User talk:Theologiae/Archive 1

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Theologiae! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 12:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009[edit]

Proposed deletion of Economy of milan[edit]

The article Economy of milan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is substantially identical to the "economy" section of the Milan article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrMarmite (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 14:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Italy[edit]

In no case you should use Wikipedia as a source for another WP article, copypasting the same phrase in the same article twice is another no-no. If you want to know more about which sources can be used on Wikipedia, see WP:RS or just ask me.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, your mindset is wrong. When you edit a page with the aim of adding "positive things" about a subject, you're starting off on the wrong foot. Instead, try to edit articles following a neutral point of view, covering the subject without any bias or partisanship with the sole objective of improving the page.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you what is wrong with your edits, and why I reverted them. You did make a few mistakes in the layout, but the main thing is that you didn't include any valid reference (in 3,000 bytes of text). I suggest you to find valid references for your edits instead of reverting me, in fact you are not allowed to revert a single page more than three times within 24 hours.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 93.45.133.14 has gotten rid of nearly all my edits. Please resolve this. I've written to the person, but he/she seems to have not taken any notice whatsoever.

It's interesting how you concluded that I wouldn't take "any notice whatsoever" just after five minutes you left the message.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember claiming you were attacking me, or accusing you of harbouring an anti-greek sentiment. Or that I "gave you destructive criticism". I already explained you, and it's the second time in twenty minutes that I'm pointing it out, what's wrong with your edits. If you need a clarification, ask me more specific questions and I will answer them.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create a sandbox of your own and try your changes there first. We'll discuss them, and once they're good enough we'll update the mainspace article. Is that ok with you?--93.45.133.14 (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sandbox--93.45.133.14 (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just click on this link and create a page as you would do for any page in mainspace. Don't try to change too many articles at once, focus on a single article. When you have created that page (the link will turn blue when you do) write me back.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure you're British? Cause your English kind of sucks. No offence intended, mine's not that good either.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start by removing all the WP references, and replace them with some valid ones.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it right now, I'll answer you on the sandbox talk page once I'm done.--93.45.133.14 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at User talk:Theologiae/Sandbox.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Your Message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, I've left you another reply -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, I've left you another reply -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, another reply -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae,I've left you another reply for you on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 00:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've left you a reply today on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 17:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Greece[edit]

Thanks for your comments.

The problem with some articles about economic history is that they either reflect very recent conditions (experienced at the time somebody wrote the article) or do not put things in the right context - typical of garbage written in newspaper or heard in TV shows. For example writing about "huge economic problems and corruption" in Italy and Bangladesh are both technically accurate, but, especially in an encyclopedic article, one should put the information about the country in the right context. Before the "Economy of Greece" article was "attacked" it had somewhat of a balance, as in the last paragraphs it analyzed recent negative evolutions. I would suggest that a couple of paragraphs were added at the end, that reflect the negative factors (low competitiveness, corruption etc) and the negative current situation, but it should not fall in the usual traps mentioned above. Regards, Skartsis (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Answer to your question, also posted on my talk page)

First, as I had explained, the article was recently "attacked" (I understand, by somebody else) when most of it was deleted (almost vandalized). If you look at earlier versions, you will see a much larger article with reference to the current economic problems etc. (I had also added a paragraph about the miserable 80s). What you saw that looked like advertisement, was the result of this semi-vandalism. I am OK with these paragraphs added at the end, they both balance the message and are accurate. Probably a lot of further expansion can be made, but in an organized way. Regards, Skartsis (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy edits[edit]

The burden of proof for any statement is on the editor who adds a claim to an article. Further, Wikipedia has policies regarding the types of references that may be used. These must be reliable sources with clear and unambiguous supporting documentation to verify those claims. The website you linked to, which I removed, does neither of these things, so may not be used as a reference on Wikipedia. That leaves a bare, unreferenced statement.

It is not my duty to do the research to support material you want to add. If you want to include that material, find the scholarly work supporting your claims. Until then, the claim is unproven, and should not be added to Wikipedia. If there are indeed "countless sources proving that it is true", as you claim on my talk page, then you should have no trouble listing them on the article's talk page, but please make sure that they satisfy the reliable sources requirements I noted. Mind matrix 16:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Italy overtaking the UK[edit]

Hi, I do not dispute the Telegraph's report. What I am suggesting is that it may be a little premature to say that Italy will definitely overtake the UK for the year as the world's sixth largest economy. We are about 3/4 into 2009 and the full 2009 figures will be released sometime in early 2010. It may be more prudential to make changes to the articles then. Nirvana888 (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed warning[edit]

Removed warning, computer error, sorry. Jusda fax 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And... Thanks for reverting your message. Yeah, looks like you are doing some good work on the Italy page. Huggle glitched on me, it does that every thousand edits or so. Best wishes, Jusda fax 21:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Italy[edit]

Good additions. I think there is some confusion, however, in that Mezzogiorno does not always = Southern Italy and they could, actually, be two separate articles (like italian WP). Do you agree? Mariokempes (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK and Italian economy[edit]

its just the news, they word it in werid ways attracting readers thats all.

quater 1 and quater 2 GDP the UK was some "250bn above Italy, in quater 3 Italy was only $2.5 billion above the UK, basicly the economy is split in 4 quaters and added up to gain a total, now considering the first 2 quaters the UK was some $250bn above italy that will carry the UK over the Year past the Italian GDP any way.

its just news papers try to attract readers, because in actual fact yes inn quaterly GDP italy over took the UK in quater 3, but quater 3 only. the first 2 belong to the UK with a huge lead and there is the last quater left (quater 4) where the UK will pull out of recession.

and any way the numbers were premature, its expected to revise the numbers and find the UK did not infact drop 0.4% but 0.2/0.1% (it allways happens lol)

IMF still says the UK is leading above italy any way Bro5990 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florence[edit]

Hi. I'm attempting to start a debate at the Talk page. I hope you will join this without feeling slighted. The problems which concern me were around before your recent contribution. I feel that the lists should be integrated in prose, without duplicating the material covered in wikilinked articles and in other parts of the article. Eg, there needs to be only ONE mention and one wikilink for the Boboli Gardens -- there are three at present. While considering this, please also have a good look at WP:EMBED. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've replied to your message at the article talk page. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair Italy Article Revert[edit]

I like you am upset about the revert of your contributions to the Italian article...I think a lot of the information you provided was excellent especially in terms of the economy and other interesting facts on Italy. I am talking on your behalf on the Italy article talk page. I would like to see most of your work reinstated to the article...if you need help or anything, let me know and we could work together... 24.36.33.146 (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Galati[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today[edit]

Happy Birthday Theologiae, have a great day! --Atlantispy09 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Atlantispy! It's not my birthday today, but my party. Thank You!--Theologiae (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

~~Someone's vadalised the List of tourist attractions in Rome page. Please correct that!--Theologiae (talk) 11:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)~~ done[reply]

Renaissance architecture[edit]

Please do not chop up a Top priority A-graded article without discussion. What you did msy be well meaning, but it constituted a form of vandalism. The Renaissance architecture page is a generic page. It requires the information on Italy. I notice also that you simply cut and pasted a great deal of the general information. Amandajm (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Renaissance architecture needs to contain all that info on Italian architecture because it is essential to an understanding of the general subject. In other words, without Palladio, you don't have English Palladian architecture, or the Queen Anne style or the Classical architecture of the US. Without Michelangelo and St Peter's, you don't have St Paul's, etc etc. You can't simply move it and call it specifically Italian, because its impact puts it in the generic article.

Before you chop up an article, you need to determine whetehr there is a real necessity for doing so. That article is of Top-priority, which you will find in the box on the talk page.

I have solved the problem be creating what is known as a redirect. This means that if you look up Italian Renaissance architecture, you will be directed to the Renaissance architecture page. Amandajm (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just look up Italian Renaissance and Mannerist architecture, and unless someone else has fiddled with it, it will take you straight to the Renaissance architecture page. All the info, except the info on gardens is there. Amandajm (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mannerism is essentially an Italian movement.

Yes, I agree that an article that gave a broad overview of the architecture of Italy would be good. It means a lot of work. It is always easier to write successful articles about just one building, or one artwork that take on something like that. I'll give it some thought. Amandajm (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding articles like Art of Italy by cutting and pasting swathes of other articles is not necessary. The topic is vast. You can't cover every aspect of Italian art in that one article. What it requires is careful editting so that each part is dealt with in a manner that relates to the other parts of the article. The article needs to be seen as an "overview" with each section linked to a full and detailed description of the period or style. The links are made by double-square-bracketting the key word, such as Futurism and/or inserting a tag that directs you to a "main article" eg . I can see this article needs tidying up. I'll have a go at it. It will be much easier to fix than creating a new article on architecture.

Have a look at the article Architecture to see how a vast topic can be dealt with successfully in a overview. Amandajm (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of events in Italy in X[edit]

Thanks for these articles; could you please reference them? Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It is worth pointing out that your method takes no less time than the suggested way of doing things, yet leaves a lot of unreferenced stubs around the place. Wikipedia must be verifiable at all times. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know almost nothing about Italian history, I'm afraid. I can help if you need to know how to format citations, but I would've thought you'd have sources for things you're writing articles about. Ironholds (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Years of the 15th - 17th century in Italy[edit]

I have nominated Years of the 15th - 17th century in Italy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Years of the 15th - 17th century in Italy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. iBen^discuss 20:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^discuss 20:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from 1693 in Italy, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. iBen^discuss 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Years of the 15th - 17th century in Italy[edit]

A tag has been placed on Years of the 15th - 17th century in Italy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen^discuss 20:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 15th - 17th century years in Italy[edit]

IBen did not delete it himself : he simply can't. You, him and me are only contributor. He asked for it's deletion : an admin then went by and deleted it (thereby approving the deletion). Now I encourage you to create your "year" pages first. Once you have a couple of them, then you'll be able to recreate your portal style 15th - 17th century years. All is not loss : nothing is ever loss on Wikipedia! You can ask a Sysop to retrieve the code of your page in order to publish it again. The Sysop who deleted your page is RHaworth, I suggest you contact him (he also gives hit on how to do it on his user page). I suggest you to do it now, and keep it in your computer or publish it in you user space (Like here!). Once time has come, you'll be able to simply move the page on the main space! --Stroppolo^talk 17:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian modern and contemporary art[edit]

Thanks for starting the page. I will try to add to it when I can. Marshall46 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reusing Wikipedia's text[edit]

Hi. :) I note that you recently copied material from 1693 Sicily earthquake to the article 1693 in Italy, and I just wanted to drop you a note to point out a few things about the procedure. As Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia set out, when we duplicate material, we have to provide a direct link to the source article. This is necessary because Wikipedia's contributors do not release their material into public domain, but retain rights to authorship under the terms of our licenses, CC-By-SA and GFDL. This wikilink satisfies that requirement by allowing readers to access the history and see who contributed what and when. Usually, we put into the edit summary something along the lines of "Copied from 1693 Sicily earthquake". Then, we note the reuse as well in an edit summary at the source article. That would read like "Material copied to 1693 in Italy", in this case. This helps make sure that the article is not later deleted, as it cannot be as long as the article to which the material has been copied remains. We also have an optional template for the talk pages of both articles at {{Copied}} (instructions for using it found there). I have fixed the problems with this article, but I wanted to let you know for future use. If you have copied material from other articles, please be sure to make proper note of that. Thanks, and if you have any questions about this, please feel free to leave a line at my talk page. The leftorium 14:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, would you please re-read Theleftorium’s very helpful message immediately above, and follow the instructions he gives when moving or copying material between articles. It is extremely important. As you seem to have done quite a bit of copy-pasting today, without (as far as I could tell) providing attribution information, I would ask you to go back through your edits and fix the problems. Thank you, Ian Spackman (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian art[edit]

Good to know I can help. Do you mean you need to quote a book within the text, or on the talkpage to show somebody that you're reliable? Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what I normally do is have a "bibliography" section for the book itself, and then quote the author and page number in the "references" section. Give me the title, author and page of the book, along with what point in the article you're trying to reference, and I'll do it for you as a demonstration so you know how to do it in the future. Ironholds (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and what bit of the article are you trying to reference? Ironholds (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, stick it in, message me and I'll show you how referencing works. Ironholds (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I assume you reworded Miller's work? Ironholds (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heya; my intention was to show you how. For future reference, there's something called RefTools (accessible in the "gadgets" pane of the preferences page) that formats references for you - I suggest using that. Remember to include the full title, publisher, year and ISBN. Ironholds (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're substantially rewording it, it isn't a quote. A quote is copying text verbatim; exactly as it is written. Ironholds (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's fine. Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The template itself was broken; there were no closing brackets, meaning that when inserted it treated the rest of the article like part of the template. I've fixed it now. One point; the "references" section should go after "bibliography". Ironholds (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^discuss 00:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Italy[edit]

Many thanks for your addition. I made a small change because of the new context. Best regards from Ireland Robert aka Notafly (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milan[edit]

Hello. I only changed 4 or 5 pictures, why do yoy say that I've made radical changes? Instead, when you change all my articles (like Italy, Rome, Turin, etc. and even Milan that I built almost from zero), you never discussed before act...Anyway, the changes that I made are only graphics (I've put more important landmarks). --Conte di Cavour (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ma infatti non ho mai detto che sono proprietario di quegli articoli ci mancherebbe. Ma non ha senso che tu mi chieda di discutere solo per cambiare delle foto, quando tu hai cambiato completamente intere pagine che avevo scritto io senza discutere con nessuno! Per me vanno bene le aggiunte che hai fatto a Milano, però avevi cambiato molte foto senza discussioni. Allora sii coerente: se vuoi collaborazione, anche tu devi collaborare! --Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foto Milano[edit]

Perchè devi cambiare la mia foto? Per me è molto meglio questa:

In questa si vedono le automobili di inizio 900, i primi semafori e il vigile in uniforme storica! In quella che hai messo non c'e niente, si vede solo la piazza vuota ed è praticamente uguale a oggi, che senso ha? Tanto vale fare una foto al Duomo e metterla in bianco e nero col photoshop non credi? --Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao, io sinceramente lascerei la foto di The Last Supper per due motivi:

1. è il "landmark" più famoso di Milano quindi andrebbe messo all'inizio 2. ci sta bene a livello di impatto grafico

Idem per la foto della Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II: anche io prima avevo messo quella che suggerisci tu, poi ho trovato questa dove si vede tutta la galleria e si mostra nella sua grandezza e altezza quindi mi sembra più maestosa:

questa invece mi sembra tutta storta e incasinata:

I say, you guys, this is English Wikipedia. If you must use the Italian language, please confine your discussions to Italian Wikipedia, eh?! See the guideline here: If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

The Encyclopedia Britannica is indeed copyrighted. The general principle is "better safe than sorry"; if something doesn't say it's public domain, assume it isn't. Ironholds (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, however, is now out of copyright and is a splendid resource to copy from. (Bearing in mind, of course, that the information may be out of date and that the language may sometimes need to be adjusted to modern tastes.) Ian Spackman (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of theatres and opera houses in Rome[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at Talk:List of theatres and opera houses in Rome.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Voceditenore (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

You really need to take proper attribution on board. Apart from the message above on Talk:List of theatres and opera houses in Rome, I see there have been several messages on your page about this before and you are still copying Wikipedia articles without attribution such as Women in Italy which has a big unattributed chunk which you've taken from Women in Ancient Rome without attribution. Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons[edit]

What it means is that, as works of 3D sculpture, there are some nations in which they cannot be used, since many european countries copyright sculptures in such a way that photographs are considered derivative works. However, it is still acceptable to use them on Wikipedia. This is because the Wikipedia servers are mostly based in the United States, a nation where there is freedom of panorama. Ironholds (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Copying from wiki[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quoting[edit]

You can, yes. The requirements are that it not be a particularly large quote (more than a paragraph is normally over the line) and that you attribute it (give an inline citation immediately afterwards to indicate its source). See the quotes in Court of Chancery for an example of how I usually do it. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 21:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^discuss/_contribsReplied here? 21:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-pasting in the Veneto article: apparent copyright violation[edit]

Please note that whenever you edit a Wikipedia page you get a notice with some advice:

Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission.

Following that advice is a good idea. Ian Spackman (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at Ian Spackman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Milan images[edit]

That is an issue you should raise on the article's talkpage. That stitched-together photograph is a problem, because it looks like the original photographs were probably stolen from somewhere, or at least not created by the "author". Ironholds (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

economy of italy[edit]

Would you be so kind to explain me why CIA (American source) is considered more reliable than ISTAT (official institute of statistics of italy) in an article concerning economy of italy, where ISTAT data are even more updated? Why has CIA the patent of the absulute "world fact-checker"? Anyway, I put the EUROSTAT source as well, if you dont consider even the official EU statistic office as "unrliable".--Desyman44 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"for official economy-related data, you mainly use the CIA factbook, or at most the IMF and the World Bank."^{[citation needed]}

I still don't see why ISTAT and EUROSTAT should have in your opinion less credibility than CIA, IMF or WB. Sure ISTAT makes mistakes, but pls tell me, do the others not? Do they have the "unfailable" label? As long as 2 official EU institutions are giving a more updated and coherent indications, they are to be considered reliable. In addition, in times of economic crysis, to show a data from 2008 with is more than 2 points discrepant to current economic situation, is misleading for the reader. The bodies you mention are slower in elaborating data, so since relevant changes have happened, they are, at the moment, THE source.--Desyman44 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to force a custom into a rule. The fact that in other articles it is used as main source by no means implies that this is accepted as binding. when other reliable sources have better, more updated datas, it is only counterproductive to force the CIA data to be the only one. The sentence you formulate makes no sense, since you are opposing to datas which refer to 2 periods and therefore are not contrasting one another. When CIA will update to 2009 its data, you can put back your beloved source, that's no problem, but preference shall be given to updated ones.--Desyman44 (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we should be waiting for CIA to update its website for updating Wikipedia infoboxes. Firstly it is not true that all articles about the economy of a country take CIA as only reliable source. Many have different sources. Secondly, it is different to quote a newspaper, which is not specialized nor as official as a national or EU statistic department. Let's try to emancipate from CIA, if we can do better. There are no sources challenging it, so no reason to doubt of it.--Desyman44 (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no "CIA but ISTAT" (anyway i also put EUROSTAT) because the 2 datas are not in contraddition. CIA refers to 2008, EUROSTAT and ISTAT to 2009. I dont see the "but". Again, CIA is not "the truth" (in some cases it's even "the lie"!). I'd not constrain the good faith and the desire of wiki users to update wiki (the main reason of the project) by fossilizing to CIA's website. That's an (alleged) custom I don't agree with.--Desyman44 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your flexibility, anyway. I just want to write you some final remarks I'd like to share: many articles do show many other and more updated sources in the tab, even by being CIA-based tabs. In fact main datas are from there, but updates come from different sources as CIA and institutions such as IMF and WB are slow in updating, while often more regional bodies have more up-to dated datas. The custom of having CIA I think comes from the fact that there's an easily accessible and quite complete outlook with those data, but for the entries not reported on CIA, other sources are necessary (not only for updates). So in my understanding, putting CIA as main source is rather a logistic choice made for convenience and accessibility. Not so strict in the end. Bye now!--Desyman44 (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:CIA results dodgy[edit]

Hey, can u post me the link you are referring to? (anyway it's always a good habit to compare statistics from different sources and in case of discrepancy try to analyze whether they refer to different periods or calculation methods).--Desyman44 (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's try to make some light in the darkness: you have 2 consider couple of things first of all. 1. CIA data show a 2009 est. without specifying to which quartet they refer to. 2. their values are in US dollars, and the exchange rate with euro (on which those economies are based) has been fluctuating, so the value in $ higly depends on exchange rate of when they made the calculation. 3. they do not specify whether the calculation is on chain-linked volumes or in current prices. You understand well then, how volatile the values can be, so it's normal that different sources show different data. I checked datas for Italy on ISTAT and Eurostat (I did not find 2009 results on IMF, WB or OECD, I guess because I have no login) and ISTAT gives the III trim.09 in chain-linked volumes as 304.180 mil €, EUROSTAT for the same period in current prices to 384.592 mil €. However a strong decrease in GDP is normal as effect of the world economic crysis, so IMF shows in the case of Italy a GDP decrease of -5.1 in comparison with the previous year (2008). For Germany -5.3. So yes, there was a strong decrease in 2009, sligtly stronger in Germany, but I cannot verify CIA datas for the reasons I mentioned. With these kind of macroeconomic statistics, you can have quite divergent results. However, please note that the -1% in CIA data refers to 2008, not 2009, where the decrease showed is -5%, quite realistic (EUROSTAT: -4.6%, ISTAT -4.6%, IMF -5.1) note also that CIA and IMF are still estimates. Eurostat and Istat are current, though not consolidated. Neither I am master economist, that's all my knowledge!--Desyman44 (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. For the nominal values, if you want to put them in US $, I think you can put new CIA ones, even if in my opinion to put GDP of a EU economy in $ makes no sense. If you want to put them in €, you can use the Eurostat data.[1] For the % variations, I think the most reliable is -in my opinion- Eurostat, so for italy -4.6% (season-adjusted, while I think CIA are not). Ciao!--Desyman44 (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non Free Images in your User Space[edit]

Hey there Theologiae, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Theologiae/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource[edit]

It depends entirely; some are public domain, some are licensed in the same way Wikipedia is and must be attributed. Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^talk/_contribs 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^talk/_contribs 21:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at IBen's talk page.
Message added 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

iBen^talk/_contribs 22:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 22:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitravel[edit]

Hello Theologiae, you are free to copy content from Wikitravel, so long as you comply with their license "CC-BY-SA 3.0". Now, what does that mean? That is shorthand for "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike" which requires that you attribute to the original source, and share the work under the same license if a change is made. That is, everyone who changes the content must attribute to the original source. Whenever you copy from Wikitravel, remember to attribute to their project by referencing. Here is an example:

Medellin is a nice place. You should visit Medellin because Medellin is a good place to visit.<ref>http://wikitravel.org/en/Medell%C3%ADn</ref>

So long as you use the ref tags (i.e. <ref> </ref>), you are complying with the license. Hopefully this helps. Blurpeace 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that Wikitravel and all other wiki models are not considered reliable sources. You can copy from them, but you shouldn't. Ironholds (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it has improved a lot since I last attempted to use it, I would agree with Ironholds: a source to be avoided. More importantly WP:Reliable sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 identifies open wikis in general as ‘largely not acceptable’.

On the attribution issue, if you do decide to copy from Wikitravel—or from any other CC-BY-SA text—I would go a little further than Blurpeace. To comply with the license you need to make it clear when you copy material that you have copied it: that is different from just using it as a reference, which is all that <ref>http://wikitravel.org/en/Medell%C3%ADn</ref> would imply. So I would either do something like <ref>This section includes text copied from http://wikitravel.org/en/Medell%C3%ADn which was published under the [[CC-BY-SA 3.0]] licence.</ref>, or add a free-standing note, indented and italicised, at the end of the article (under Notes, or References or Sources) like:

This article includes text copied from ‘Medellín’, an article from Wikitravel whose text is published under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence.

Hope that helps, Ian Spackman (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal)[edit]

A tag has been placed on List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I do not understand what is wrong with my List of Italian regions GDP pages. Literally, nothing is copied! Seriously, you can look, and not one phrase was copied from the source. It takes time to write these pages, and I can assure you that there is no copyright infringment. The only things which are the same are the statistics, but that is obvious, since how can I quote the statistics of a source without making them the same. It takes work, and I would appreciate you receiving an answer by me about the pages, since, I actually see nothing wrong, and in my eyes, this is either thoughtless vandalism or a huge misunderstanding. I would please like you to list all the things which are "copyright-breaking" and we can discuss this. But, I am getting pretty annoyed of turning on my computer and finding deleted pages with a notice saying "copyright-breaking" without having actually told me what the problem is (i.e. what particular phrase or sentence I put which is copyright breaking). Please reply as soon as possible--Theologiae (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply lift a table of figures from a website, reformat it, and post it on Wikipedia. If you wish to start a wider discussion, then I recommend Wikipedia:Copyright problems as the appropriate venue. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they were not copied or lifted (if you see the website, it says 12,300 million or whatever, whilst I wrote it as 12.300 billion) second of all, if you use a web as a source for statistics, they have to be the same. You can't just put a source, and then have different statistics. And anyway, since those are the official 2006 statistics, what others can you put. You'd be lying in that case! And now, to make things worse, the page has been protected and I can't recreate it. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I recommended before, start a wider discussion. Input from more members of the community may provide a way out of this impasse. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1285 in Italy[edit]

The article 1285 in Italy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant "list" of only one entry - cannot convert into a redirect.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the followup discussion is better done here. I probably would have proposed merging them into the year articles, rather than proposing deletion. Although the anon didn't provide a good reason for deletion, a list consisting of one item really isn't a good article, even when dealing with articles which should be in navigation templates. Perhaps it would be better to create lists for decade in Italy, which is more likely to have multiple entries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't have agreed more with Arthur. It's better to start with an actual list covering a wider period of time (and make sure it's an actual list with more than, say, two or three entries, and then if the list becomes unwieldy, split it off into shorter time intervals. The purpose of the prods is to encourage improvement or consolidation of the "articles" - simply removing the prod tags without any other changes is not improving them by any stretch of the imagination. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note...[edit]

... replied on my talk page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collage of Milan[edit]

Hi! File is done: see it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Collage_Milano.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done the other collages: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Altri_collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done other collages: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Venezia.2C_Palermo_e_Firenze.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Ultimi_collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio grafico/Immagini da migliorare#Veramente l'ultima volta.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Ultimissimi_collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#San_Marino.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem: see it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Nuovo_collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Nuovo_collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Economia.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Collage_storia_d.27italia.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done:it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Collage_storia_d.27italia.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Cultura.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Italian cuisine[edit]

Please note that I have speedily deleted the above under [[WP:CSD#A10|The A10 criteria for speedy deletion as a duplicate of an existing article.

Further, even if you were to split the history of Italian cuisine properly, please be mindful of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. When you split content from an existing article, you must note that you are splitting content in the edit summary of the source article where you remove the content from, note the source article where you took it from in the new article, and add the {{Copied}} template to both source and new article talk pages. Copy / pasting without attributing explicitly what pages the material was taken from is a copyright violation. MLauba (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further noting that this advice was given to you multiple times already, please note that this is now a formal warning: the next time you copy Wikipedia content without proper attribution, you will be blocked for copyright violation. MLauba (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

In theory you can be legally prosecuted, but I've only heard of one case ever being brought, and that was about images. Despite this, not doing in the future is for the best. Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could be prosecuted, it's just very, very rare. Ironholds (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, anyone who actually breaks copyright could go to court. Simply having a copyright notice does not mean that. Why does it need explaining? Copyright = law. Breaking copyright = breaking the law. Common sense. As said, it's very, very, very, very, very, very rare. I'm a law student, I know what I'm talking about; would you argue that it's ludicrous for someone who only committed a minor case of burglary to go to court? I'm not saying you will be sued; in fact, I think it highly unlikely that you will be. I'm just telling you you should avoid copyright violations in the future. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like WP:COPYVIO, which opens with "material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues"? Ironholds (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copying from Yahoo Answers? That's a copyright violation. Is anyone going to sue you over it? 99.99% "no". Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot confirm or deny anything, since I don't have access to deleted pages. Since outsiders don't either, I doubt you're going to be in any trouble. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying material from page to page on Wikipedia requires attribution
If the image source does not expressly say it is free, assume that it is not and don't use it. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) dismissing or deleting the document does not mean that the copyright violation never occurred

2) while the Foundation can be liable, so can you. You took and published the info; it just happened to be on their site. This is a rather thorny area; as said, it's highly unlikely anything will come of it, but don't do it nonetheless. Ironholds (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also in a common law system, as is the Foundation. If it is hidden, it is difficult to bring a case, yes; but 1) deletion merely hides it, it is still retrievable by some users and 2) there are various caches and copies of WP on the internet which could still contain the info. Where Wikipedia has been copied, it's in one of two situations; 1) where attribution is given, in which case it's fine and 2) where attribution is not. Normally thinks like yahoo answers have datestamps; if the Yahoo datestamp is after the Wikipedia datestamp, it's fairly easy to see who copied from who. Ironholds (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal)[edit]

Hi, Theologiae!

I'm sorry the list was deleted - twice, by two different admins. My suggestion would be to find a second source for that information. If there were two sources, then it wouldn't look like a simple copy from one web page into Wikipedia. Copyright issues, as you've found out, are a pretty touchy subject on Wikipedia - and rightly so, since the law can be pretty strict.

At this point, I recommend creating a user sub-page, like User:Theologiae/List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal), and putting together the information from multiple sources. At that point, you can use the {{helpme}} tag on that page to have it moved into article space.

Hope that helps! And happy editing! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theologiae! I'm not sure I'll be collaborating on this particular article, but I support you working on it :) As I mentioned above, you should probably create the article as a sub-page of your account - for example User:Theologiae/List of Italian regions by GDP (nominal). Once it's set up and has references from multiple sources, you can use the {{helpme}} tag on the page or talk page for help in moving it into article space.

Also, feel free to remove the copyright warnings from this page. This is your userpage and you're free to edit it as you like, with only moderate restrictions. See that link for more information. Enjoy! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theologiae!

I don't know of any copyright-paranoia clinic :)

You aren't under any sort of "charges". The notices on your talk page are notices about the article. If you were to blatantly copy/paste something else, you may get another warning, and you may even be blocked for continued copyright violations. That's why I suggested getting more than one source - at that point, you are referencing two or more sources, and therefore are not copying something from one site (which is the copyright violation). Hope that helps! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theologiae. I've now discussed a course of action that you could take two or three times. I don't know how much more help I can be. If you need any further assistance, please use the {{helpme}} function. Thanks, -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Theologiae. Yes, of course - check out Wikipedia:Help_desk - they'll be able to help you out :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 18:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on Bahá'í Faith in Italy[edit]

Hi - I've been on a project to write up such articles for a while now. I'm glad to see someone write up one. From what I can tell it's a translation of the italian wikipedia article. Just so you know I've assembled available information which substantially expands the information available. I've got this in a sandbox right now and when I'm ready to share I'd appreciate your consideration of it. I think it should be ready within a week or so depending on how much free time I can manage to devote to it's development. Smkolins (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I have the draft almost ready - a few refs need better formating but the general pile is good. See User:Smkolins/Sandbox2. I emphasized sources over readability and then went back and tried to make more readability adjustments but more may be needed. Let me know what you think and perhaps we can make further refinements and post. Smkolins (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll post it in a bit. I don't know the inter-wiki rules but perhaps you could translate it into Italian and post there?? Smkolins (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - it's up! Smkolins (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 1693 in Italy[edit]

The article 1693 in Italy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Redundant "list" of only one entry - cannot convert into a redirect.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. mono (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Law[edit]

It refers to the US code, which is essentially a complete copy of their Federal law (in Britain, we have a similar format through Halsbury's Laws). Basically it provides that companies are not liable for violating copyright law when that copyright violation was uploaded by someone other than the user and approved either without the company's consent or through an automated process. To simplify and apply: the Foundation can't be sued for stuff done by their users. Ironholds (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in more details at Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act. Circéus (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly speaking, yes, although it isn't covered in that section of the US Code. Ironholds (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA, of which OCILLA is part, is indeed broader, but OCILLA itself comprise section 512 and nothing else as far as I can tell. Circéus (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer. It just so happen that these laws are rather important to the functioning of Wikipedia, so that most admins have a passing understanding of them. Circéus (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is a regional power, not a middle power - Theologiae[edit]

Regarding your recent comment I thought I'd just say something, the headline is what I'm talking about (you made this comment recently), Italy is described as both a regional and middle power as they are not mutually exclusive. I would tend to agree with you though if a choice was to be made as Italy seems to have its power largely limited to Europe. G.R. Allison (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 1300 in Italy[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 1300 in Italy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1300 in Italy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Other one-item "list articles" have been included in the nomination. B.Wind (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your note to my talk page has been answered there and at the deletion discussion. B.Wind (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at B.Wind's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Economy of Italy statistics[edit]

The article Economy of Italy statistics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

data without context, not useful as a separate article

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. gnfnrf (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal opinion, bias, original research[edit]

Take your choice. Your uncited, unexplained addition to Prada "and is known to be one of the most famous international fashion houses"[2] demonstrates that you are far from understanding Wiki's encyclopedic goals. I rarely make personal comments, but that edit of yours was irresponsible. Your personal opinion, your perception of what (currently) is "most famous" is not wanted. WP:V Piano non troppo (talk) 09:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theologiae, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CIA[edit]

It is acceptable, but you must cite the source. While it is a public domain document, attribution is important. Ironholds (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you must provide references of your own since Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Ironholds (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italy[edit]

Please, please, please, read the manual of style or look at a featured country article like Germany before filling the Italy article with jingoism and mess in general. Thanks for reading, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least make an effort to give headings to or link things that are mentioned in the text? Otherwise it's just lazy editing. Including them into the text is fine, but lots of random links at the start of a section really do not improve the readability of the article (which is really quite long and hard to navigate). I'm guessing that you care quite a lot about Italy, so do it to give her a good article, not for me. Take a look at the way other articles look when they are good enough to be featured: concise, orderly, and easy on the eye. And yes, it is appropriate to mention the Paralympics.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution[edit]

I'd assume attributing it to the original article (and therefore the edit history) is enough, but you should probably ask User:Moonriddengirl. Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collage[edit]

Done: File:Collage arte italiana.jpg and File:Collage architettura italiana.jpg. Bye!--DaniDF1995 (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: File:Collage design italiano.jpg.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Monza_collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Altre_immagini_da_trasferire_sui_commons.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Collage.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put in cancellation the file of the scientits, but I left that of writers: it is right and could be useful.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio_grafico/Immagini_da_migliorare#Collage_fauna.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it:Progetto:Laboratorio grafico/Immagini da migliorare#Collage chiese.--DaniDF1995 (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian people[edit]

Let's compare the regional origin of the Italians you decided to portray:
Not an Italian: 1, Julius Caesar (see Italic peoples); North:10; Centre:7; South:1
and by sex: male:16; female:3
now I'll let you judge by yourself how balanced that is.--TheSandBoxMan (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: we create a discussion to let the community decide on 20 people who should represent the Italians, but this time keeping a fairer balance among the different parts of Italy, by reserving:

4 slots for Northwest Italy
4 slots for Northeast Italy
4 for Central Italy
4 for Southern Italy
4 for Insular Italy

Of which at least one per region should be a woman. What do you think about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandBoxMan (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Livorno photos[edit]

Hello again, Theo. I've reverted your addition of two hotel photos to the Livorno article, and here are my reasons. Firstly, the correct repository for such photographs is the Wikimedia Commons -- and they are in fact already there. Please read the guideline WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Inclusion of unnecessary photographs, for whatever personal motive, is a distraction to the majority of readers--it makes it harder for them to quickly access the essential information on a subject. In any case, the size of your photos is not warranted by the relative importance of the hotels, which are only briefly mentioned in the 'economy' section. Subjects treated in the gallery below (which are generally of greater notability) are not singled out in the way you wanted to emphasise two hotels. Hotels are commercial (for profit) enterprises and therefore need special care when mentioning in Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to include promotional captions recommending them as 'luxurious', etc. If you disagree and think these hotels are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, please start a separate article on each of them--and begin by establishing why they are notable, or more notable than any other profitable business in Livorno. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Poor quality edits[edit]

After your screeching at User:Moonriddengirl and User talk:MLauba , I feel I have to tell you that your edits are consistently poor and create a lot of work for me. You could have helped to edit the section (you saw the construction tag didn't you?), but instead chose to report me to satisfy some grudge you have against me.

Your command of the language does not seem to be at an advanced level (you kept missing the point of the issues I raised on Italy's talkpage) and aside from verbosity you use a lot of colloquialisms and generally unencyclopaedic language, you support your contributions with links to index pages or search engines, you seem to be out to prove that Italy is somehow a better country than all others (no country is better than another, deal with it) by filling the articles with statistics that support your POV, your main interest seems to be to add links to Italy related articles while disregarding the article's quality, leaving others to pick up the pieces.

Please do not regard this as a personal attack, because it isn't, it's just a wake up call for the problems in your edits, and if you decide to report it, the revision history at Italy can and will be used by me as evidence of your poor quality editing. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for assuming bad faith, but you do know that you could have sorted this out without getting others involved, don't you? I don't want to take this discussion further, so let's get on with editing (together). Brutal Deluxe (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, take a look at WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:SOURCES. While you may be right with some of the recent addition, internet tourist guides are not a valid (or valuable, as you say) source, as they are promotional and never will be neutral. Take care not to make the source say what it doesn't, after a quick look, I could not see anywhere that said that "Italy's most considerable works are seen in the FieraMilano". Will review it later, back to felling. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Navigation templates for guidelines on template construction. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the guidelines? There's nothing wrong with the templates you linked, while the one you are proposing is massive.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theologiae. You have new messages at MLauba's talk page.
Message added 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

MLauba ^(Talk) 15:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: your message[edit]

Hi Theologiae, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 23:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Theologiae, I've left you another reply on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Movie directors[edit]

Hi Theologiae, could you please create a collage of italian movie directors to replace le Fellini's photo in Italy page? I suggest you Vittorio De Sica, Federico Fellini, Sergio Leone and Giuseppe Tornatore. I think, should be great. --Grifter72 (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably you are right. In Italy you have no problem because photos have more than 20 years. Here there are different rules.--Grifter72 (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two new articles on Italian Renaissance[edit]

No! Possitively and absolutely No! You can't lift an entire text that is already in Wikisource, and is the work of a renowned academic, shove a few extra bits of information between the lines and set it up as an independent article. No! that is highly inappropriate. If anyone wants to read Burkhardt they must go to the original online text.

On the other hand, you can write your own article and cite the Wikitext as a source. These two article need deletion.

Amandajm (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote[edit]

Yes, you can and yes, you have to cite the Wikiquote article. However, it is highly inappropriate to do so, in that Wikiquote is not a reliable source. You would be far better off citing a reliable source which includes that quote. Note that Wikipedia frowns upon the use of standalone quotes or excessive quotes - that's why Wikiquote was set up. Ironholds (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And given the thread above this one, I MUST request that in future you ask about quotations, copyright and the rest before writing things. You're a good-faith contributor, but you've got a long history of copyright problems. I appreciate your enthusiasm and I'd hate to turn this into a formal warning or further sanctions, but if you don't look before you leap on legal issues I wont have a choice. Ironholds (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Three formal warnings is a lot. And I'm not talking about the formal warnings, I'm talking about the numerous times you've queried me on basic copyright stuff after acting. It's never gone formal, no, but it has been counter to policy. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered your question. Every statement you make is "with an exception" or "with a few exceptions" or "well I have been warned, but it wasn't valid". The idea that "the exception proves the rule" is false; if you have multiple statements which are valid, you have a "history". Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]