User talk:Arturolorioli

Talkback

Hello, Arturolorioli. You have new messages at Some Wiki Editor's talk page.
Message added 16:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Some Wiki Editor (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fedele di Giorgio/Giorgis

Please note that he is not listed by Scherzer as a Knigh's Cross recipient! Please do not delete a valid citation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I am okay with changing the spelling. I will double check again if Scherzer has him listed under the Giorgis. If Scherzer doesn't list him the note has to stay. It means that the archives have no record of him. I advise that you create his article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Knight's Cross at his neck is a photomontage at not original MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I had another look in Scherzer's book. His name is listed by Scherzer as Fedele Degiorgis while Fellgiebel had listed him as Fedele di Giorgio. Thanks again for bringing this to my attention. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:EnzoGrossi.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:EnzoGrossi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Dicossato.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Dicossato.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Degiorgis.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Degiorgis.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:ItaloGariboldi.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:ItaloGariboldi.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cavallero.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Cavallero.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Priaroggia.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Priaroggia.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Martinat.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Martinat.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Decarolis.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Decarolis.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Messeb.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Messeb.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arturolorioli. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 13:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

List of sunken aircraft carriers

I have begun work on the List of sunken aircraft carriers to try and get it toward a FL status. As you have seem involved in the article in the past, I was hoping for any advice you could send my way. I had a basic design for the list in my sandbox here. Much Ado, --MOLEY (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ItaloGariboldi.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ItaloGariboldi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Flags of country subdivisions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to La Rioja Province, Santa Cruz Province, San Juan Province and Tierra del Fuego Province

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Free Territory of Trieste may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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:

• :1st Border Regiment (October 1946 - March 1947

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Primus pilus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maniple. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Adwa may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 4 "[]"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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Land Forces of the National People's Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ronneburg. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Arturolorioli. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Arturolorioli. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Arturolorioli. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Arturolorioli. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-free images and list articles

Hello. Thank you for your improvements to the List of paratrooper forces article. In some of your edits, you are introducing non-free images to this list. Please understand that the use of non-free images on this project is governed by our WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline. The use of non-free images as you are attempting, such as with this edit which introduced non-free files File:Lebrangers.png and File:Lebnavysealsbadge.png, is not permitted per WP:NFLISTS. Furthermore, even if it were permitted, you would need to supply a valid non-free rationale for each and every use of the non-free item, per WP:NFCC #10c. If you're not certain if something is a non-free file, or if you have questions about this, certainly let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Dear Sir, thank for your message. I'm a bit puzzled: to avoid copyright problems, all the images I have added to the article are taken from Wikipedia itself, so I suppose they are legit. Let me know. --Arturolorioli (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (I've moved your comment from my talk page to yours, so we can keep conversation in one place) Broadly speaking, Wikipedia accepts images of two types; free license, and non-free. Yes, free license can generally be used any where, any time. Non-free images can not be used in such a way, and must adhere to our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy and follow our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline. This list usage isn't permitted. To identify images that are non-free vs. free, have a look at this image: File:Lebrangers.png. If you scroll down on the image description page, you will note there is a large red "C" inside of a larger red circle. This indicator, if present, indicates the image is non-free ad must adhere to the policies and guidelines I've noted above. If that "C" isn't present, such as at File:Jagdkommando Truppenabzeichen.jpg, then the use in a list article is permitted. Though, there are other considerations as well, such as MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM, which come from our manual of style. The Manual of Style for Wikipedia guides us in how to construct articles, so they have a consistent representation across the project, or at least as much as can be. If you have other questions, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your answer. Yes, I'm aware of the copyright issues. The "use rationale" for the insertion of the images I used is exactly the one already indicated in the uploaded file page so (taking the File:Lebrangers.png examples you used) "To illustrate on the Insignias used by the Lebanese Commando Regiment". The not-commercial "fair use" low-resolution use as a descriptive addition to an entry about the military unit is exactly the same of the one described in the file Summary and Licensing sections. That's the reason why I used only images already present in Wikipedia, and use them only in the same context they have been used for the original entry: if they were OK for the original use (and I suppose they are, as the files have not been cancelled) then I get that using them for exactly the same descriptive, non commercial use in another related page should be OK too. It's that correct? Best regards and thanks for your assistance. --Arturolorioli (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
      • No, unfortunately, it's not correct. (speaking only of non-free files going forward here) The use of a file in one context does not automatically mean it's ok to use anywhere else on the project on encyclopedia pages. Let's look at this abstractly; have a look at Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, in particular item #3 there. When they are referring to EDP, they are ultimately referring to non-free files. Note about the phrase being used there, "must be minimal". This is reflected in WP:NCCC #3a. We don't add files if we can avoid it somehow. This is the basis on which WP:NFLISTS is written. Our our very mission here is to develop content under a free license. This is critical to what we do. The more non-free files that we use anywhere on the project the more we take away from that mission. Speaking more specifically, we don't use non-free content in cases like this when there is an article that already hosts the image and is topical to that image. So, in the case of File:Lebrangers.png, the image is already in use on Lebanese Commando Regiment, where it is topical and specific. In the article List of paratrooper forces, using a non-free image for every shoulder badge would rapidly overwhelm the article with non-free content. Even if we did allow it, the gain here is minimal; the non-free images would be used as icons. The detail on them would largely be lost to the eye, therefore adding little value to the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Hammersoft, thanks again for your answer. To start with, and to avoid any sort of misunderstanding, I'm not even remotely starting to rise any sort of quarrel. But (there is always a "but" ...), the [[1]] page that yourself is quoting is perfectly clear : "Their use should be minimal and confined (with limited exceptions) to ... identifying protected works such as logos etc". And that's exactly what the images are used for in the page. And the interpretation of "minimal" as "once only" is, in the most friendly terms, *entirely* subjective. I'm not posting this *possibly* "not free" images all over english Wikipedia (the Lebrangers file we are using as an example would be used just for the second time ...) neither I am using it on unrelated contents (as it illustrates its original military unit entry). And, again in the most friendly terms, the concept that the icons are "adding little value to the article" is, again, *entirely* subjective. Now, as I said, I'm not willing to start any sort of argument, so if there is any other firm, clear and generally accepted rule stating that the use of those icons is not legit, please remove them all and thanks for having warned me about my mistake in the friendly, helpful way you have used. If not, and the only "source" is a subjective interpretation of the "minimal" bit in the official guidelines, then I would beg you to keep the icons where they are, as (IMHO, of course ;) ) they are a nice addition to the quality and visual impact of the article. But I'm not willing to rise any problem, decide as you think better, no problem and no further explanations needed. Thanks again for your friendly messages, much appreciated. All the best. --Arturolorioli (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
          • I certainly didn't feel we were quarreling. I know that text based communication is seriously lacking in several critical ways though. If I have given any impression of having anything other than a cordial conversation, please forgive me as having a cordial conversation is most emphatically my intent. To the WP:NFC page you are referring; yes, you're quite correct in that is in fact what it says. But, this has been interpreted as WP:NFLISTS and used to support the WP:NFCC #3a policy. I'm not suggesting you are wrong, and I'm right. Rather, I'm telling you how things have been and remain. Perhaps it's beyond my ability to convey, but my point is that this sort of use simply isn't acceptable. I can tell you that there are very few hard and fast rules when it comes to NFCC implementation. The reason is quite simple; the harder you squeeze, the more sand slips through your fingers. The more strongly delineated examples we have, the more room there is for uses of non-free content that run afoul of the spirit of Wikipedia. And, underlying everything, that's the point. We don't permit the use of non-free content except in exceptional circumstances. Their use as barely discernible icons in an article that has little associated prose, where the non-free content is already hosted on another article that speaks of the unit in depth, isn't acceptable. We could codify such a regulation, but it wouldn't help. There's a discussion board where you can take suggestions for changing how we implement policy. It's at WT:NFC. You're welcome to begin a discussion there. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Hammersoft, rest assured, as I've repeatedly said you have always been very cordial and friendly. And reasonable. I hope I have given you the same impression. As I said, do as you think better, no problem for me, and no need for further explanation by you is needed. But as you have, I would, always in the most friendly and relaxed way, point out that 1)-The Lebrangers (our favourite example ...) "licence" is indicated in its page as "fair use" (that of course is not a licence at all, but a consolidated informal convention in legal terms all the same) and that 2)- Its use in the Paratroopers List page is entirely within the accepted legal limits of "fair use". I've been professionally working in copyright matters daily for over 30 years, and I guess I know what I'm saying here. This does not change even if some internal Wikipedia rules *hint* (and do not *rule*) otherwise. Even more so as I didn't "load" any "fair use" content, just added to a strictly coherent and related entry a link to an *already existing* fair use content that, as such, has been considered legitimate. So, always friendly and relaxedly, not, it is not , in your words, "how things have been and remain", neither in legal terms (that are different) neither according to the Wikipedia rules as written (that are, as usual, a masterpiece of ambiguity, but again say something different). That said, I got used long ago to this sort of unflinching "informal formalisms" underlying many Wikipedian style conventions: I do *not* like them (the "law", any "law", even a Wikipedian one, must be clear, firm and unambiguous, otherwise it's not a law but a subjective, selective and questionable "opinion") but I always (grudgingly) respect them all the same, first for a lifetime non-conflictual attitude and second as I'm here to relax and - within the limits of my modest and highly limited abilities - to contribute to a nice and useful cooperative project, not to enter in any sort of endless (and basically pointless) arguments. So, I repeat for the third time, please do as you think better and delete whatever in your opinion is not acceptable, a pithy, but no problem for me. And thanks again for your always friendly and helpful tones, much appreciated, even if I do not share at all your opinions on this matter: as it's said "Manners maketh man" [[2]] and it has been a real pleasure to talk with a polite and friendly person like you (something that alas, is highly uncommon in this sort of discussions on wikipedia). All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words in regards to my demeanor, and to you as well. On the legality of fair use; your stance is absolutely correct. In fact, a former lead counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation has stated that Wikipedia has extremely wide latitude to use copyrighted, non-free works as it is most emphatically an educational resource. The educational aspect of fair use law is, as you're likely aware, codified in 17 USC 107. Under the provisions there and legal precedent we could use copyrighted, non-free works very liberally all over the project. A case example of these are various Wikia projects, which frequently contain enormous quantities of copyrighted, non-free material. This language Wikipedia's non-free content is a fraction of of what some of those sites hold, yet we are at least an order of magnitude larger than virtually all of them. So, why the difference? Why does Wikipedia have (relatively speaking) so little non-free content when Wikias, which are in some sense effectively similar projects, have so much? The answer lies in the base principle that Wikipedia is a free content project, and Wikias are not. This base principle means that fair use law effectively has no gravity here. Our principles for the management of non-free content are a very large superset of what fair use law would have us adhere to. Thus, while this list article we've been discussing could properly host a very large amount of non-free content and adhere to fair use law while doing so, it is completely unacceptable for it to do so due to the principle that we are a free content project. Everything we do is fundamentally driven by this ethos. It is why, below your editing window, you can see a statement that changes you make to the project are irrevocably released under a Creative Commons license. It means that everything you create for this project and publish on this project is forever placed under a license enabling it to be freely shared by humanity for all time to come. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Images in section headings

Hi Arturolorioli. Please don't add images (e.g., flag icons, etc.) to section headings per MOS:HEAD and MOS:ACCIM. There are a number of reasons why doing so isn't considered acceptable, but the main reason as to do with accessibility. Wikipedia strives to be accessible as it can to all types of readers, including readers who are visually impaired. Some of these readers actually use special devices to "read" articles, and these devices often have trouble "reading" images in section headings. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Immigration detention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

10th Mountain Division

Kept the whole division with the specified units in the article. I think that should be a good compromise! Kind regards Darth Tomotron (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Ugo Cavallero.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ugo Cavallero.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 13th Infantry Regiment (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page XV Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Geogene (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

List of airliner shootdown incidents

Please dont edit war on List of airliner shootdown incidents you need to discuss a change if it is challenged. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boeing E-3 Sentry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Structure of the Italian Army in 1989, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MRLS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of mountain warfare forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page X Corps (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Would you be able to create a page titled "List of Psychological warfare forces" like the List of cyber warfare forces page that you created? 122.56.208.117 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes I could, and actually I've been collecting data about that for a while. Unfortunatelly the number of nations with military PsyOp units is even more limited than the CyberWarfare ones, so the list is *very* limited and *very* US-heavy. Still collecting data, as soon as I have a reaonable amount of them I will publish. All the best. --Arturolorioli (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This website may help you in your research. 122.56.211.73 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, already know about it. Several useful bits, but several outdated/incomplete/inaccurate infos too, and little if any supporting references. And without supporting references you can not include anything in wikipedia. Lot of research work to be done! Thanks anyway for the assist. All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Naming issue

I have fixed name of the regiment, 14th Chemical Biological Radiation and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment to 14th Chemical Biological Radiology and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment in List of CBRN warfare forces. Because the correct name is 14th Chemical Biological Radiology and Nuclear Regiment not Radiation. If you want to make sure please visit https://alt.army.lk/sapper/content/cbrn-unit-corps-engineers-showcases-its-capabilities-who-representatives Thank you. 49lk (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit reverted

Hello, you have reverted twice edits from my bots, edits which are justified and following the Manual of Style applied on enWP :

• Placing a reference after the punctuation because: WP:REFPUNCT clearly explains that references should be after punctuation (and never before a comma)
• Removing invisible Unicode control characters cleans up the wikitext

Rather than reverting multiple times edits made by a bot, without leaving a message to the bot operator, talking with the bot operator is much better way of stopping a bot doing the same thing over and over. But for the moment, I believe that my bot's edit is correct, and your revert is incorrect. If you don't think so, please explain why the rule stated in WP:REFPUNCT shouldn't apply. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 15:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear @NicoV:, thanks for your message. In any grammar I know of a comma is a separation inside a phrase, used to divide different contexts or concept. As such any note inside a phrase (like a parenthesis etc.) relative to only one of the contexts expressed in the phrase *must* be on the correct side of the comma. As an example, I should write "my name is Arturo (an Italian), I like trekking", and certainly not "my name is Arturo, (an Italian) I like trekking". A note (be it in wikipedia or on a book) is exactly like a parenthesis, i.e. an explanation or addition relative to the text, but separated from it for better clarity or ease of reading, so it should be positioned exactly in the same way. At least, if punctuation is still to be considered a semantical tool and not just a reading aid ;). So I firmy believe that position the note after the comma (i.e. on the "wrong" side of the subdivision created by the comma itself) is entirely meaningless. That said, I'm sadly aware that Wikipedia is full of often mysterious and meningless formal rules, and that this rules are enforced "no matter what", so I'm not even remotely wishing to start any edit war of any sort. Please, do as you think better, the article will survive anyway. Thanks again for your message, and best regards. --Arturolorioli (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Personally, I tend to agree with your reasoning (in French, references are before the punctuation...), but it seems that in English, Wikipedia is not the only organisation settling for references after the punctuation: apparently, the Chicago Manual of Style is also stating that, or the Oxford Guide to Style (15.6.5 Place in-text cues outside punctuation, but inside the closing parenthesis when referring solely to matter within the parentheses, example: Causes for infection were initially thought to be isolated.¹⁶ (This as rapidly discredited.¹⁷) Even so, specialists in England¹⁸ and Wales¹⁹ reached different conclusions during subsequent tests.). I've no problem if you want to leave the reference before the punctuation, please just put a comment between the reference and the punctuation (<ref>...</ref><!-- -->,), it will keep my bot away for changing it. --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 12:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear @NicoV:, thanks for your answer and I'm very glad we share the same opinion. About the "comment" to put on the article text to avoid activating your bot, I confess I'm a bit lost, damn my informatic ignorance ... do I have to cut and paste the string you posted (i.e. <ref>...</ref><!-- -->,) and position it between the end of the my reference and the following comma? Or is something entirely different? Could you, in case I got the procedure wrong and if you have time, be so kind to place the needed "comment" yourself? Thanks in advance for your assistance and all the best. --Arturolorioli (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I've added the comment (and removed also the Unicode control characters). --NicoV ^{(Talk on frwiki)} 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For your nice work on certain articles here, especially those lists of units. Nubia86 (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Murciélago Velázquez, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corrida.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with you rolling back my revision 1029352740 June 20, 2021.

It was the article 'List of marines and naval infantry forces', not 'List of special forces'.

The naval infantry (hải quân đánh bộ) is simply a force that fights by landing on land from sea or river.

'Đặc công' is just how the Vietnamese military calls 'Biệt kích', or in other words, they are two synonyms. Translated into English, there is only 'Commando'. In the viwiki, there are no articles on the term 'Đặc công', they all lead to the article 'Biệt kích'. It can be said that your English translation of the word "đặc công" is incorrect because "biệt kích" is the original word, and when compiled incorrectly, it will be easy to be confused between Đặc công ('biệt kích', 'commando') and 'Lực lượng đặc biệt' ('special forces').

Conceptually, commandos are not simply amphibious operations from the sea, they are a separate fighting force, performing special operations. By having identical operations, commandos and special forces are almost the same. However, in the Vietnamese military, units like the 126th brigade or the 5th brigade, they call it commandos. So it was better to keep calling those two special brigades as commandos.

Its more better to remove those two special brigades from that list, since they are not pure naval infantry, in the article "Naval Special Forces (People's Army of Vietnam" or the Vietnamese version "Binh chủng Hải quân Đánh bộ, Quân đội nhân dân Việt Nam" also explain the difference between naval infantry and commandos. STAIDCONTEXT (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear friend STAIDCONTEXT, I'm really sorry you do not agree with my rollbacks. Let's see your points one by one:

• The term "commando" is a british word derivated from SA/dutch. In british it have gained a new meaning similar to "Special Forces", and is now used in this sense also in french. But we are *not* translating a SA/dutch, british or french term, we are translating a *vietnamite* term, and the best literal translation of the term "Đặc công" is "Special Forces".
• The term used in vietnamite sources to indicate the 5th and 126th Brigades is "Đặc công", not "biệt kích". See [[3]] and [[4]]. Wikipedia articles, as you certainly know, are *not* considered a valid source for other wiki pages, but anyway even in the *generic* vi.wiki article Biệt kích that you quote the vietnamite equivalent are clearly indicated as "Đặc công Việt Nam". And if you take a bit of time to check the *specific* vi.wiki articles about the 5th and 126th Brigades you will see that their names are indicated using the term "Đặc công" (see Lữ đoàn Đặc công 5, Quân đội nhân dân Việt Nam and Lữ đoàn Đặc công Hải quân 126). So even vi.viki (if you really want to use it as a source) confirms that "Đặc công" is the term to be translated. And the best literal translation of the term "Đặc công" is still "Special Forces".
• About the fact that the 5th and 126th Special Forces Brigades are not "pure" naval infantry, that of course is in part true. The point is that they are neither "pure" naval special forces unit (i.e. small, dedicated underwater assault unit, like the italian COMSUBIN or the spanish Fuerza de Guerra Naval Especial etc.). On the contrary, they are fairly large units that specialize in all kind of amphibious operations and that *also* include small underwater assault detachments. So while the COMSUBN, the FGNE etc. have not been included in List of marines and naval infantry forces, as they are dedicated UDT/combat swimmers/SF outfits, this two vietnamite brigades , like the Syrian Sea Commandos Regiment, or the iranian Naval Special Forces, or the greek Amphibious Raiders Squadron etc. *do* have a specific amphibious assault role as part of their main mission (both currently and historically), and as such IMO can properly be included in the List of marines and naval infantry forces article.

I hope that my position now is a bit more clear then what I've managed to squeeze in the edit summaries of the rollbacks. As you can see from the article history, I've been putting a lot of time and research efforts in the List of marines and naval infantry forces article, and please believe me, I have considered *very* carefully the inclusion or exclusion of some "borderline" units: of course it is hard to identify generic clear-cut criteria and it is therefore largely a matter of a case-by-case-judgement, but I'm fairly well convinced that all the included units are in their proper place.

I hope there is not any bad feeling on your side about the rollbacks, I've tried to stress in the edit summaries that there is *no intention at all* to be rude in any way, on the contrary I really appreciate your contribution exactly as everybody else, but honestly *in this specific case* I do not consider them as accurate. That's all. Hope to hear from you again. All the best --Arturolorioli (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

File:EnzoGrossi.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EnzoGrossi.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)