of a bust in the British Museum; it is clearly stated under the picture that it is depicted from the bust in the British Musem, not only in the image description. Therefore I believe it would be proper to write under the image of the bronze bust, from where it comes.

What would be the difference between the current Copyright for the picture, and listing it as Creative Commons?

Looking forward to hear from you!

Sincerely: Jduxen

Salve

Hi , I saw your edits in Siege of Amida, thanks for edits. By the way is there any stub battles left in Category:Battles of the Roman Empire between Roman empire and Sassanid empire or Parthians ? Best wishes ! Amir85 10:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The article Battle of Edessa is missing the description of the battle itself; Battle of Rhandeia and Battle of Resaena are also stubs.--Panairjdde 19:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Ciao!

Ciao panairjdde, scusa il disturbo ma a me a al mio amico ghost ci servirebbe di nuovo il tuo aiuto, stiamo cercando di portare l'articolo Roman infantry tactics,strategy and battle formations a F.A ci srvirebbe il tuo aiuto per qualche foto in più e magari se hai tempo qualche suggerimento e "aggiustamento" qua e là, grazie in anticipo. F.S.S.D --Philx 11:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Per adesso ti posso indirizzare ad una collezione di immagini che puoi usare: Category:Roman Legion. Se ho tempo dò una letta all'atricolo. Buon lavoro!--Panairjdde 12:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Niceforo Foca

Ciao panairjdde (o panarijdde?), sono sicuro che ti piacerebbe tanto scrivere la voce it:Niceforo Foca sulla it:Storia di Taranto. Ho indovinato? Fammi sapere e buon 2006. :-) --Maximix 12:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Subtitle of Caesar bronze bust

Dear Panairjdde!

I noticed that you removed the subtitle for the Julius Caesar bronze bust, with the explanation "who cares about who owns this bust?). I do! Let me explain, I took the picture of that bust from my private collection. My reason for this was that I thought it would be selfish of me, to not show this likeness of Caesar to anyone, and I thought showing it on Wikipedia would be ideal, since then those interesed in reading about Caesar would also get another idea of how he looked. My bust is sculpted from an original in the Vatican, so it shows his likeness perfectly. When I took the picture and uploaded it to Wikipedia, I decided that it should always have the undertitle that it was from my collection, because I don't want it's list of reference to be lost, so that students of Roman history doing works about famous Romans, can't be able to pinpoint the bust's provenance. You should also be aware of, that I am the copyright holder of this picture, and my terms is that it should always be displayed with it's subtitle. If you don't like the picture, you could place it in the removal section of Wikipedia, but you can't change it's subtitle.

I have added the subtitle again, and I would be grateful if you didn't tamper with it, now that you know my reasons. Thank you for being active and editing the Julius Caesar article, it is really a great article.

Sincerely: --Jduxen (18 January 2006)

Your request for attribution is well fulfilled by the note you put on the image and in the image page. It is not necessary to state the attribution on every page the image appears on. If you can't bear with this, you can remove the image. In fact, you must bear with the fact that anyone can take that picture and remove the attribution writing on it, and put on his page, as long as he has a page or something else where it reports the origin of the image.

I am going to remove the attribution statement from the picture text, since I truly believe that, with the greatest respect for you, attributions should not appear on WP articles.

Best regards. --Panairjdde 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Continuation to Subtitle of Caesar bronze bust

Dear Panairjdde!

It seems that you are taking this fact very hearthly, so I'll answer you througly.--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that you have something personal against me or my picture.

I want to be clear about this: I have nothing against you. I do not like, if you are really interested in this matter, the fact that the image (a photo of a reproduction) has the attribution printed on it, but that is your image and I don't want to argue about this.--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Since if you look at the Julius Caesar page (which I am sure you have done many times), you could clearly see that the picture after mine, showing a picture from a bust of Julius Caesar from the British Museum, has an subtitle with it's complete provenance (even more lenghty than mine was). If you haven't noticed it, let me introduce you to what it says: "Julius Caesar, depicted from the bust in the British Museum, in Cassell's History of England (1902)." This is the subtitle below the picture on the Julius Caesar article, and as you could see it clearly states the provenance of the bust. --Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me notice that the reason why the caption is there is to affirm that the drawing (and I am stressing that it is not a picture of a bust, but a drawing) is not the fantasy interpretation of Mr. Cassel, but a 1902 reproduction of an actual bust (I am not sure that there were photos back in 1902). So the caption underlined the authoritative source of the image.

On the other side, knowing that some one owns a 19th century bronze reproduction of a JC bust, is not important for the reader of the article.

So, summing up, knowing the ownership of the bust does not carry information, if the owner is not "authoritative "(and I repeat that I do not know you and have nothing against you). As I see it, contributing an image (this is a thing I did too), is just like contributing text: in both cases Wikipedia stores the fact that you are the contributor, but you do not sign every and each textual contribution you make by adding your name in the article text!--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I must also make you aware of, that if you search the internet for bronze bust of Julius Caesar, you arrive at many pages, which have only copied Wikipedias main article of Julius Caesar, and therefore my attribution isn't there, anywhere on the site. To save me some very time consuming work, having to email all these sites and having them adding the subtitle of my bust, or removing the bust completely. The subtitle below my Caesar bronze bust, must be displayed also on the Julius Caesar main article on Wikipedia.

I do not want to seem harsh, but copyright infringment on other sites should not be discussed here on Wikipedia. What will you do is someone takes you image, modifies it by removing your copyrigth statement and displays it on his website? Will you contact him or blame Wikipedia? Your image is now on Internet, in Google's cache, on many hard disks. If you really do not want your image to go around the world, you should be ready to defend your copyrights, or to not release the image at all.--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I must also remind you, that I am the sole owner to the copyright of this picture, and my request for attribution wherever the bust appears has been approved by Wikipedia. In fact, when you are removing the subtitle required to be there by the fact of the copyright, you are doing something which isn't allowed. Do you always break copyrights when you make your contributions to Wikipedia, or are you treating me some special way?

I recognize your right to decide the licence of your contributions. I am obliged, however, that you licensed your image with the statement:

"It is free to use the image, as long as you mention that the bust is from the private collection of Jonas Duxén."

Now, (1) the image has your name printed on it, so as long as your name is not removed from the jpeg file, your requirement is always fulfilled, and most of all (2) the licence itself is printed on the page Image:Caesar from the collection of Jonas Duxén.JPG (actually even in the filename). This means that even removing the caption from the Julius Caesar page, the licence is fulfilled.

To make it more clear: if an image license requires the attribution of the image to the copyright holder, the presence of the copyright holder name in the image page (in this case, Image:Caesar from the collection of Jonas Duxén.JPG page) fulfills the licence.--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As you probably can tell, I am a little upset by this. I have added original material to Wikipedia available nowhere else, and personally taken a picture of my own property and going through the trouble of cutting it so it would fit it perfectly. And what happens is that another user, changes my copyright just because he believes it should be another way. Dear Panairjdde, if you take a picture and upload it to Wikipedia and set a copyright to it, it would never fall me in to tamper with the material and your copyright, because that is outside the rules and why do you think there exists such a thing as copyright? When uploading this image, I thought that all Wikipedians had a sense of what copyright stands for, unfortunately it seems I was wrong, then let me explain this to you: It is perfectly within limits for you, to nominate the picture for removal with a good reason, but you are completely off limits trying to yourself tamper with it's copyright.

I want to remark that I did not change the copyright of the image. I simply "moved" the image attribution from the image caption to the image page.--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have once again made my reasons very clear for the attribution, I have been a little harsh, but that is only because it is easier to deal with the problem at it's root, then it is to having to email all the webpages which have copied the Wikipedia main article and therefore don't have the attribution anywhere on their sites. I hope this will the close the argument and that you won't remove the attribution again (If so, I will have to take further actions against you, I honestly hope it doesn't come to that).

Since you look really upset with this matter, I am not going to touch the image caption for some days. However, I expect you to settle this matter with me, so that we decide for one side or the other, or for an external arbitrate. I expetc to hear about you very soon.--Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reading this!

I want to settle this matter in a friendly way, but I am not going to dismiss this thing without bringing you on my side or being brougth on yours. --Panairjdde 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sincerely: --Jduxen 21 January 2006

Dear Panairjdde! I would also like to settle this in a friendly way. Concerning the attribution below the bronze bust; I don't know if you have looked on the discussion page to the Julius Caesar article (Under title: 34 Julius Caesar 18th century bronze bust (Duxén collection), there has been some discussions on the attribution for my picture. After some discussions and other Wikipedia examples, it has been agreed that the attribution below the bust, is in fact complying with Wikipedias policy. I encourage you to check out this discussion, and if that isn't enough for you; You are totally free to nominate the picture for removal if you don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. We are both Wikipedians caring about the Wikipedia project, and I very much hope that we could as fellow Wikipedias be friends henceforth and help each other on future projects to make Wikipedia more interesting, and that this wouldn't stand between us.

Thanks for your comments!

Sincerely: --Jduxen 22 January 2006

Why did you delete my edit at Game of Go position?

I notice that you delete my edit at Game of Go position. Have you read the discussion at the Talk page of Go Position? Have you read the article of Kifu? Do you know the tradition and custom of record of Go game? Please provide your reason at the discussion page. Thank you. --Neo-Jay 20:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the specific articles which are broken. And leave your reply on the discussion page. Thanks. --Neo-Jay 03:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Magnus Maximus

Hi! I saw you reverted my edit on List of Roman emperors about Magnus Maximus. I believe Maximus was recognised by Theodosius I and perhaps also by Valentinian II. I refer you to De Imperatoribus Romanis (Magnus Maximus), paragraph 5: "As a result of these two events, an accord was reached between Maximus, Theodosius I, and Valentinian II in 384, whereby Maximus was recognized as an Augustus in return for leaving Valentinian II in power.", and the description of this image: Solidus Magnus Maximus-constantinople Dep 38-7.jpg - Theodosius would never mint coins for someone he didn't recognise.

Well I hope you agree with me that Maximus was a legitimate emperor once, or else I may have to start an edit war ;-) Yours, Brambo 11:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You are rigth and I am wrong. I beg your pardon for the revert. I can only say that I stopped at the third paragraph in Magnus Maximus article, and that the article about Teodosius says nothing about this recognition. Best regards, Panairjdde 21:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no sweat, happens to all of us! ;-) I do have another (somewhat related) question, about the emperor/usurper Joannes. I think he should be listed as emperor, even though he is an usurper. Imho, any usurper's goal is to become emperor, and some of them actually succeed, like Joannes, but also Macrinus, Otho, Petronius Maximus and Romulus Augustus. Nobody seems to think those guys aren't emperors, so why shouldn't Joannes be classified as such (and thus as successor to Honorius)? I don't mean to say you're necessarily wrong, but I'd like to hear your views on this. Yours, Brambo 22:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because historian traditionally compiled a list of emperors, and I lean towards accepting it without "original research". I know that this is unfair, but actually compiling a list of Roman Emperors is really an encyclopedic task I do not feel comfortable. I suggest, therefore, to stick with the current list.--Panairjdde 09:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I understand your views on this, but I must say I disagree. Wikipedia should imho not just copy information that is flawed (I mean, it's not really incorrect in this case), but instead improve it. And anyway, I'm sure historians disagree amongst themselves about who should be called emperor and who shouldn't.

Oh by the way: in fact most other wikipedias do count Joannes as successor to Honorius, like de, fr, nl and it ;-) Yours, Brambo 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see historians' reasons.

As regards Joannes, he claimed the throne against Valentinian III. Valentinian was in Constantinople, but after two years he had recovered his throne. Since the direct descendant of Honorius ended up as Emperor after a short war, we can consider Valentinian successor of Honorius, and Joannes usurper.

As regards Romulus Augustus, he is considered emperor mostly because Emperor Zeno considered the western Empire finished after receiving the regalia from Odovacer end of this article, since Zeno did not answer to the requests of those supporting Nepos.

As regards Petronius Maximus, he ruled de facto in a void of power. Valentinian III had been killed, and noone, apart Petronius, claimed the purple in the West. He was later killed by the Vandals. So we can consider him an emperor.

As regards Otho, when the succession line was broken, the most successful general was the emperor. Otho had received the support of the Senate, as well as Vitellius did after defeating Otho. So both are emperors. A similar case applies to Macrinus.

Finally, as regards Magnus Maximus, he was recognized Augustus with Valentinian II, but immediately after the agreement, Magnus no longer recognized Valentinian, elevating his son Victor to Augustus. This short time interval can be considered the reign of Magnus.

Best regards, --Panairjdde 17:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Major basilicas

What are your plans regarding Category:Major Basilicas? Pmadrid 16:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I answered in Category talk:Major Basilicas.--Panairjdde 16:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I posted a response, fyi. Pmadrid 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And I have a proposed solution posted now as well. Pmadrid 20:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to notify your additions here. I am watching the talk page.--Panairjdde 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:Marina Militare Ensign.png

Can you redraw this flag as an SVG? If you don't have any tools to make SVG images, you can download a program called Inkscape just for that purpose. --  Denelson83  06:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't. And it is not a matter of program, but of drawing skill. --Panairjdde 12:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, is it possible that you could draw it as a bitmap again, but at double the resolution of the current image (i.e. at 1260×840), then send it to me so I can trace it myself into an SVG?  Denelson83  15:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the emblem is taken by a PD image, I did not draw it, but rather "compose" the flag. --Panairjdde 16:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you know where you got that PD image from?  Denelson83  18:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Probably from Marina Militare web site, but I am not sure.--Panairjdde 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Santa Maria in Montesanto and dei Miracoli

Ciao! Ho appena scritto l'articolo su Santa Maria in Montesanto e Santa Maria dei Miracoli. Non sono sicuro dell'inglese. Ti va di dare un'occhiata? Vedo che sei anche esperto di mare: tempo fa ho scritto Italian cruiser Vittorio Veneto, che forse ha bisogno di uno sguardo. Ciao e grazie. Attilios

Articolo ben fatto. Mi sono permesso alcune modifiche di poco conto. Valuterei la possibilità di separare l'articolo in due parti, una per ciascuna chiesa, anche se in effetti hanno molto in comune. --Panairjdde 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mars lake.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mars lake.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that your image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If your image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why your image was deleted. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted seven days after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BRossow 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

San Giorgio al Velabro

I'm just checking the copyright of the site at the moment, and doing more research - then I'll come back and edit out site-copied stuff, which is just there temporarily. Neddyseagoon 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)neddyseagoon 16:35 22nd February 2006

Immagini dal sito della marina italiana

Ho visto che hai caricato diverse immagini della marina italiana sulla en.wiki, citando come liberi per tutti gli usi, ma ho scritto al contatto del sito della marina italiana è mi è stato risposto che sono libere per tutti gli usi purchè non a scopo di lucro (quindi non commercial).

Trovi qui l'email con cui mi hanno risposto: it:Wikipedia:Autorizzazioni ottenute/MarinaMilitare --Moroboshi 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, mi toccherà rintracciare tutte le immagini e farle cancellare. --Panairjdde 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 30% for major edits and 5% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Foto Taranto

Ciao, nella fotogallery dice: FOTO LIBERAMENTE UTILIZZABILI CON L'OBBLIGO DI LASCIARE INALTERATA L'INDICAZIONE DELL'AUTORE E DELLA FONTE. fotogallery --Maximix 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Qui c'è qualcosa che ti riguarda ;-)

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 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. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cispadane Republic 1797.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Cispadane Republic 1797.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. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged both the images with {{Software-screenshot}}. Please provide appropraite inforamtion on the image pages. Thanks -- Shyam ^(T/C) 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Flamarande

I realized that I never sent you an E-mail despite your frequent edits on all the articles of the Roman civilization. Well, better late than never... Hi, I am Flamarande, I am a Roman-fan, and read alltoo much about ancient Rome. I am (somewhat) engaged in the reforms and improvements of the articles Western Europe, Barcid, SPQR, romanization (cultural), Roman republic, Roman empire, and, last but not least, Western Roman empire. I find that Wikipedia is fine idea , alltough far from perfect (as Jimbo also is). What I want of you? Well, nothing really, I am just saluting a fellow Roman-Fan. Flamarande 14:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Taranto

Ciao. A quali link esattamente ti riferisci? Sulla it:wiki, sia Taras (città) che Tarentum hanno un redirect a Taranto, mentre alcune voci contengono la sezione Voci correlate con il wikilink alla voce Storia di Taranto. Non sono d'accordo nel creare wikilink del tipo Taranto ---> History of Taranto. Ho creato la nuova voce proprio per standardizzare la navigazione attraverso le interwiki --Maximix 09:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mi riferisco al fatto che molti link a Taranto, sono in realtà link alla Taranto antica (vedi la storia romana). Ad esempio, è nella storia di Taranto che viene descritta ampiamente la guerra pirrica, e quindi i link a Taranto dovrebbero essere modificati in link alla History of Taranto in questi casi.--Panairjdde 10:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

AS Roma talk

You confuzzled me with your las entry, check again. Philc _T+C 01:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"I find it difficult to take them seriously". No, I did not confuse anyone, I really meant you. Just for your nformation, AS Roma has five kits, three for the league (red, white, and yellow) and two for the cups (white ang green).--Panairjdde 10:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have caused you some offence, in which case I apologize Philc _T+C 11:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid Empire

Thanks for copy editing. Ciao ! Amir85 18:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Carus.jpg

The image of Emperor Carus' coin states that it is from Tripolis mint, Tripolis is now a disambiguation page, at least 2 Tripolises had mints (Lebanon & Phrygia), perhaps others did as well. Could you please clarify which Tripolis is the source of the coin. Thanks. Carlossuarez46 21:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It should be Tripolis, Lebanon. Note, however, that a siungle scholar claims that it is Tripolis in Phyrgia.--Panairjdde 15:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Should we use it for Lebanon only? I find that there is always <one> scholar that takes a contrary position hoping that many years hence when he is "proven" right he gets some credit but makes no effort to advance his/her "proof". Carlossuarez46 22:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I already modified the page to Tripolis in Lebanon.--Panairjdde 23:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dènghiu

Ciao Pan,

volevo ringraziarti per il "bi-revert" ad Inno di Mameli. Pur avendo visto il "guaio" dalla watch list, quel "stringiamoci a corte" mi ha sinceramente avvilito (ma a corte di chi? :-(). Se dai un'occhiata ho anche cercato di contattare il tizio tanto per sapere cosa gli girasse nella testa. Nel frattempo io avevo iniziato a lavorare un po' off-line all'articolo (ma è tutto "fermo" da un bel po') e se l'incostanza non prende completo possesso di me ci saranno un bel po' di aggiornamenti, sia estetici sia di contenuto (compresa una minimale "analisi metrica" che però dovrebbe finalmente metter fine a questo andirivieni di stringiamci e stringiamoci -qualcuno metterà "stringiamiamoci" prima o poi-, che proprio non se ne può più...). Un saluto e... scusa lo sfogo!

--Gennaro Prota 15:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Figurati. Il vandalismo mi pareva evidente. Spero non sia davvero ignoranza (o stupidità) cambiare coorte in corte. --Panairjdde 09:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)