Last modified on 7 January 2013, at 14:32

User:FAEP/Archive/2012-12-31

Userboxes
de
en-3
es-1


Busy desk.svg This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

العربية | Беларуская‎ | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | বাংলা | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

User talk

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.


English | Magyar | +/−

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, FAEP!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

DucatiEdit

Hello :), i have undo your edit in Category:Ducati because the terms of contract are not yet final and it is not quite correct to categorize the category: Ducati as you did, it would take more than the category of industrial or financial group, not the car brand. if you can, please reply in my talk page mad then I forget :( ciao :) --Pava (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please give a trustworthy reference for your allegations.--FAEP (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
excuse my speech, but I've just accused of committing vandalism, that you're committing vandalism, and your behavior is in line with the philosophy of the commons. And I think that will not be the first contest. You're behaving like a "troll" on commons does not contribute in this way (just look at the history of the item to be aware of that crap you and your "alter ego" have combined)--151.64.17.38 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Definition RoadsterEdit

Hallo FAEP, eine kurze Recherche in verschiedenen Wikipedia-Sparchversionen ergibt, dass Roadster über ein zu öffnendes Dach verfügen. Soweit stimmt natürlich auch deine Einordnung unter Convertibles. De Facto werden aber auch Modelle ganz ohne Dach als Roadster (z. B. Aventador J) bezeichnet und einsortiert. Hast du eine Idee, wie wir wir das Problem lösen? Grüße --MB-one (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo MB-one, als Problem würde ich das nicht unbedingt bezeichnen; eher als einen weiteren Fall von "Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel". Da sind so gesehen die Damen und Herren der jeweiligen WP-Versionen in der Pflicht ihre Definition(en) was ein Roadster ist zu vereinheitlichen und vor allem zu aktualisieren. Zudem steht ja z.B. bei en.wikipedia/Roadster das Roadster "usually" (und nicht "always") ein softtop oder etwas ähnliches als Dach haben. Und die paar Roadster, die ganz ohne Verdeck daherkommen (Aventador J, SLR Stirling Moss, F360 Barchetta, Porsche 550 Spyder, der wunderschöne BMW 328 Hommage und ein paar weitere) sind naturgemäß recht dünn gesät, machen also IMO eher eine Sondergattung von Roadstern. Von daher könnte man für die paar (ob)dachlosen Roadster eine entsprechende Kategorie schaffen, aber auch diese Kategorie macht nur dann sinn wenn Sie als Unterkat. zu "Category:Roadsters" einsortiert wird. Grüße--FAEP (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Eine Einordnung in Roadster (und damit in Convertibles) wäre aber widersprüchlich. Weil diese Roadster eben genau nicht konvertibel sind, sondern aussschließlich offen. Darin sehe ich das Problem. Grüße --MB-one (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Ja, wirklich extrem widersprüchlich....vor allem wenn man bedenkt das es in über 90% der Fälle weder ein "Problem" noch "widersprüchlich" ist, aber gut, wenn man das ganze nur kleingeistig und engstirnig genug betrachtet hat man natürlich allerorten Probleme die an sich gar keine sind.
Um diese zeitverschwendende und unnütze Diskussion jetzt mal vom Hals zu haben, hab' ich die beiden Kategorien mal etwas separiert. Ich finde deine Einwände zwar nach wie vor verhältnismäßig kleinkariert, aber sei's drum....Ich wünsche dir noch eine ausgelassene (bevorstehende) Fußball-EM. Grüße--FAEP (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Tut mir leid: Eigentlich wollte ich wollte dich nicht belasten. Dachte aber dass ich mich besser mit dir abstimme, bevor ich alleine lospresche. Danke für deinen Einsatz. Gruß --MB-one (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fioravanti LF1Edit

hello :) you make my life difficult? : D I put those categories because it is a study of the safety car in Formula (Formula 1 category for this category and safety engineering) is a project made by BREMBO with Magneti Marelli and Pirelli together with FIORAVANTI and 3 show the logos of big of the sector. (For what I have characterized it that way) and is a concept vehicle so I categorized it as such :) Okay? I managed to convince you: D? if there are any problems write me in my talk please, thank you so much --Pava (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/INeverCryEdit

Please leave it for 'crat. RfA can only be closed by non-crat when it is withdrawn by candidates or obviously under snowball clause. I have reverted your actions as they are irrelevant here--Morning Sunshine (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Automobile spoilers and this image of Alfa Romeo MiToEdit

hello, I also initially thought that what in English is called spoiler but if you see the category known that they are all rear wings, the category that is close to that of the Mito framed in this photo is just "Splitter" as we do? please can you answer in my "Talk"? otherwise I forget. Ciao :) --Pava (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Pava,
Thanks for your notice on this.
1st: The most contributors keep a discussion where it started, so do I and hence I reply here. Just put this page on your watchlist, then you can see the changes I make here by taking a look in your watchlist, you'll find it at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist
Your initial thought was right, it is in fact a spoiler, or to be most precise a so called "lip spoiler". If it was a splitter this one would have to look like this black splitter mounted below the front bumper. I know that all those aerodynamic devices are pretty often very hard to differentiate, but in this case I'm absolutely sure that it's a lip spoiler. Best regards.--FAEP (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

RollbackEdit

Hey FAEP, are you interested in rollback rights? I noticed you're active in anti-vandalism and rollback would enable you to revert vandalism with one click. I was going through questionable unpatrolled edits in the recent changes and noticed many had already been reverted by you -- rollback also has the advantage of automatically marking the edits as patrolled, which makes recent changes patrolling more efficient. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jafeluv, thanks for the hint. Rollback sounds really interesting and pretty damn useful. And on account of the fact that vandalism is something like the "pain in the ass" of this project, I'm gladly helping so...yeah I'm interested. Regards, --FAEP (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done. You can find the policy regarding it at Commons:Rollback (basically, only use it for clear vandalism). If you have any questions, don't hesitate to let me know :) Jafeluv (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!--FAEP (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Automobile_engines_by_brand_by_modelEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Automobile_engines_by_brand_by_model has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Category:Fiat_twin_cam_enginesEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Fiat_twin_cam_engines has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!


беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Andy Dingley (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


COM:AN/UEdit

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−


float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Edit-warring and accusations of vandalism by FAEP. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Made in ItalyEdit

Hello FAEP, i have see your undo at Category:Made in Italy, the term "Made in Italy" is really a certificate of quality, a brand and a logo, and is right my classifications and categorizations. For more informations look here [1] and here [2]. thank you --Pava (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No Pava, you're wrong. It's just a merchandise mark indicating that a product has been manufactured in Italy; Nothing more, nothing less.--FAEP (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
if you have doubs "made in Italy" is third most well-known brand in the world [3] after coca cola and VISA. (in english source here: [4] site of "farnesina" site of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ) --Pava (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
sorry i dont have read first. My answer: no no is a brand, is a brand, the diciture "made in Italy" is a brand international rinnomated, and symbol of quality. is became "mark" --Pava (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Marketing agencies (in this case italian ones) may call this however they want (and so YOU may believe whatever you want), but if you stay with the facts (and so we do here on Commons) than it's just a merchandise mark. Everything else is marketing-speech or pubertal/national pride influenced POV.--FAEP (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 :( isn't POV, what is the promotions? nobody was promuoved by this, is a brand, the font is a mynister no marketing. uff uff where am I doing wrong? You understand what I mean? Advertising is not a recognized brand such as Coca-Cola --Pava (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
is [5] site of "farnesina" site of Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs ) is s the foreign ministry of the government of the Republic of Italy, no marketing agency :\ forgive me, but you're doing the tendentious --Pava (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
So you're trying to say that an italian ministry has no interest in promoting the countries products???--FAEP (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
have interest of rappresently the country, not promuoved, and is a affidable source, is a one of pricipal organ of govern of Italy, and I did not dare to say that a statement is of little weight as you're saying. if is became a brand, is became a brand, if is symbol of quality is simbol of quality. why do you think it's just a sham for promotional purposes? is a government agency, and if you allow between such a statement and your skepticism I give more weight to a government of one of the most important states of the EU and G8--Pava (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"one of the most important states of the EU and G8" Why didn't you just say: "The most important country in the entire galaxy?" I'm sure I do now fully understand what you're intentions were. You're just tryig to promote your beloved Italy. Sorry, wrong place! You may wan't to take a look at Facebook, it's a fine place for your advertising interests.--FAEP (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
-.- seen me show you, as always, unable to meet the user and create a constructive conversation in order to improve the commons, and not wanting to be right by force, and the fact that when you do not know the answer, ridicule and ruin a discussion with allusions also disrespectful, I address my reasons to someone else, and ask also consider this your behavior. It 's impossible that every time there is you have to ruin a productive pastime with your limited vision and your lack of consideration towards what you do not share. bye--Pava (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
<irony>Yeah I know, It's always the other one's fault, isn't it ;-).</irony>--FAEP (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
and be a autopatrolled member involves great responsibility and you will're failing, and I will speak with who gave you this way, because your every error is also its liability arising, and rollback so free with source are credited with a substantial responsibility to deal with. --Pava (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
You may undertstand it or not, but Commons is not the place for your advertising vandalism.--FAEP (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
my contributs are no vandalism, you hare you are prevented, and commons is "community" then the thought of commons: based sources and consensus is not based on the thought of FAEP and its skepticism --Pava (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes of course, everything around here has to be based on your mind. I already thought that.--FAEP (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
you are only a user, i am only a user, but i have a souce, and in spite of you to diminish or ignore this is a important and affidable source, much more substantial than your word against mine. his is what you have to understand, you will do something personal, non-deductible and you see what you want, but this is not the commons, if you want a place where var worth your ideas maybe it's better that you click on the link or you open facebook a blog, here is information is not a place for meetings. and now I leave you to the discussion, here you pretend not to understand, and I just want to spend time or contradict, and I have no time to lose. ( but I bring forward this issue with users available, do not be afraid) goodnight --Pava (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
EOD.--FAEP (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Black BMW sedansEdit

Thanks for the renaming--Pierpao.lo (listening) 21:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome.--FAEP (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mediterranean CuisineEdit

hello, I saw this your edit: [6], "incidentally" you forgot to mention the wikipedia in Italian, the fifth wikipedia with more articles. I hope this was your mistake not intentional, i do not want you to put deliberately into endagering your "Autopatrolled status". Thought to contribute well to the commons, rather than think of me ;). good continuation, ciao :). --Pava (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. Don't be ridiculous, Mr. sockpuppeteer.
  2. Take a look at the interwiki of this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_cuisine .--FAEP (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Posting problematic noticesEdit

Hello, the log shows that you've edited this edit on another editor's talkpage which in my view was misaddressed, and that edit was henced undone. You may of course express yourself in case you wish, and I attach here a message from User:Timeshifter that may possibly help you in the future. Cheerz, Orrlingtalk 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

FAEP. The template you used, Template:Dont remove warnings, is against Wikipedia policy, and was never approved as policy on the Commons. See the template talk page. See also en:WP:TALK. It is not required to keep anything on one's talk page. Users can remove anything from their talk pages, and they can do it without archiving it. Once the warning is noted then the warning no longer serves a purpose as concerns the user's interests. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

BlockedEdit

You have been blocked for 48 hours, along with Pava. I'm sorry I have to do this, but this and this are simply not acceptable, regardless of who is right. -- King of ♠ 11:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

{{Unblock|1=The block was instated more than 7 hours ago and two administators (Foroa and Jameslwoodward) agree with my position - regarding the categorization of the files that were affected by the edit-war. I request to be unblocked and agree to take no further steps that could leed to another edit war; I'm still sure I was right, nevertheless I chosed the wrong methods to support/defend my position. But please take on account the fact that my position was right, and that two long serving and respected admins support the categorization I suggested. Thank you in advance.--FAEP (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)}}

While I think that you might have the better side of the argument in most of the cases at issue, they are all subtle choices and I cannot agree that any of your choices were absolutely RIGHT and Pava's were absolutely WRONG. If it had been me against Pava in these cases, I would not even have bothered to bring in another opinion, but just moved on. The edit warring is far more destructive and wasteful of Commons resources than the question of whether something is a brake light or a rear light (or whatever -- I'm not sure I remember correctly). Therefore I think that the block is appropriate as a cooling down measure -- thank you KoH.
Please be assured that we value your almost 50,000 contributions to Commons and hope for many more, but edit warring is not acceptable and the next incident will bring a much longer block. .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Block expired, unblock request removed. --Martin H. (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

re: use sub-categoriesEdit

I know, but when i forget, i ask you to move to the more specific category, not delete the category. thank you --Pava (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You know the category scheme since some time now. Please use the relevant subcategories where necessary and act according to our catgeorisation guidelines. Thank you in advance.--FAEP (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

User:PavaEdit

It appears that you two have not learned any lesson from your blocks. Therefore I am indefinitely restricting you from edit warring with Pava until you can demonstrate that you can work with him. To be more precise (from a technical standpoint), you are disallowed from adding or removing categories on a file description that Pava has previously edited. -- King of ♠ 12:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Hi FAEP,

Thanks for improving the categorization on a few of my photos as you did, e.g., here. I love such small improvements to file pages. It is an oppurtunity for me to learn a lot of esoteric categories, I never knew existed. --Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Slaunger,
thank you for your notice. I guess there are a few more "esoteric" Categories some would'nt even believe to exist like this one etc. And BTW: really nice picture you shot of the old goddess in the "city of love" (although it didn't receive the FP promotion it deserved :-(. Best regards, and have a nice christmas!--FAEP (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello :) new categoryEdit

although there were frictions between us (but then, you are a user with whom I shared a long time and it's almost Christmas and I saw that you like pretty girls) so I wanted to show you this category that I did after I was at the motorshow Bologna. (I hope that it does not bother you). look here :) Category:Promotional models and auto racing girls at Bologna Motor Show 2012. If you like someone put it in your profile page as well :) --Pava (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)