The catholic encyclopedia isn't necessarily in the public domain, it depends on the edition you used (it is not cited). And the fact that the source isn't cited also brings problems of plagiarism into question. thank you for having swiftly answered. Aaaxs 13:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK then if you confirm that comes from the public domain version, and sources are cited there's no problem. Aaaxs 13:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMAGES FOR PALAZZOLO ACREIDE
just received this authorisation to use the images from www.palazzolo-acreide.it
certo che puoi utilizzarle... fai conto però che alcune immagini (le
gallerie del barocco, ad esempio) sono mie (Andrea Latina/Centro Studi
Iblei) e la maggior parte di quelle presenti sul sito sono dell'associazione
culturale Studi Acrensi.
IMAGES FROM www.comune.gerace.rc.it
Received authorisation for use the images from the site, provided origin is specified
Grazie per gli apprezzamenti rivolti al nostro sito.
Può usare le foto basta indicare la fonte.
Cordiali saluti
Loredana Panetta
june 26, 2006
Cordiali saluti
Andrea Latina
(RESUME): "of course you can use them"
asking for the possibilty to use images, I received this reply from the site webmaster:
Sono l'autore del sito, delle foto e dei testi.
Per Wikipedia senz'altro SI, la apprezzo molto, dovrei però sapere (anche
eventualmente a posteriori) in quali pagine sono state utilizzate.
Cordiali saluti.
Claudio de Tisi.
(June 162006)
(RESUME) "I author of the site I authorize the use of the images for Wikipedia, provided I will be informed about the pages they're used in."
I cleaned up Procida as well as I could. I am not sure that I interpreted everything correctly because some things were ambiguous, especially the section on folklore and traditions. You might want to take a look at the changes.
Also, I'm not sure what this is saying, "The population was sheltered on the cape of the Earth, naturally defended from walls to peak on the sea and later on more times fortified, changing therefore the name in Earth Bulwark." I think the first part is about the island or the cape of the island providing natural protection, but I don't know what "walls to peak on the sea" means. A bulwark is a "barricade of beams and soil used in 15th and 16th century fortifications designed to mount artillery." So, I guess it is saying that the fortifications were later increased by building a bulwark. However, I don't understand what the name change is about (they changed the name of the cape to Earth Bulwark?). It might be good to translate that one manually. -- Kjkolb 13:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The population was sheltered on a point of land, naturally defended by the cliffs that fell away towards the sea, and was later fortified many times, giving it the name Fort Land. or Bastion, or Bulwark land. (The name is best left in the local language and given and explanation. Terra is used in Italian names where in English it would be -hill, -land, -borough, or -ville.)
Hello, I noticed you have recently created a template for towns in Messina. There has recently been a Wikiproject started for Sicily: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sicily. Maybe you would be interested in joining. There has been a lot of work going on to Wikify all of the towns in Sicily. More information on this aspect of the project can be found at: List of Sicilian municipalities.
For example, there have been new categories created for Sicilian comunes. Specifically, each town should be placed in [[Category:Municipalities of the Province of ***]] (add whatever Province the comune is in). [[Category:Towns in Sicily]] and [[Category:Cities in Sicily]] are no longer used. Anyway, great work on the Messina template, and I encourage you to get involved in the Sicily Wikiproject.- AKeen 18:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:87.29.89.217 does not result blocked on his page. Let me know, he has vandalized a lot of pages in a few minutes. Attilios 09:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, he's blocked; you can tell by looking at the block log, linked on his Special:Contributions/87.29.89.217 page, here: [2]. It's just the message on his userpage wasn't there; I just popped one down. ~ PseudoSudo 09:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was the work on the Procida and Antonello da Messina articles acceptable? If so, I can work on other articles when I get a chance. Just let me know what they are. Talk to you later, Kjkolb 14:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is in reply to your message left on my talk page: Certainly, I will take a look at them later today. Thanks for your valuable contributions to the Dalmatian article. Regards, Accurizer 11:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, Attilio Funel, give myself this deserved barnstar for the adding and creations of hundreds of templates and infoboxes in the sectors of sports and geography.Attilios 11:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll take a look. Might I enlist your help for a plan I have to categorize all Italian politicians according to party and/or state (for those of the pre-Risorgimento)? I took my time with it because I have felt compelled to copy-edit them as I assigned them cats, and may also get it wrong with earlier parties etc. Plus, my Italian sucks (I understand virtually all, but I still need a dictionary to get by - and I can't speak it or write it). Dahn 13:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my edits are ok. Could you proof-read it? Thanks. Dahn 22:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Attilios. I have completed them. Yes, you most certainly deserve a rest, as there was evidence of fatigue from mixing up a few of the events. I like that barnstar for template - by the way, I still have more template edits than you - according to the toolserver! [3].
Also, with all of your long historical/geographical articles, there are often interesting and unusual facts - you can nominate these to be included on the front page at Template talk:Did you know
I intend to write an article on Ranulf soon. I will look over the Alife article in more depth later. What does (CE) mean? Srnec 21:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be familiar with the procedures regarding recategorization; I'm afraid you've been a bit overbold in removing category:Forza Italia politicians from articles. If you don't like a category, you are explicitly not supposed to empty it. Rather, you list it on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, and let people debate the change. --Trovatore 16:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response on my talk page (let's keep discussion in one place). --Trovatore 16:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you went and removed the category from Silvio Berlusconi again. As I have explained to you, this is incorrect procedure. You really are not supposed to do this, whether that's a nice thing to say or not. Please desist from this behavior. --Trovatore 18:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Attilios - it would be great if you could sign up for the above project - if nothing else, to lend some moral support! Salutamu. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will admit that Americans are, by and large, a provincial and chauvinistic lot, but, that said, there is no need to replace useful information like the birthplace of Bill Belichick as you did here. In general it seems to me that if a subject's place of birth is given in linked form (Nashville, Tennessee), as it was here, there is little need to add their nationality, as a reader unfamiliar with the location named can simply click on it and discover that Nashville is in the US. Similarly, as an American reader, it wouldn't bother me in the least to have an article that informed me that a subject was born in Modena or Palermo omit the nationality-- not only because of the linked form of the information, but also because, oddly enough, I know where those places are without hyperlinking, just as there are doubtless a few Italians who know what country New York, California, and even Tennessee are in. If you want to add "an American x" to all articles on Americans, that's fine, but please don't remove information while you're at it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Sorry, I missed the fact that you moved the place of birth further down in the article. Nevertheless, I still feel that with a wikilinked birthplace, explicitly stating nationality is of minor importance. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "the thing about specifying nationality is stated in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style guideline page." Thanks, I was unaware of that. It's interesting, though-- on the same Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) page where it indeed indicates that nationality should be given, it cites several pages as, one assumes, good examples of biography, that don't actually come out and say "X is a Y". See, for example, Fidel Castro, who it says "...has been the leader of Cuba...". The Cleopatra article states only that she was "was a queen of ancient Egypt." Also Bill Clinton was "...the 42nd President of the United States...". The articles on Lucy Washington and Boris Karloff fail to give any direct statement of nationality.
It seems to me that saying that a person was "born in Rome" or "born in Athens" or "lives in New York City" is the equivalent of saying "Italian", "Greek" or "American".
I was about to add "I will raise this question explicitly on the MoS (biographies) Talk page" so I took a look at it-- it turns out that there is quite an extensive discussion of the subject there already, though from a somewhat different point of view. I may add a new heading to deal with the above, though, which is a somewhat different view of the question.
Thanks for raising the issue, -- Mwanner | Talk 23:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help but consider that this is partly related to the header on my talk page. Thank you for your help in this respect, my fellow European! Dahn 11:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing which I find perplexing is that, when the Brits do bother to refer to the nationality of the article topic, they link to Britain (which leads to a healthy disambig). It's like they don't know what country they themselves inhabit. Don't mean to clog your page, Attilios, but I had to get this off my chest... :) Dahn 11:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I made some changes in the Renato Zero article, but there was one sentence I didn't really know what to do with: "It is noteworthy that Zero's success was obtained with almost no airing of his song(s?) on Italian radio." Does this mean he was ignored throughout his career, or does it refer only to one particular song? Cheers, David Sneek 12:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC) p.s.: Yes, I'd like to start a new chess game![reply]
Minor proofread done - well done - a fascinating article - I'm now interested in chasing down some of his music! A prestu. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message on my talk page, and sorry for the delay in replying. I am generally in favour of making the Italy comune pages somewhat consistent, and I’ll certainly adopt the templates you suggest for commune and and province boxes. (There’s a range of alternatives being used, as you know, and it will certainly be helpful if everyone sticks to the same one.)
The navigation template I did for communes in Province of Alessandria turns out to be pretty similar to the ones you have been making, so I don’t see a problem there. (The main differences are that it includes all comuni in the province, and that it does the job of putting the comune for which it’s used into the relevant category.)
On standardizing content I wouldn’t want to be too rigid. I agree that
Geography
History
Main Sites
Transportation
is a handy checklist, and that in many cases it may do as the actual structure. But how one actually wants to structure an article will in practice depend a lot on the town in question. The (English) town where I live, for instance doesn’t have a single ‘site’ in a touristic sense. Nevertheless, anyone writing about it would certainly want to describe the built environment and point to some particular buildings—both extant and lost. (It’s for the most part a nineteenth-century railway town, built almost from scratch in a fairly consistent architectural style which would need to be described.)
Anyway, what I am saying here is all pretty obvious no doubt. I’ve often seen your work on Wikipedia and have been very impressed.
I thought you might be interested: I expanded the article based on other Wiki articles, but it could still use more. Srnec 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Attilios! Are you sure the adjective "Trentine" exists? I thought - based on Britannica 1911 - that only Tridentine existed in English. (also... in the chess game, perhaps White could play c4; I'd add my reasons, but... public discussion of suggestions are counterproductive at the Royal game!) --Tridentinus 13:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the article on the Prince-Bishop of Trento. The adjective seems a neologism, unheard of in English. Shouldn't ib be corrected? (A quick search brings up many more examples... almost a to-do list for me!) --Tridentinus 07:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prayers are POV. I think, for example, a Muslim user could find them as propaganda. They cannot have place in a neutral encyclopedia. Sorry.
Nonsense. To put the shoe on the other foot, Muslim prayers would be perfectly appropriate in articles on Muslim religious subjects. Lex orandi, lex credendi. The prayers of a faith say much about what that faith believes on a subject. They are also by their nature literary, poetic, musical, and often historical compositions. There is absolutely no reason at all to uniformly censor them from articles where they're both informative and relevant. TCC(talk)(contribs) 04:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Easter Island cave.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Easter Island cave.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to know what the Dante line meant on this edit. It appeared very random and strange to me, so I removed it..
Downwards 22:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that you tagged Quero for wikification today. The sole sentence has been wikified; could please explain why the tag remains? Folajimi 20:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, I suggest you undo that action. How will the issue ever get fixed if you hide it from plain view? Folajimi 20:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is your decision whether or not you choose to undo the action. If the idea of hiding poorly written information is downright counterproductive. If is really as bad as you said, you should have used the {{cleanup}} tag instead. I seriously doubt you are the only person here who is of Italian descent; if you really believe that, well... Folajimi 20:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou vey much for this Attilios. It's a great honour. Also, good job on the DYK you have submitted. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao Attilios - absolutely terrific work all round. I'll proofread all the Sicilian subjects you do, not only to pick up small things here and there, but most importantly, because they're always great to read! Salutamu. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These uploads certainly add much value to the encyclopedia, but it would be helpful if the licensing were clearer. It's not credible that [4] has released their work into the public domain without any corroboration. You say "auth. given in it.wikipedia.org permission pages". It would be far more helpful if you could provide a direct link to where authorization is given so we can all see it. I poked around on the it.wikipedia.org for a while and could not find "permission pages" there anymore than I could here. (It doesn't help that my Italian is fairly rudimentary.) TCC(talk)(contribs) 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that helps a lot. But please sir, tag them correctly when you upload them and it will save everyone a lot of work. It seems they have not been released to the public domain; rather, Bruno said merely that they were free to use. That's not the same thing. It appears he's approving of the GFDL -- he doesn't specify what version so probably {{GFDL}} would be appropriate. He also required that attribution be preserved particularly in the cases of images created by Massimo Ghirardi and Carletto Genovese, as usually required by that license anyway. They cannot be tagged public domain. (Despite this, I note they're tagged on the Italian wiki as "fair use" with something similar to {{Coat of arms}}. It would be better if they were tagged {{GFDL}} since the owner gave permission. It's a much stronger justification for use than "fair use".) TCC(talk)(contribs) 09:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao Attilio! Non c'e problema, lo faccio oggi se ho tempo, ma ti debbo dire che il mio inglese non e troppo meglio del tuo!! Ci vidiamo. Mariano(t/c) 08:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eco, ho editato quelli articoli che mi hai detto di migliorarne. Non so se il risultato e troppo meglio, ma sono altri utenti chi possono editarli dopo. Ci sono anche alcuni dati nuovi, ti prego che li controlli. Se hai bisogno di qualcun'altra cosa, dimi senza problema. Saluti! Mariano(t/c) 11:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Birolli nudo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Tiber Island.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Santo Stefano Rotondo stampa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for editing my input into the article, I am still new to this! One of the reasons that I felt the NATO base was important to mention is that its relvant to the city's decline :-( and because it was a steady source of empolyment for some people(Italians as well as Americans). Also, its part of the history of the city. I plan on doing some resreach and adding a little more about the base, but I promise to keep it short and relivant. Thanks for your time!
Ciao! Just a short note to tell you not to use accents in the categories' sorting as you did at Juan Gimenez. Unlike other wikipedia language projects (say, Italian wikipedia), the sorting of articles within a category puts acentuated vowels after the Z, so if you tag 2 articles as Cámela, Benito and Cornette, Bonifacio, Cornette will be before Cámela, because it interpretates the accentuated á as an especcial character. Therefore, we simply write the names without any accentuation. No big deal, but causes some headaches. Take care, and good wiking! Mariano(t/c) 08:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link you added does not even contain a sub title that involves your argument. Why don't you create an article (seperate one) and tell us about that invasion. After that it would be a nice addition, like the bakan wars.--OttomanReference 17:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about a military activity, you need to add sides, battles, ect. Redirect do not do a good, as I have seen couple books that tell about that invasion. Currently it is missing from wikipedia. Check First Balkan War. If you can create a page like First Balkan War, that would be nice.--OttomanReference 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope, I could have some help. My background on this issue does not extent much, sadly. However, if you do not mind the tone of the article needs a little work. It reads as a sided article, against the Italian gov. What is the reason of having a picture of this sort? Do we need to see such picks, what does it add to the article? I can see a need of this picture, onlyif you are telling that the opposition was of no income (no uniforms, no ammunition, etc) but extensive military capabilities.--OttomanReference 19:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is nice. If I find military history book that covers that period from Turkish sources, I will add to it. However, for the pic I have problems with (real) pics of dead people, regarding minors. Please, give substantial explanation of the pic under it (caption). Such as where, why or what purpose. I believe you have kids, too. --OttomanReference 19:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Joop Zoetemelk.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Joop Zoetemelk.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You kind of sent me a random message out of blue regarding Vandalizing Trento. I hadn't even looked at that Topic. I was looking at German Unification. I just thought I would say that I did not do it.
I've listed Image:Marbled cat.gif at Possibly unfree images, since it has no source (it's also tagged for that), and thus no reason to think it's public domain. Even if it's on many websites the copyright for it probably still belongs to someone. Chick Bowen 00:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers[edit]
Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 18:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Breaststroke upper.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Breaststroke upper.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading Image:Ronnie_Peterson.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
user:Attilio has recently been created - and made a few non-notable edits. You did have that user page redirecting to yours but I have deleted the redirect - I am sure you would wish to disassociate yourself. -- RHaworth 11:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you oppose the move from Padua, Italy to Padua? There are no other cities named Padua so there is no need for the ", Italy". The articles on other Italian cities are just the name itself. See my and also Wetman's comments on Talk:Padua. SCHZMO✍ 21:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you did. I have made Padua, Italy into a redirect again and put the revised infobox on Padua. SCHZMO✍ 21:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When editing such articles as Michelangelo, which are prone to being vandalized every other minute, it is highly recommended to check whether your edits were not preceded by vandalism. I just reverted vandalism that your minor edits seemed to perpetuate. If you think they are important, you are welcome to reintroduce them. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that. I was just trying to help standardise the Italian communes articles, but I am no expert on the information pertaining to them unfortunately, I was only doing the technical part. I just noticed that many did not have the infobox so I decided that at least it should be added. Thanks for cleaning up, I now know who to turn to in case there is information missing :-) thanks for offering your help, with kind regards Gryffindor 13:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ciao Attilio! I saw that in the image Image:Easter Island cave.jpg you describe a copyright-free image, as it expired 20 years after its first publication in Italy. In Argentina is pretty much the same, so we created the {{PD-AR-Photo}} copyright tag. I suggest you take a look at it, and create your own copyright tag for Italian copyright-expired images, so you can use it everywere, and ask for the tag to be added to the copyright-menu at the Upload image page.
One more thing, you should rather upload such images at commons: (you'll have to make an user to upload), since they will be available to all the wikipedias (Italian, English, Spanish, etc), and not only to the English. Also create the tag at commons. If there's something you didn't understand, or would prefer me to do it, leave me a message. Ci sintiamo, Mariano(t/c) 07:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When uploading images from other language Wikipedias, please provide the original source. Stating the image is from the Italian Wikipedia is not adequate and does not help us determine copyright status. --Hetar 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just letting you know i deleted what you had written on User:87.29.89.217 user page, even if he is a vandal i don't think it is really right to use his own user page to write derogatory stuff about him, seemed abit mean, so i removed it, hope you don't mind :D
(btw, i do not support this user in any of his actions of vandalism, vandalism is wrong and should not be done)
D
anyway, thank you for reading this message, hope you don't mind.
Matthew 23:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (megamatthew(.A.T)hotmail.com)[reply]
Are the names of Piacenza you just deleted inaccurate? Badagnani 07:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Palazzo Farnese detail.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Palazzo Farnese detail.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Could You please write under the images who is in it. feydey 16:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I edited also Image:Romeo Menti.jpg, hope You like it. Keep on editing and I'll wish luck for Italy in the 2006 FIFA World Cup, less than a week away. P.S. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. feydey 17:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Sergio Gori.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. feydey 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly the source is not correct, secondly You say: "the photo from Italy older than 20 years ARE Public Domain everywhere" — how can anyone verify that, if You do not provide a source (where it says this and this took this photo in this year) just You saying so doesn't make the image 20 years or older. Please add appropriate sources, Wikipedia respects copyrights. feydey 16:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked here www.solocalcio.com/ gallery/azzurri/Testine27.htm (the source You gave) and did I not find that image, please add a source. feydey 17:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for adding source to the page where the image is. I will add also who is in the image. Thanks. feydey 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Unimportant' is a relative, even subjective qualification. For example, while Aquileia patriarchate was the most important institution in that city, any bishopric is at the very least relevant as the context of its cathedral and other religious buildings. Ignoring the 'less important' bishoprics is as un-encyclopaedic as leaving out the 'less important' provinces, communes etcetera. Fastifex 19:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't protect articles unless you're an admin. This includes sprotection. Can you stop adding {{sprotected}} to article please? Thanks. Also, try typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your posts on talk pages, it autodates for you. --Lord DeskanaDark Lord of the Sith 20:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Organize photos as you did caused unwanted images overlap. This happen when you visit the page using Netscape or Firefox as browsers.Please check out what you do before posting. Thank you
R Clemens 14:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Attilios, and thanks for your message, and for disambiguating Gavi.
Yes I always enjoy working on Italy-related articles because it forces me to read texts in Italian, and I harbour the hope that one day I will achieve some facility in the language. (Non parlo Italiano, ma posso ne leggere un po'.) (I am sure that there were ten mistakes in those nine words!)
I should say that I read your article on the Libyan war and and found it very good. Congratulations! (Italian history on the Wikipedia is so far usually very bad, as I am sure you will have spotted.) Did you know, by the way, that Mussolini and Nenni campaigned against the war, called for a general strike and were imprisoned? A fact that, according to Denis Mack Smith, Mussolini later tried to suppress.
One final thing, the ‘Template:province of XXX’ templates quite often have the problem (at least for users of Safari) that they overlap the city info box. It looks awful. The solution is to start with
Thanks for the pointers. I will try my best. Gioto 08:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I also re-added the link to the marriage index as it is how I found this page while researching my ancestry. Gioto[reply]
Hi Attilios, I thought you may give me a suggestion. When a comune has the name of two towns (like Ortignano-Ragggiolo) or the comune has officially the name of a village, but is really centered and lives in a town in a different place (like the comune of Castel San Niccolò, that really is the comune of Rassina), what should I do? Simply select the comune where the town hall is, or keep in mind the official name (and so also describe the whole area covered by the comune)? I've got these problems with the province of Arezzo.--Aldux 11:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You no doubt are well intentioned , but every time you touch one of my articles you make a bloody mess because you obviously don't check the entire thing to see what you've actually done.
In the Michelangelo article, you lost a paragraph and some corrections.
In the Architecture article the headings are now a mixed bag with no consistencey whatsoever. So that minor sections now have major headings and some things have no headings at all. .
The two cathedral plans have lost their formatting abnd don't show at all.
And the contents list is a mile long.
It will take 15 minutes to fix the whole thing
Why don't you learn to use the Show Preview option and then really LOOK to see what you've achieved. If you've lost a paragraph in trying to loose a bullet, then it isn't worth doing, is it?
I don't know whether you got me previous message, but after you had corrected my "Style" you left behind you about a dozen inconsistencies and things that didnt work, because you'd failed to delete my formatting and put the standard formatting around it, or done the formatting on one sid of the wodr only etc etc etc.
You obviously didn't use the preview to see the effect of what you'd done. That is clear!
Because if you saw the mess you mmade, I presume you would have fixed it. Now I wish you'd go back and check the effects of your LAST lot of changes. Because there are problems again.
I have taken on board the fact that bullets and bold don't seem to belong to to the format. I'll leave them out in future.
BUT let me explain the rationale for some of my formatting.
1. Some of the subject sub-headings are of considerable importance, eg Names of Architectural epochs under the heading of Style, Names of countries under a heading of Regional Styles. These are the things that the writer wants to appear in the Contents List.
2. Other subject headings are less important- eg the various object within th Cathedral do not warrant as much emphasis as the Style. They don' really need sub-headings that appear in the index.
But if you really want an index that is a kilometre long and gives no indication of the significance of the topic, then leave them there, in the interest of Style!
But if you are going to INSIST on getting the Style absolutely standard, them please try to GET IT RIGHT. Don't walk off and leave it in a mess like it is now, OK?!
OK! I'll fix it again, But please go back to the point at which you left it on the previous occasion and I can assure you, you will understand why I was agro.
The heading Mausoleum is not a heading to a paragraph of examples of centrally-planned buildings. It's the heading to a paragraph about how the centrally-planned mausoleum influenced church architecture. Please look at it in context.
The heading Basilicas is not a heading of greater importance than the others listed beneath influences. It's not about Christian Basilicas. It's about how the Roman Basilica influenced Christian church plan, as did the mausoleum, the atrium, the bema etc. Again, please look at it in context.
In each case, I only describe one building and I don't describe it in detail. Did you read the rationale?
The reason why Pisa was selected was that it represents very well certain characteristics which are typically Italian, rather than typicall Romanesque. THIS wqs the point of comparison.
OK, It looks nothing like St Mark's and not much like il Duomo Firenze. But what do they have in common?
Polychrome. Typical of Italy, not France, Not England, not Spain, rarely Germany.
Free standing tower. Typical of Italy, not France, not Germany, only a few in Spain and ONE in England.
Dome over the crossing. Typical of Italy, two in Southern France, none in Germany before Romanesque, one in England before 19thC, few in Spain before Romanesques
And so on.
You need to read the section heading and try to take in what that section of the article is actually on about before you make changes. I'm going to keep on saying this.
I think it's high time that I looked up your articles to see with what logic and style one ought to be constructed.
Hi Attilios!
Frankly, when I looked at the page that you had editted for style, I thought it had been vandalised. Seriously. What I wrote to you, above was an explanation of my annoyance. As for looking at your pages, because you are concerned about Style, I would expect to see a good example of how to do it appropriately. I'm still learning. Ther eare a great many skills in using this program, that I have to remember or look up in another window continually, and its frustrating.
Anyway, now I've found out how to send messages!
I have to also confess, that at my age, the arrogance of youth offends me somewhat. I'm offended when someone sorts out my style, loosing my content and says, oh well, if you really want your paragraph, you can put it back.
I simply wouldn't do that sort of thing myself. It is rude. If I lost good quality content unintentionally while editting style, I would fix it. Rather than leaving it to the person who had written it to fix.
You talk about courtesy, but don't seem to see that actions indicate courtesy as well as words, written or spoken. Telling me you'd fixed my style but stuffed my content wasn't courteous, either way.
The main problem was, you hadn't fixed the style. It was in a total muddle! Please go back to that point, look at what actually happened to the page, and (considering that I am an inexperienced user,) try to get a handle on what I thought when I saw it. It took me quite a while to fix it, because I'm slow. When you've had a look at it, you will understand why I was cross.
As for my adding the See also bits, Yes, that was done as a direct response to your suggestion. The links were already there, where it said, Lists of Cathedrals, but placing the links idividually made them more accessible. It was a good idea.
The other thing that I have done correct it to the Wiki style because, although I can see good reason for the method that I employed, I can also see that other users will correct it repeatedly, if it doesn't fit. It's fixed, OK?!
I also had a perfectly polite message from someone who explained why it's pointless to put in gaps here and there. Very useful and taken on board.
I am not really difficult. Perhaps I need to change my name. I haven't come across another female here yet. What have you blokes done to scare them off?
--Amandajm 11:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC) but you can call me Nonna[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Sora.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Would you believe that the Maderna spelling comes from none other than Banister Fletcher which is the old Bible of architectural history. I had Maderno and was checking some details and found that spelling. My spelling is not good at the best of times, so I proptly changed it.
What has me puzzled is this, if you used a program to sort out the editting, then one would expect that the results would have been completely consistent. I wonder what went wrong?
My only hesitation in adding more pics to that page is that its very long already. It would be effective though because it would indicat the way a regional features can predominate in someways over International style.
I'll do it and see how it works out. Thanks for the suggestion.
Yes, it's me again..... or should I say (correctly) It is I!
I don't speak Italian. I can read it just a little, but if you have an article that has been automatically translated, or written by someone for whom Enlish is a second (or third) language, I have an excellent grasp of my own language, its roots and it's possibilities. I also have an Italian/English Dictionary and a Latin/English Dictionary which comes in very handy. I had a little go at Procida, based on what was there, and left it for you to look at under that heading. If I can help, it would be a pleasure.
Hi Attilios. I notice you are still tidying up and have reduced some pics. Does that make it work better on different browsers or what?
What I want to do is put in a little gallery under each region.
I tried to do it last night with Florence, Siena, Palermo and Milano. Tried and tried and couldn't make it work! I got the boxes and the info, but couldn't make the pics show in the boxes! would you like to have a try?
Or tell me what I was doing wrong?
Hi again, and sorry for the delayed answer. I had problems with a sentence which was not very clear in the PUP article, an dI rephrased it as "In January of 1977, the Manifesto and former-PSIUP affiliates left the party due to the failure in creating an all-left government". Was this the sense it had, or did I botch it? I could not really figure its exact meaning in Italian either... Dahn 11:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that they had agreed to forming a pan-left, or that they were simply dissappointed in the elections results? Dahn 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then there is no need to rephrase it, unless both of our guesses are wrong. Dahn 11:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a copy-edit on the article and, since you were the most recent major contributor, I thought I should warn you! I was interested to see (at last) an explanation of Giuseppe Tomasi’s title, and intrigued to read that ‘the fauna and flora of Lampedusa are similar to those of North Africa.’ Does that mean that there were once gattopardi on the island? —Ian Spackman 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, the Cathedral Architecture of Western Europe is looking great, don't you think. I was hesiatnt to put in so many pics, but I think it works. I love the Palermo Cathedral pic..
On the score of St Andrews, i understan why you objected to my POV, but the sentence that you have replaced it with -
For visual reasons, the Communion Table was replaced by a Great Bible of 1539, when Henry VIII ordered that every church should have a bible in the English language. This is in keeping with the Sydney Anglican Church's emphasis on the Word of God as providing all that is needed for Salvation.
- is simply not true. The book wasn't put there for visual reason. It theology/Philosophy. You have no idea what the Sydney Dioces is like. Go and look at Anglicann Church in Sydney. Look at my additions and see what's been done. When the Syndney press (Sydney Morning Herald is the Australia-wide broadsheet) talk about the Sydney Mafia, they don't mean gun-toting Sicilian migrants. They mean gently spoken charismatic Evangelical churchmen.
So I gotta get onto that article again fast and express it better.
Ciao!
Nonna--Amandajm 09:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just noticed!! Sydney didn't exist when Henry made that proclamation. You silly man!
G'Day!
Why is it that every time I turn my back on you, you sneak another Italian Cathedral onto that page! Yeah! Spoleto is fantastic as well! Gotta print out my son's maths homework! Ciao!
Hi, Attilio. I did clean up some of the language (in actuality there wasn't a lot to do) and just wanted to let you know, as you had requested. You do quite well with English for a non-native speaker. I also, added a place for his father but haven't had the time to research him or make any additions. Regards, Steve... Stevenmitchell 10:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edits there. You see, Mori and Mohri are two different names, and it's a bad idea to mix the two together. WhisperToMe 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answer on my talk page JoJan 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the Military history WikiProject![edit]
Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific nations or periods.
Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look. What a fantastic church! Would you believe that in the 1960s I was teaching at the school of St Nicholas of Myra, in Penrith, west of Sydney. After that I went to teach at St Aidan's, Rooty Hill, where about 75% of the children were of migrant families, most of them Maltese. I had three Joe Vellas in my class.
Anyway... to get on! I will do a little editting on what you have written . I don't know what or even whether there is an English name for the nuns' gallery. There may be a French term which has passed into English, but I don't know of it. So we leave it in Italian, with your explanation, which is just fine.
One point, in English the full colon : is not employed between sections of a sentence. You can use a semi colon ; . The colon is usually only used when you have written the introduction to a list.
Mostly, I think it's best if you just start a new sentence.
I haven't heard back whether you like what I did to your article on St Nicholas of Bari. Are you doing exams?
Hey, you have another disgruntled person, has sent you a message! (disgruntled is a very good English word, don't you agree? I wonder what "gruntled" means? I don't think I would like to be gruntled!) I think you need to check out the program you use to do formatting, because, like I said, all sorts of strange things happened to the Cathedrals article! I just writing about "Poor Man's Bible". Hope to hear from you soon!
Yeah, I'll check out some more cathedrals and images when I need more pics for this one. Hey, how about I check out the English grammar in the other article!
License tagging for Image:CanosadiPuglia-Stemma.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:CanosadiPuglia-Stemma.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm indeed not against the idea in principle, but only where it makes sense, not as a silly bannishment just because someone doesn't like matters ecclesiastical- then I would throw out sports teams, etc. etc. The case of Lyon is very different from Camerino, and probably most Italian dioceses (there are extremely many, hence generally extraordinarily small compared to other Catholic countries), as Lyon is already a rather large article, and its uniquely styled primate of primates one of the major archbishoprics in all Europe: both are important enough to clearly deserve separate articles, while Camerino is and seems to be staying little more then a stub even without a split; in the case of minor episcopal sees in France, no split is made either. A special case is when the bishops were major actors in a city/region's political history, as in prince-bishoprics. When in other cases a split off is justified from an otherwise substantial page, which may very well occur (major sees and cities), please follow the 'French' example by not naming it ecclesiastical history (which only makes sense as section title within a city article) but bishopric viz. archishopric, as it can then ideally also accomadtae later additions on the present church jurisdiction; a few such multi-subject diocesan articles already exist, but they seem rare. Fastifex 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've recieved your message, User:Attilios, and yes, I can see the reason for the moves and will help if I can. It's not about being anything against anything in particular, Fastifex, it's more about being against having too particular information based on a particular point of view in (voir overwhelming) an article that's supposed to be a general resumé. Please show some consideration and start new articles for such particular information - especially in the light of the fact that, as you note above, such articles are lacking. THEPROMENADER 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did the same thing with a lot of French comumnes. The main problems as I see them are:
The text is a solid mass of indigestible information - I don't think even Fastifex makes any attempt to actually break it down into relevant sections etc.
There is a lot of totally irrelevant information (detailed names of all the names of the different wings of some long-since demolished boarding school etc)
There is a lot of information which is simply far too detailed for a general article on the commune. What Bishop X wrote to Bishop Y in 1549 probably didn't shape the city in any significant way.
The style and tone is completely un-Wikipedia-like and almost unreadable, and he doesn't seem to make any effort to fix that.
What would you like me to do about it exactly? Stevage 15:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Pianeta-sconosciuto.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Pianeta-sconosciuto.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I created the wikipedia page to add information about my wifes home village, and I do not mind at all that other users are improving the page.
However, your modifications do not only make a complete mess, you also delete information that I find important.
I hope you can in the future show some respect for others attempt to expand Widipedia.
You seem to be removing information on Kerman's work as R Bolla, for example his appearance in Debbie Does Dallas. I'm fairly sure that more people have seen him in pornography than then sum total of all his cannibal movies. I have nothing against adding more on the Italian film career, but we shouldn't remove information on what he is more popularly known for. AnonEMouse(squeak) 13:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I added it back, and hope the style is acceptable. AnonEMouse(squeak) 14:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, your rework looks much better. I apologize for the formatting screw ups---personally I'm a big fan of "clear", as I think it can make articles look more professional, but in this case you're right about the blank space. I was going to go back and try to fix things by adding more content, but I've been laid up with what feels like the plague for the past several days, so thanks for at least fixing the appearance! —Ryan McDaniel 15:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Attilios. Thank you for your kind words. Actually, if you check all of the Vancouver Island articles, you'll see that they mention Canada in the very first line of each one. I appreciate the feedback! -- Juxtatype 05:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I wonder if it might be better to have the article—there’s one ready, waiting to be saved—at Tino? I really don’t see the point of the current redirect to Tina, and we have no other article of the same name. Cheers!—Ian Spackman 10:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I’ve made it Tino (island). Not a very interesting article; but then it’s not a very interesting island: a rather dull (possibly legendary) saint, a lighthouse, and not much else! —Ian Spackman 12:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message last week. I have just worked out how to reply to you, hence the delay. However I looked the infobox was overlapping the contents. I think I may have sorted it now, at least a bit. See what you think. Itsmejudith 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Lissone-Stemma.png[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Lissone-Stemma.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Chilean F-5F Tiger 2.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 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. Denniss 08:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did I forget the italics. Well, that is weird. I appreciate Guida's works but they sure don't drop me a sense of humour like the films with Edwige Fenech do. Probably due to the absence of Renzo Montagnani. If you wanna have a look, you may check my recent edits at Lilli Carati page too. Well, anyway...Ciao!--Behemoth 22:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to hear that you ain't asleep yet. You see, we don't have a particular attention in Italian cinema here at Wiki, so I had to put those further info on her filmography, for I assume none else of the users would bother to write separate articles on those films...--Behemoth 22:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will you care to initiate an article for Amatrice which one of the articles I started refers to? That is Sugo all'amatriciana --Behemoth 23:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on The Disquieting Muses and thanks for the kind words about the Metaphysical Interior articles! Justin Foote 23:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Messina Annunziata dei Catalani.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Messina Annunziata dei Catalani.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Some names of Croatian Communes were in bold because they had grad status : if you wish to change this, then it's your right under the GFDL, but please don't blame me for taking the trouble to make a navigational template where none existed before. Physchim62(talk) 12:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The permission that you have recieved from http://www.lamiasardegna.it/ is not compatible with the GFDL: such images should be marked as fair use, with full source details and a fair use justification. Physchim62(talk) 12:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mhhmhm... Why did you add the POV mark to Valentino Zeichen? Maybe did you suspect he wrote it by himself? Of course not. If you check the Internet you'll find a lot of reference to him. He publishes little, mainly due to his extravagant behaviour, but it weel respected by at least Italian literature establishment. Ciao! User:Attilios
The {{pov}} tag was not because I thought the article was written by its subject, but because it contains a number of point of view statements such as:
"and has been suggested that his true name would be Giuseppe Mario Moses, an almost certainly Jewish surname."
this statement needs a source and the speculation about whether it is a Jewish name is highly POV
"Zeichen's poetry has been praised for his quick catch on the reader, and the subtle sense of humour underlining it. He is considered among the finests poets today in Europe. A literary award entitled to him, the Premio Zeichen, is held every December in Rome: Zeichen himself is the only member of the jury."
Again no sources and highly POV. Who considers him amongst the finest poets in Europe? Who has praised his poetry's "quick catch"?
This is why I've tagged it as POV. Gwernol 19:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006[edit]
The June 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. — ERcheck (talk) @ 02:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Conversano-Stemma.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Conversano-Stemma.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
License tagging for Image:Death the time of your life.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Death the time of your life.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Why did you unlink "Ariccia" in the article? It was not my link,but I'm just curious to know... Thanks Orbicle
License tagging for Image:BarcellonaPozzodiGotto-Stemma.gif[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:BarcellonaPozzodiGotto-Stemma.gif. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, yea I should've bolded the Italian city as well. It's just to make the most likely search candidates stand out. I think that we should stick with the disambig page, because Syracuse, New York is much larger than Syracuse, Italy, and the University is an enormously likely search candidate, with 18,000 students and countless fans. What do you think? AdamBiswanger1 15:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right. However, the fact that Syracuse, USA, Syracuse, Italy and Syracuse University are so close in terms of search probability leads us towards a disambig page. (This is exactly what they're for). I'm not trying to say that Syracuse, USA is in any way superior to Syracuse, Italy, but the first 8 Google hits relate to NY. Of course by linking to the disambig page we're not preventing anyone from seeing the Italian city.-- AdamBiswanger1 15:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what we are writing is far more than a cultural encyclopedia, its an encyclopedia of all knowledge. To use Google as a guide is not to turn Wikipedia into a search engine, but it is basing wikipedia on what people want to know, not what we want to tell them. Who is to decide what knowledge is more important, the few who write, or than many who read. I'm sure Britannica's Editorial Board would insist upon the former, though I assure you the latter is more inline with wikipedia's raison d'etre. If this decision were being made solely on the basis of Google hits, Syracuse NY would occupy the Syracuse page, and Syracuse Italy would be a link. But we do pay attention to the value of knowledge. As important as Siracusa has been in history (though certainly it has not been as important as other cities such as Athens, Rome or even Thebes), I just cannot see how it warrants completely taking over the page. I am not some red-state bush voting rube. I love classical history, my middle name is literally Achilles, and I plan on passing this down to my own children (who I hope to name Hector, Helen and Achilles). I am also a pragmatist, Google may not be completely objective, but I have seen nothing on these pages that approaches it.
You're arguing on a slippery slope that a trip to Syracuse, Italy would make you a better person than a trip to Syracuse, New York. You are calling opinions facts, and that is a dangerous path to follow, and one I intend to stay clear from. It is very clear cut that the Taj Mahal is of greater cultural importance than Michael Jackson. As you yourself pointed out (perhaps baited by me), it is much less clear whether Siracusa is of more importance than Thebes. Where along this continuum is the Syracuse/Siracusa dilemma? It is a question of primacy in this matter of the inteligencia (You and I) or the masses (those searching Google). The answer clearly lies in the murky middle, hence Syracuse should stay a disambiguation page.--Niro5 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (ps as a scholar of classical (and hopefully) modern history , you no doubt know that democracies put Socrates to death, and put Hitler in power, maybe a simple vote shouldn't answer this question? Unless of course we end up winning the vote ;))[reply]
I am so happy you finally agree with me! "Never said that Syracuse, NY is not notable. I'm sure here this has never been hinted." I assure you, that I am not playing the victim, and that this is not a discussion of notability. We both agree that both Syracuse's are notable, and hence we both agree that "Syracuse" should stay a disambiguation page. That simple.
We seem to be arguing different things. Tell me if I am wrong, but you are arguing that S,IT is more notable, while I am carefully arguing that both S,IT and S,NY are notable, and hence deserve a disambiguation page. Since you have already conceded the point that S,NY is notable, why can you not concede the point that it deserves disambiguation page? Frankly, I do not care which Syracuse is more important. And I do not care which Syracuse my Aunt Millie would prefer to visit. But if you concede that both cities are notable, why not switch your vote?--Niro5 22:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) (ps I am most definitely not a lawyer, but when you are the youngest in a family of smart asses, you learn how to defend your ideas.)[reply]
Please do not change the subject of an article. If you think other bridges known as "Devil's Bridge]] require separate pages, then move it to Devil's Bridge, Ceredigion and create a disambiguation page. — Dunc|☺ 17:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is at Giovanni da Verrazano, and that's the spelling we should use in articles.--Pharos 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Verrazano" may sound ridiculous to an Italian, but this is the English Wikipedia, and the Verrazano name is by far best known to English speakers in the form of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.--Pharos 09:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We explicitly have different standards than Britannica, in going by common names rather than "correct" ones. Please don't change the links when the article remains at Giovanni da Verrazano; instead, you may want to request a move. Thanks.--Pharos 10:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but it is the encyclopedia of English-speaking people. We don't take a top-down approach here, telling readers the "proper" way to spell words. People from the US and Canada would naturally be the most interested in this man, considering he discovered large stretches of their coastlines, and so we should go with their usual spelling. The alternative, and its status in Italy, should certainly be given in his article, but the Wikipedia guideline for the most common English name is clear.--Pharos 10:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi; It looks like you did a cut-and-paste move on Giovanni da Verrazano. Please do not do that. It seperates the editing history from the article, which is a violation of the GFDL. I'm going to go and fix it now. If you can't move it with the page-move feature, list it at requested moves. Tom HarrisonTalk 13:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, you got the map coordinates wrong on this edit. I've since corrected them. In the future, when adding infoboxes, please be more careful to get the correct map coordinates, or just leave them blank. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 05:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Provaprova.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Buongiorno... "fractions" is the wrong definition, too as it has no equivalent meaning in English. I chose township over hamlet because it means more to most English speakers (unfortunately, most think of Shakespeare when they hear the word "hamlet"). Essentially, the code needs to be changed to look either for the true translation (hamlet), or we could just stick with "Frazioni"; in either case, "fractions" is simply incorrect. Get back to me when you get a chance as to what you think the best way to handle this is. Ciao. Jim62sch 11:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility would be to set it up as Hamlets. In any case, I stumbled accross the article while searching for random articles, and as there are good articles in Italian (naturally) and Spanish, and an interesting chronology in German (I read all three languages by the way -- Spanish the best), I wanted to do an English version of the article. Jim62sch 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "frazioni" (as you wiki to there, so readers can look it up). And, to make sure it works (I hope), I changed the infobox coding to:
frazioni = see [[Belluno#Frazioni|list]]
The Spanish article had less detail than I thought, so I'll be relying primarily on the Italian article. Jim62sch 12:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you don't get around to checking it out, this is the sort of BS that I removed from the Fra Angelico Page. It came straight from Britannica. For this reason, I feel just a little offended atmy writing being referred to as bombastic. please find a politer word!
"The "pietistic" quality of Fra Angelico's work is in fact its predominant characteristic. The faces of his figures have an air of rapt suavity, devotional fervency and beaming esoteric consciousness, which is intensely attractive to some minds and realizes beyond rivalry a particular ideal— that of ecclesiastical saintliness and detachment from secular worry and turmoil. It should not be denied that he did not always escape the pitfalls of such a method of treatment, the faces becoming sleek and prim, with a smirk of sexless religiosity which hardly eludes the artificial or even the hypocritical; because of this, there are some who are not moved by his work. Even so, Fra Angelico is a notable artist within his sphere,......."
Hello. Would you be interested in voting for History of Sicily for COTW here ? Thank you. -- Darwinek 20:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Andretti Esquire.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Andretti Esquire.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Attilos - I know you have done an excellent job adding all of the Italian Province templates. Now that it appears all provinces in Italy have been covered, I was thinking it would be a good idea to include the Category "Municipalities in the Province of ***" on each template so each town in the template will automatically be included in the category instead of having to be manually added. I tried it with {{Province of Ragusa}}, and it seemed to work. I put a post on the talk page of Talk:List of Sicilian municipalities#Automatic Category Inclusion?. -AKeen 19:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion related to the new template is here, that's where I talked about some improvements I made to my version, including a fix for the 140px issue. Anyway, I think we should all accept the new template before to change it and use it (even if I think the current version is definitely ugly!). Ciao. --Angelo 01:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ciao! grazie del benvenuto =) può essere che la mia traduzione per "municipalities" al posto di circoscrizioni sia in effetti inadeguata, quindi grazie del chiarimento =) cmq in futuro penso che proverò ad ampliare l'articolo ...appena ho tempo e pazienza =P poi ho visto che hai fatto piazza pulita della galleria d'immagini, come mai? ciao e grazie ancora ;-) Salli 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of conversation going on about how Italian towns/cities/provinces should be categorized at Category_talk:Cities_and_towns_in_Italy. You might want to check it out and weigh in on the subject. There might be big structural changes. -AKeen 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dino Zoff.jpg , has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MetsBot 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copyedited this article, pretty thoroughly if I do say so myself. However, since I'm assuming from your post to the talk page of that article that you put up the "needs copyediting" tag, I figured I'd let you know so you can look at the article and take the tag down if you see fit. --Natalie 04:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for uploading the Santa Teresa di Riva coat of arms! I'm going to Santa Teresa di Riva for 3 weeks on Wednesday and when I return I hope to post many pictures. juppitertalk#c 16:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking out the redundant categories in this article. In that same edit, the infobox was also removed. I found a mixed bag of cardinals that had them and those that did not. I have added it back, but wanted to let you know. -- MrDolomite | Talk 23:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and please excuse me for not replying sooner - I have been involved in several disputes that consumed most of the time I have had to edit, and I have also fulfilled my promise to handle the issue of the Moldavia article (which, as you can see, was quite the handful :)). I have checked the articles, and they look to be ok. Unfortunately, I do not have the time and dabate-free room needed to translate the 1994 elections article, and I also fear that I may lack expertise (some info looked completely unfamiliar to me). I will however look into it when I get done with stuff such as that on Talk:Transylvania (it's crazy out there); that is, unless you want to and have the time to start it. Keep in touch. Ciao. Dahn 00:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ivanolenko.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Metros232 12:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006[edit]
The July 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Hi, sorry for a slow reply, but I have been away from Wikipedia for a while.
Of course ecclesiastical history is always interesting (to some readers) in its own right and should be covered in Wikipedia. Sometimes it forms a very important part of the general history of a place, especially when the bishops were powerful figures (medieval Vercelli and Asti spring to mind).
I am quite sure that the Aquileia article ought to include the subject. But there were big problems. The section was so large as to overwhelm the rest of the article: rather as if a hundred thousand words on Roma città aperta were to be inserted into the article on Rome. The section was horribly out of date: it asserted that today Aquileia was in Austria. (Hence my rather intemperate comment about Jörg Haider, which was intended as a joke, of course.) Finally there was so much overlap with the existing text that I felt that incorporating the material really required a major job of editing.
(All this is part of the general problem of incorporating old encyclopedia articles into Wikipedia. Personally I prefer to read Britannica or Catholic Encyclopedia articles in their original, unaltered form rather than on Wikipedia. But that is another and longer story.)
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by August 11!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 18:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dino Zoff.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ytny 02:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of things:
Wikipedia does not images that are only licensed for non-commercial uses.[5]
A Creative Commons license is used for a non-CC image - the copyright owner has to apply the license, not Wikipedia editors
The source doesn't appear to be the copyright owner.
Unspecified source for Image:Masaniello statue.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Masaniello statue.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Fritz S. (Talk) 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:San Vitale Ravenna.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 09:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Mussolinia.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Dolianova Cathedral back.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Sassari San Pietro in Silki.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sassari San Pietro in Silki.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Sassari Santa Maria di Bethlem.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sassari Santa Maria di Bethlem.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Cagliari Porta S'Avanzada.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cagliari Porta S'Avanzada.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Cagliari nostra Signora di Bonaria.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cagliari nostra Signora di Bonaria.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cagliari Cathedral.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly unfree Image:Cagliari San Saturno.jpg[edit]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Cagliari San Saturno.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Francesco_Moser.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Albornoz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Unspecified source for Image:BattistiLucio.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:BattistiLucio.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify 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 you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. theProject 21:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator election - vote phase![edit]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will select seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of eleven candidates. Please vote here by August 26!
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot - 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for Image:Federica_pellegrini.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Federica_pellegrini.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Why you did this revert? Do you know it is forbidden to change an article from one format to the other without a good reason?--BlaiseMuhaddib 20:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please upload italian coat of arms to Wiki Commons, so each wikiprojekt can use them... Thanks!
Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006[edit]
The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 11:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi---I reverted various vandalism on the San Vito di Cadore page, but I'm not sure about the telephone code and postal code; it seems weird that one of them matches the elevation (!). Could you doublecheck those? -- Spireguy 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hugo Pratt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Angr 20:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from Naples! Your item on The Neapolitan Republic (1647) says that S.P.Q.N. meant "Sante and People of Naples". "Sante" is not English. Do you mean "saints"? Anyway, the motto S.P.Q.N. was almost certainly in imitation of the well-known S.P.Q.R., the initialism of the Latin phrase, Senatus Populusque Romanus ("The Senate and the People of Rome"), Thus, the Neapolitan phrase meant "The Senate and People of Naples." O forse no? Jeffmatt 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Izano-Stemma.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello. Good to see you editing again. I hope you enjoyed your time in Gaeta (how couldn't you?).
I think I may do some minor restructuring of the Alfonso article, but I'm probably in no good position to expand it further. I did tweak the lead. I'd also like to inform you about the new Italian military history task force you may be interested in. There are few members with any medieval expertise and your knowledge of the condotierri would, I'm sure, be appreciated.
There is absolutely NO (in)formal agreement, at most a modus vivendi to avoid wasting my time on improductive edit wars - when I suggested a compromise I was ignored flat out, you just assumed I would accept your view - in truth, I will never advocate the separation of ecclesiastical history, least of all in Italy, except in individual cases where a) the material is too abundant, making an excessively large page; b) someone adds other section(s) -neither of us does, it almost never seems to happen; something stubbish or just a link doesn't count-; c) specific reasons, such as non-corresponding jurisdiction or mergers. Even if I were to agree, I'ld still start with an integration of all Catholic Encyclopaedia data, as they are generally to be spread over several (sub)sections, including secular ones.
However I have no intention to delete other material, so if I removed a box that was accidental, not a 'hostile edit'. Fastifex 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have been invited to become a member of WikiProject Ski, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to skiing, athletes, companies and mountains on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
because it is an error of fact. The 1799 Republic in Naples was proclaimed at the fortress of Sant'Elmo, not the Maschio Angioino.Jeffmatt 16:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to be critical of editors' contributions in Wikipedia. It's that much harder to do or say something positive isn't it? Escaper7 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Attilios, I have to agree with Escapre7. There is no reason not to be civil in your edit summaries. Please bear in mind we have a policy against personal attacks on other editors. Thanks, Gwernol 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Birolli nudo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non sono esperto di storia dell' arte, ma sono di Salerno e conosco bene la mia città e i suoi monumenti. Il duomo è dedicato a san Matteo evangelista, anche perchè non esiste nessun martire locale chiamato Matteo. I martiri locali salernitani si chiamano Ante, Gaio e Fortunato e sono detti "le sorelle di san Matteo" per via dei capelli lunghi e dell' espressione languida. Sapendo quanto diffidate degli anonimi voi membri registrati, ho messo le prove di quello che sto dicendo. O forse credi che solo a Roma ci siano monumenti importanti?
Your edit of this page on 13 sept 2006 is amateurish and the comment accompanying it is insulting. I don't go in for revert wars but I will warn other members of the wiki-community that your work is not to be trusted.
El Ingles 00:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the nav bar back to the way it was. I wasn't sure about that, so I just started adding them. I suppose someone should decide, however, what the "main ones" are. Re Santa Chiara...I'm not sure what was "mostly wrong" about it. I think I just added a photo. I don't recognize the text. Also, you say, "I also removed ALL the landmarks you added to the template:Naples landmarks." You removed the additions to the template, but you left the template on some of the new pages. You also took out some of the original template items, such as the Duomo. Maybe you/we should make a list. Jeffmatt 20:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006[edit]
The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffmatt 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC) here. Carissimo, thanks for the comments. Will try to conform, although there is nothing sacroscant about Wiki format. (That's what they mean when they say "Be bold".) That Template:Rome_landmarks nav bar, for example, is as ugly as sin--as is our copycat Naples nav bar. Red is not the color you want on a page for such an item. In any event, ours could have more items--some of the ones you removed, for example. I put the Cathedral of Naples back in the nav bar. Buon lavoro pure a te. Jeffmatt 05:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Eras, it is unacceptable the change between BC/AD and BCE/CE. Since the first style was AD/BC, either you provide a good reason for using BCE/CE, or you revert the article to its original AD/BC.--Panarjedde 21:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart your (good) reasons, there is an ongoing debate over Era styles, which ended in a stalemate, and in order to avoid countless edits simply changing era styles, it has been decided (by rule) to prohibit era style changes as yours, and (by gentlemen's agreement) to use the first era style adopted for the article.
I really hope you understand this.--Panarjedde 21:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are wrong because "Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable", since "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable".--Panarjedde 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does your message [11] mean you won't revert? As regards my "seriously", would you take into consideration Arbitration Committee's "strongly"?--Panarjedde 21:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon, but I did not read you answer to my question: Will you revert your edits concerning era styles or not?--Panarjedde 21:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You added an {{expand}} tag to Septimius Severus, without telling in the talk page what you want to be expanded.--Panarjedde 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my reverts are "stalking", you are free to point out this behaviour. Howeve, notice that your behaviour has been deemed as unappropriate, so I don't my reverts, per se, are stalking. As regards Severus (I see you ignored my message, thanks) I was simply checking if you had done another of yours BC->BCE conversions, and noticed a strange fact (the use of the tag without any message in the article discussion page).
Furthermore, can you really watch a contribution page?--Panarjedde 11:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "Did you put my contrib page in your watchlist?", I answered "can you really watch a contribution page?", which means "Is it really possible to put a contribution page in the watchlist? How do you do that?"
No, I am not plannig to revert "all of your edits", as (I'm sorry) I do not care about you so much. But when you write an article which already uses a convention, you can't change it. And when/if I have the time, I revert such edits, regardless of the editor who made them.--Panarjedde 11:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Attilio, ottimo lavoro sulla Cattedrale... ma ti manca di aggiungere i link interni al testo, come hai fatto per "Trieste" e "Italy" nella prima riga! Per questo motivo ho messo la tag Wikify. Nehwyn 14:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meglio, ma ne mancano ancora alcuni. Te li aggiungo io. E devo bacchettarti sulla mano... il plurale di propylaeum non e' propylaei! Nehwyn 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly willing to work on these in a cooperative manner, particularly as we both agree they need better European content. But as long as you keep trying to edit out American content, I'm going to be forced to revert your edits. And your "there's America, and then there's the rest of the world" approach is offensive, on top of being counterfactual. Mangoe 18:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a notice up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains to try to attract more participation in fixing up these articles, and also to propose a system of changes. Mangoe 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please discuss your edits to F1 driver articles, with particular regard to removing the place of birth from the title paragraph and putting it elsewhere. There is no concensus for this, and the standard layout for the driver articles is to have birthplace next to date of birth. In some cases, your edits have left a situation such as "Born in London, Driver X started 43 Grands Prix" - this kind of thing is very poor style, with two totally disparate subjects in the same sentence. PLease stop this kind of editing until a discussion is had, preferably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One. Thanks. Bretonbanquet 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) that mentions place of birth, or where it should or shouldn't be put. To have "He was born in London. He took part..." is slightly better, but still poor. Most of these articles are not strictly biographical in that they only mention a driver's racing career, and to stick a very short sentence regarding a place of birth in the same paragraph looks odd.
Also, there are about 900 F1 driver articles. Unless you plan to change them all, it might be better to keep them looking the same. I also notice that you don't trouble yourself to add places of birth where none is stated, only change what someone else has done. Bretonbanquet 11:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Myskina.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and good to hear from you again. Aside from your request (I will get to that ASAP), I have a favour to ask. I was expanding the article on Alexandru Averescu (a rather obscure person outide of Romania, I would imagine) and came upon a thing called Comitati d'azione per universalità di Roma (CAUR); previously, I had bumped into a mention of a Fascist International, and it turns out the two are actually one and the same. The source I have is centered on their activities in Romania (and only covers two or three pages about the entire topic); I did a search on the internet, but I could only find out who led them and a sentence repeating stuff I already knew. Do you know if there is more relevant detail on it, and, if so, could you contribute something on it in case I start an article? Many thanks. Dahn 21:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. After all, I guess the organization is beneath obscurity itself (interesting that about three articles on Romanian history have or will need a link to it, while no article on Italy seems to miss it - I picture that, otherwise, I'd be able to bump into something on the net). (ASAP is only shorthand for "ass soon as possible"). Ciao. Dahn 21:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Folkbeat1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern about my boredom, but I'm fine. And I've actually added quite a lot of content, too, including writing most of the featured article New Radicals and the GA Emma Roberts... --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not a native speaker, either, but I'll have a look at it later, okay? (I'm a little busy right now.) --Fritz S. (Talk) 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Valrith 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:Brutti sporchi e cattivi.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Brutti sporchi e cattivi.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I put this on my page but I'll put it here in case you didn't see it:
No problem. these are the things I didn't know what you, or whoever added them, were gatting at.
Under the Gli indifferenti and Fascist ostracism section
In 1933, together with Mario Pannunzio, the literary reviews Caratteri ("Characters") and Oggi ("Today").
what exactly did they do concerning those two literary reviews? write them? Contribute to them? I don't have the information at hand so I didn't know what to do with it.
the Return to Rome and national popularity section
the second paragraph hardly says anything about the movies. they could have been produced, filmed, or released. the article doesn't say and once again I don't have the info at hand--Acebrock 20:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scusami se ti disturbo, ho notato che il mio inglese ultimamente è un po arruginito ... mi potresti dare una mano a pulire Gaetano Bedini ? (Almeno per poter togliere i tag wikify e cleanup) :D --Genovese 13:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the more sensible solution would've been to simply move the pages, and then change the capitalisation on the performer's articles in your own time. Reverting an edit simply because the capitalisation of the article it was linking to is inaccurate seems like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reaon I put links to the German (or French) language articles is to help translators easely find material to start the English language article where it does not yet exist and link the two. It took me a lot of time and effort to find the German (or French) language original. Thanks a lot for your "help". Peter Horn 01:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
My appologies, I realise now what you had done, the links are not "lost" per se, but how would the would be translator find them? Translation is a huge undertaking and it would take me quite some tome to get thru them all. This needs more than one translator.
Rack systems Done, Your addition see File:Riggenbach, Strub, Abt, Locher.jpgDifferent rack systems: from the left, Riggenbach, Strub, Abt and Locher. Again, your addition! Perhaps you can do your "magic" on the following:
Any body able to incorporate all these images properly in the English language article?
They were succesfully included in the French language version. See also Re: External links & External links Cheers, Peter Horn 02:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Translation from German (or in some cases from French) to English required (Rack railway)[edit]
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. A question. In the painting box, is it possible to put links to more than one article there under "painter", or to add some explanatory text? (E.g.: "circle of", "attributed to", etc.) The template seems to accept only a single name. Right now, I'm thinking specifically of The Vision of the Cross, which I would like to do like this:
{{Painting 150px}}
Thanks for your help, Skarioffszky 12:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've (temporarily) solved it like this: [12]. Cheers, S.
I'm curious as to what you based your latest edits to the Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta article on; particularly, why you deleted the source I added. -- Michael David 23:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just replaced the Link. I'm not an expert on this person. The source I added has a different death date for him. Please check it out and compare it with your date. Thanks. Michael David 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
For dates of Birth & Death I went with the link I found and added to the article. I'm certainly no expert with this family, but I will take a look at the others. As for your English, you're doing fine.
Hi, could you upload this picture [13] to Commons, I am about to translate the article about the war into Norwegian and would like to use it. Have a nice day! Brgds - Ulflarsen 05:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your kind note to me:
Wow! Your maps are really delightful! I hope you'll continue to add many of them. A question: Which kind of blank map do you have? I'd like to make some maps of Germany in 1648 and Livonia (Baltic States) in the Middle Ages... can you help me? Ciao and good work!Attilios 15:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments, sir. I am planning on creating a companion map to my Image:Italy c 1810.png showing the 1796 boundaries as well.
Regarding blank maps, I look in Wikipedia:Blank_maps or I trace an existing map either by hand (if small) or using the Trace function within Inkscape. I would be happy to create a blank map in the format of your choice if you wish. Let me know, and thanks again, MapMaster 19:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Republic of Venice article, I thought that that article was very comprehensive -- shockingly so, in fact, given some of weak Italian History articles I've seen here. For example, there seems to be very little in Wikipedia on the history of Italy -- particularly northern Italy -- during the Napoleonic era. Good job!
Regardng your recent post on my Talk Page, yes, I would be happy to make or re-make a map for you. Just let me know. MapMaster 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you made these edits to Wikipedia's article on Coelophysis? You indicated the pronunciation of Coelophysis was with a Ch-type sound, but I have never heard this. You also claimed Walking with Dinosaurs is an American series: it is not; it was produced by the BBC, a British company, as clearly stated in our article on Walking with Dinosaurs. Although the series has appeared in the States, it certainly isn't "American" in origin. Further, there is no real reason to explain where the series originates when a valid wikilink is right there anyway (they can click and find out where the series originates, in the article about the series). You are certainly welcome to edit any of the dinosaur articles on Wikipedia (and many are in great need of it) but I have reverted your edits for now. Sorry. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note, Attilios. A quick Google search on "Coelophysis pronounced" pulls up 34 pronunciations, all being "SEE", not "CHEE". It may be different in other languages, but this is the English Wikipedia. There is no disputing the term comes from ancient tongues, but we're using the English pronunciation here. Good luck and best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. This is English Wikipedia. But it can be used by people knowing English but who could be able to pronounce Latin correctly (German people can, for example). The aim of this Encyclopedia is to have an international view (see WP:Systemic bias). Anyway, it was not that my curiosity. I was simply wondering why many dinosaur entries have this support for pronunciation, if you pronounce it in the English way the same. Another question: we in Italy pronounce Anglosaxon words with their original pronunciation, not the Italian one: why you Anglosaxons (but that's also a problem with Frenchmen) do not do the same? Ciao!Attilios 22:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because our language is completely screwed up. It's a mongrel language composed of bits and pieces of so many other languages. My understanding of Spanish (I took four years in high school) is that pronunciation guides are rarely needed, because once you know how to spell it, it's easy to pronounce, and vice versa. That is not the case with English, sadly. For the record, on the Walking with Dinosaurs series, they definitely pronounce it (e.g.) "see-low-FY-sis". Anyway, best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. Thanks for correcting my non-existent Italian language skills on Milano calibro 9. However, I'm a bit confused by the edit as poliziottesco film gets only 1 Google hit. Are we all non-Italians just spreading incorrect grammar? Maybe you can clarify this for me. Prolog 08:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good explanation. It makes sense and don't worry, I don't value Google that high. I know Finnish plural forms can be very tricky, or actually even incomprehensible, to non-native Finns. I'm gonna go by your recommendations from now on. Cheers, Prolog 09:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more message. If you're referring to Laura (1979 film) with "Title of headers should not be all in capitals", I just moved the page and didn't bother to actually improve the article. I too dislike header titles written in all-capitals-mode, as all Wikipedians should. :-) Prolog 09:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:Menzhisnky.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Menzhisnky.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I see that we both managed to edit this article within the space of a dozen minutes. (Which means that the sainted Evrik will certainly see a European atheist plot!) But, more seriously, I am curious to know how he is generally seen in Italy—not just among the pious who can’t see any difference between San Francesco and Carlo Borromeo. From what we say in the article he seems to be a thoroughly admirable character. Is that a fair interpretation? —Ian Spackman 21:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with Europeans. ;-) --evrik 14:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In replacing the image, I went back too far in my reverting of Ian. I replaced the image, and removed your comments. If you have a problem with the image ... take it up at the commons, which is where the image is posted. --evrik 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for Image:1FW 190-D9 2 giallo Copyright Giovanni Paulli.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:1FW 190-D9 2 giallo Copyright Giovanni Paulli.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 fair use images lacking such an explanation 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.
Hi. I wasn't aware of the "worldwide view" tag, thanks for drawing my attention to it. It is true of course that there is a UK bias; However because this is the English language Wikipedia its sort of inevitable that the UK's use of the aircraft will get more attention. Also the fact that, with France, the UK is one of the most expeditionary militaries in Europe. That doesn't mean it's right, and the Italian and German involvement and use of the Tornado should be included as much as possible. I have made a start at expanding the Italian and German sections. For example I wrote the section on the Italian use of Tornado ADVs (now located at Panavia Tornado variants). I have also created the headings at that page for Lufftwaffe IDS, Marineflieger IDS and Aeronautica Militare IDS in preparation for expansion - previously only the RAF "GR" versions were given headings. I also expanded the ECR section of that page (used by Italy and Germany). I will try my best to expand the main article timeline and the variant article. Thanks again for your message. Mark83 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Image:1Tornado Luftwaffe EINS 1 Copyright Giovanni Paulli.jpg? Yes, it's a very nice piece of work and I've always thought the Tornado was a handsome aircraft. To be more encyclopedic I would like to remove the signature and the large blue 1 badge. However it was very kind of the author to give permission, so I'm not going to be picky! To be honest I didn't know such "with permission" images were allowed. Thanks for the offer of translation (I know zero Italian). If you think there is any significant pieces of text, if you'd like to post a translation on my talk page I could check over it if you like. Please don't go to the trouble of translating the whole article though! Regards, Mark83 16:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When you made this edit you didn't change which was shown first feet or metres. In fact what happened was that the "ft" sign was still first in the infobox but ended up with the metres length under it. I noticed it at Singapore Changi Airport where the infobox looked identical to the way it does now with the exception that the first runway was 4000 ft/13,123 m. To change to metres first would require that you go to every airport on Wikipedia that has an infobox and manually change which shows first. If you wish to see changes like that then discuss it first at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports/infoboxWikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Infobox Airport. Do not change that back again. CambridgeBayWeather(Talk) 22:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Ancient Russia.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
There is dispute on when the first commercial diesel locos were built, but I don't know of any built for the trenches. Even if there were some, the majority of internal combustion locos of WWI were petrol-mechanical. But whenever the first diesels were deployed, its much better to consider the early petrol-mechanical locos alongside the diesel-mechanicals, so widening the scope of the article to include all internal combustion locos seems to make sense, does it not? Thanks, Gwernol 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for taking down the copy-edit tag. It had defaced the article, which had grown in my affection. Rintrah 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for Image:Carthaginian_Sardinia.JPG[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Carthaginian_Sardinia.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading Image:Giudicati.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Yes, you have notified me before about his text-dumping, and I have already given a few "call to order"'s - will have a look and do so once again if the need be. Perhaps you should bring some administrator attention to the affair if it is an ongoing problem. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this Attilios. There's obviously a long history here of Fastifex not quite understanding, or else deliberately vandalising, the context of pages - typically he will add a link for example to some site he's concerned to get mentioned on a lot of pages that has nothing much to do with any of them. Sort of "bee in his bonnet" behaviour that isn't sensible editing. On top of that he does loads of reverting to try to get it back in there when other editors try to correct it. I actually think he has no sensible plans at all on Wikipedia and is just messing about. I propose we ask admins to permanently block him. MarkThomas 09:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Attilios! I would like to inform you that I have taken up your case and have posted a few questions for you. I think we can resolve this peacefully, and look forward to working with you towards a solution! — Editor atLarge(speak) 03:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I share your optimism Editor at Large, but I hope it works. IP number vandalism is easy to deal with, but this user really is a job of work. :-) MarkThomas 09:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it has been a long battle, but I think that with some logical discussion we can get through. I know that from your point of view it sounds rediculous, but sometimes you just need to step back and take a deep breath, and approach it from a new point of view. I'm going to make what you may take as an odd request and ask that you don't write Fastifex for a while; give him some breathing room while I talk to him. He's probably getting frustrated with people attacking him constantly, and with my knowledge of psychology I'm going to say that it's probably only strengthening his resolve.
I'm going to write some more about this on the AMA case page: hopefully if the user can see that I'm not out to get him, but rather to resolve this conflict, he'll be more willing to listen to me. Thanks for understanding! — Editor atLarge(speak) 18:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fastifex is a disruptive user and i would be more than happy to help with disciplinary actions taken against him. He seems to have a peronsal attachment to articles and persistanly makes unhelpful edits and reverts other peoples good edits. How can i be of help and what is this AMA thing you speak of? DARReNTALK 13:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a check-up: How is it going? Are you still having problems with this user? If so, please let me know. Forgive me for not doing anything "active" in that direction when you had first asked me, but it seemed that you had the situation pretty well covered then, and it seems that you have a mediator attempting to reason with him. Anyhow, take care. THEPROMENADER 08:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday morning I posted a quick request on his user page User_talk:Fastifex that if he reads his own messages, to indicate so under my request. So far he has not done so. I am personally convinced that he has no intention of making reasoned contributions to Wikipedia, or of ever discussing them in a meaningful way, and I am sceptical that he reads his own talk page even. MarkThomas 08:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Double portrait.jpg listed for deletion[edit]
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Double portrait.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.
Ciao, relativamente alla tua modifica nella pagina di Castelleone di Suasa, volevo ringraziarti per le revisione che hai fatto al testo.
Una sola cosa non capisco: perchè hai tolto la Category:Castles in Italy? In fondo Castelleone è un castello italiano a tutti gli effetti.
L'incastellamento è un processo storico che ha coinvolto profondamente la regione Marche (come tante altre zone d'europa) e da noi i castelli propriamente detti sono borghi fortificati (come correttamente hai precisato qui), cinti da mura e Castelleone è uno di questi.
Il cinema ci ha dato una visione dei castelli distorta, nell'immaginario collettivo il castello è quello di biancaneve, per capirci. Nella realtà storica ed archeologica invece i castelli sono borghi fortificati, creati inizialmente in epoca tardo-antica come risposta alle incursioni cosiddette "barbariche", poi svilupatisi in età alto medievale e rinnovati in età rinascimentale. Con il passare dei secoli lo sviluppo delle armi ha reso obsoleti queste fortificazioni che spesso sono rimaste come eredità storico-culturale, svolgendo la mera funzione di attrattiva turistica.
In summa penso che la categoria debba essere rimessa perchè Castelleone di Suasa è stato e, ancora è, a tutti gli effetti un castello.
Boy, does this article need Wikification! Article obviously written by a fan ... And there's nothing "untrue," as such. But ... for Wiki ... GiovaneScuola2006 10:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:M115_how.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
I have told Fastifex time and time again to assert the notability of articles and to use categories putting them in a historical and national context. I belive if he does this and the articles are wirthy he should be allowed to resume his work on the condition that he STOPS COPYING, ADDS CATEGORIES AND MAKES THE ARTICLE NOTABLE. I sent this following message to Fastifex:
HI while I do appreciate your work and enthusiasm for the Catholic Encyclopedia I do agree that much of your work at present is not really written for wikipedia. What I mean by that is that you have consistently written articles of scholars and diocese without putting them into categories or placing them in Catholic history you just used Derived from Catholic Encyclopedia. I did tell you several times to use categories e.g French scholars and to work on making your articles more notable but you ignored my warning. For your articles to be effective on wikipedia you really need to assert the importance of the scholar or Catholic priest or whatever and his work, placing it into a historical and national context. If the scholar or whatever is linked to another important religious or political figure state this linking articles and history together. I must admit that I have read some of your articles and I to be honest I am surpised admin allowed them to be kept because they lacked all of the criteria. While I strongly beleive that Catholic history does need to be covered on wikipedia think about refining your work and MAKE them notable if you want to get other users off your back.
Ernst Stavro Blofeld 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that most of his work is to be honest of very little value to the project UNLESS it is put in a proper context and linked to other articles and made even slightly notable , this guy does have enthusiasm!!! I think he means well and Enthusiam is very important on wikipedia but so is abiding by the rules which he is not complying with!!! Rather than banning him I think he needs to be taught a lesson that wikipedia is to provide information rather than spam of a random unotable person of 700 years ago. This may mean suspension and if he doesn't cooperate afterwards then a permanant block? While he is not a blatant vandal you and other users may beleive he is because of his poorly linked work. If we could get him to change his ways and think about the benefit of wikipedia and other users he might be allowed to continue. Also what is all that child porn and whipping and stuff about? Sounds really weird! All the best from Barry, Vale of Glamorgan to you in Rome, Chao Ernst Stavro Blofeld 14:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to waste too much time on the situation but I sent this message to him:
Mate look. I appreicate your enthusiasm but I have to agree with the others that your articles are becoming a problem. He keep ignoring everybody's warning everybody's been patient with you but you just don't listen. We tell you NOT TO CUT AND PASTE DIRECTLY FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, TO MAKE YOUR ARTICLES WIKIPEDIC, TO CATEGORIZE!! AND TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE AND CORRECT LINKS which are creating a great deal of unneccsary work for other users. I don't see a problem with your articles if they are written notably!! and and correctly put in the historical and national context WITH THE CORRECT CATEGORIES AND LINKS. Please comply with Wikipedia guidelines or you will be blocked. Why is this so much to ask. If you don't want people going against you, just do it for gods sake.
While I feel that everybody has a right to contribute wikipedia, policy is serious and it is becoming a hazard for other users such as yourself who are having to sort out his work to make it even credible for the project. If he continues to ignore all warnings then we have no choice but to eliminate him Ernst Stavro Blofeld 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006[edit]
The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Mappaita1030.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
related articles (100+) to wikipedia in so short a time, I hereby award you this barnstar! Enjoy, ßlηguγΣη
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Italians_in_Libya.jpg){kind=link}
