User talk:Alessio-Rossini

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Alessio-Rossini, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Domiziano Arcangeli may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

by Fellini himself, who called back the actor in 1987, to bring on screen such misadventure<ref>[[http://www.davinotti.com/index.php?forum=10018338</ref> in one of the segments, of the director's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Domiziano Arcangeli may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

by Fellini himself, who called back the actor in 1987, to bring on screen such misadventure<ref>[[http://www.davinotti.com/index.php?forum=10018338</ref> in one of the segments, of the director's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Domiziano Arcangeli. While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Domiziano Arcangeli shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domiziano Arcangeli[edit]

Hi Alessio-Rossini: I see you are the latest editor whose been trying to expand this article and had the expansion thrown out. Before you, DavidFlowers, Ross-Novak and Novak-Ross made similar edits. I'd like to try to explain why this kind of writing is inappropriate here and does a disservice to Mr. Arcangeli rather than helping.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publicity organ. We present information to give readers a basic grounding, and through references, links to other articles and in some cases "Further reading" sections, assist them in finding out more. As an encyclopedia, we are neutral - which means our writing is dry and factual, without the wow! adjectives one would use in publicity or even in most newspaper reviews. It's just a summary of what others have said. What it should have that publicity and reviews don't do so well, is references (footnotes) telling the reader who said that and offering the opportunity to find out more, and links to other articles that explain things and again offer the opportunity to find out more. And the article on someone's career should give the reader a whole overview, including their earliest work and their latest, which is generally what the reader is looking for here, since we save them having to search for an interview or profile article and then see what's happened since that was published. (And of course our articles have a handy link to the person's official site, which on Google is sometimes drowning in fansites.) So a long, long paragraph full of screaming adjectives is not as useful to the reader as a brief summary of the facts of the person's life and career, clearly explained, with footnotes to where to look up the bits the reader wants to find out more about - and it also looks untrustworthy, because it's not neutral. Readers come here for the encyclopedia coverage; they can go to his personal site or a fansite for the adjectives. Also, the references need to be written out in full, not bare links. This was a great source you added, thanks for it, but you added it just as [1] - a number. And you didn't use it to add to the filmography, and you didn't notice we have articles on both The Brides of Sodom and Scenes from a Gay Marriage. I added both of those to the filmography using that reference, and filled out the details of the reference so that the reader can see he got a whole article in a magazine (as opposed to name checks on horror movie sites). Conversely, Wrath of the Crows was already in the filmography, but under 2012 because it was delayed in release. And it has a reference that supports his major role in the film. You tried to mention it as a 2014 release - which is just the DVD - and used as a reference a Fangoria page that doesn't even mention him, except in a comment by someone with a name similar to yours. That is not a quality reference, and so does not make him look good. The article as it is now could use two things:

any film he's been in that was actually released this year (with a reference to a newspaper review or similar quality source, if possible, a well-known on-line genre site as a less adequate second choice, IMDB and other sites anyone can edit not acceptable)
any article all about him in some sort of newspaper or magazine (ideally supporting a point or two about his life and career)

Articles on entertainers look good if they have references to lots of ink that's been spilled on the person, not if they have lots of name-dropping about co-stars and directors. This is because we're an encyclopedia - a reference work.

I hope this explanation helps and that you can find us some more material along those two lines. Otherwise, I would suggest that despite the tag at the top, the article looks quite good at the moment for someone who's worked mainly in horror as opposed to big-budget Hollywood movies that get reviewed in major newspapers. It has quite a few references and several of his films have articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]