User talk:Dejudicibus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the Talk page for discussing changes by Dejudicibus

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and give comments that start a new topic ==A Descriptive Header==, placing them at the bottom of the page. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia. You're encouraged to create an account and look at the Tutorial, but feel free to just jump in and be bold, if you don't have any frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect Wikiquette, which means above all assume good faith and be nice, and bear in mind what Wikipedia is not.


Contents

[edit] Criticism

I'm sorry if this is wrong, but it seems to me like all your contributuions have been people with names that seem to resemble your username. Wikipedia has a policy that is against vanity pages and vanity edits, and I'm concerned that that's what you're doing. If so, contact me through my talk page, and I'll get these pages deleted. Niki Whimbrel 12:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I am always available to face criticisms. I understand your point and I am ready to discuss it. --Dejudicibus 13:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biography and autobiography

Hello, Darius. I'll grant you that the ancestor on whom you created an article does meet our criteria for notability. So that's okay.

On the other hand, you created an article on yourself. That's never a good thing - at the very least, it sets an extremely bad precedent. How can someone objectively decide their own notability, after all? If someone else decides that you should have an article, that's a different matter, and you can add and correct information. But if we let people add their own articles, the project would rapidly become filled with garbage vanity and boasting.

Regrettably - since the article was rather well-written - it's been deleted. My apologies. DS 13:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just translated the page on myself that was created in the Italian Wikipedia. There was a discussion and votation about the correctness to have it. It was accepted. Than it was elaborated by various people. I did not write the actual page. I just keep it up to date, for example, adding a new book when I publish it (I am a writer and journalist). --Dejudicibus 13:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Trying to fix a piece of code

My apology if this is your edit. Because you didn't logged in when you work on your own userpage, I thought it was just another user page vandal. With this understanding I'll no longer revert your page and please feel free to revert my revert. --WinHunter (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Euro coin icons

Hi Dejudicibus. First, an apology: I realise now that your post was NOT linkspam after all. I just didn't look at your site properly, and I suspect I was more guided by your link being in a prominent place (a common feature of true linkspam) and the "come-on" nature of the subtitle "free resources". Also, the fact that it's your own site doesn't look good.

However, having now looked at your site and your XP icons download, I still think it's not relevant enough to the euro article to be included - sorry! Possibly your site might be suitable for euro coins article, but even then I'm not sure. (If you do put a link to your site on the euro coins article, then I personally won't revert it, but I can see that someone else might.) Cheers, A bit iffy 11:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Hi again Dejudicibus. Actually, I want to clarify my statement "the fact that it's your own site doesn't look good." I didn't mean that your site has problems. I simply meant that if someone puts a link to their own site, it often indicates that the site is linkspam. However, I know that's not the case for yours.
Anyway, as I said, maybe the Euro coins article might be more suitable than the Euro article for your link. Cheers, --A bit iffy 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see that I am not the first to reach the same conclusion. It would be a sign of good faith if you were to upload the icons to Wikimedia Commons. That way anybody could use them - though maybe you don't want them to be subject to the GFDL license? Or that WC could not accept them since you are probably breaching the ECB's copyright? Otherwise, no matter how altruistic your intentions, a link to a private site will always be suspect. If your link is allowed, then whose isn't? On what basis?

Also, you said that an Admin approved of the link. If you are referring to A bit iffy, I don't read his remarks as approval. I read it as saying that it is on the margins of acceptability. I agree with him that it is just inside the line, but if you add commercial links to your site, that will cross it. But in the meantime, to be fair, it is nice work and a useful resource, so worth keeping. --Red King 16:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template for deletion

Another editor has nominated a template you created, {{WindowHome}}, for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated at [1]. Neil916 (Talk) 06:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WindowHome template is widely used in Italian Wikipedia. I found nothing similar in English one. Of course, if any is available, I will be glad to use it. Otherwise I would appreciate if you could keep it. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus 13:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
The template was already deleted on October 11, 2006 per TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 3. You may want to raise the issue with Wikipedia's Deletion Review process. -- Neil916 (Talk) 17:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you've already found the deletion review. Neil916 (Talk) 17:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] windowHome Template

Hi! I'm just letting you know I got your message, and also that right now I have no convenient internet access. I would recommend asking another admin at the current time. Sorry I can't be of more help. Best regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biparentalness

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Biparentalness, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Biparentalness. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Accurizer 15:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dejudicibus, thanks for your note on my talk page. Since the article was deleted under the proposed deletion process, you may recreate it if you wish. You would need to contact an administrator and request that the deleted text be made available to you. Regards, Accurizer 19:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi again; here is a link to the deletion record: [2] The rationale is not duplcated there, but it should be available in the nomination template, which I presume is still available at the top of the deleted article. Regards, Accurizer 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If my memory serves, it may have been WP:NEO and WP:V, but I can't say for sure. Accurizer 20:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposed deletion process is for uncontroversial deletions only, so there was no discussion. Had anyone objected, the nomination would have been removed. Since no one objected within 5 days, the article was deleted. Under this process, there is no barrier if you wish to recreate it. However, it may be sent to Articles for deletion (AfD), where a discussion would take place with regard to the nomination. If an article is deleted after an AfD discussion, the result is pretty much binding (unless and until facts change that would make the reason for deletion no longer applicable). I hope this is helpful. Accurizer 20:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing your rationale. I think if you can cite sources that are considered reliable by Wikipedia, your article may satisfy the inclusion criteria. Best of luck! Regards, Accurizer 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the sources that are in Italian, take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English for guidance. Regards, Accurizer 20:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Something that is "affecting millions of people, especially in Europe" should have more than two Google hits (this is according to the nominator). If you really have a problem with the deletion, you may be able to take this to DRV. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored the article (per WP:DRV we restore all prodded articles if the request is reasonable.) I recommend you move it to Bigenitorialità or mention Principio di bigenitorialità prominently in the article, since it seems to be an Italian legal term with no counterpart in English. ~ trialsanderrors 02:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the second alternative, since the associations are working to extend the principle to anglosaxon countries. It is already recognized in other European countries.--Dejudicibus 19:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
If Biparentalness isn't already an established word (e.g. adopted by the EU), then the original name should be used. ~ trialsanderrors 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's under review by the EU: I am in contact with them. I'll keep you informed when it will be officially added to IATE ddictionary (official EU dictionary). It is already used in normal speech.--Dejudicibus 22:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok I created Bigenitorialità as a redirect. ~ trialsanderrors 23:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I spoke with some English professors of psychology and sociology, and they told me that we can avoid the neologism by extending the concept of biparenting which usually refers to united couples, but that now is going to be extended to separated couples too. I am working to verify English sources to improve the article. In case, is there a way to move the article to BIPARENTING rather than BIPARENTALNESS? --Dejudicibus 20:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is an English text referring to Italian law: Biparenting--Dejudicibus 20:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. The sources don't necessarily have to be in English, although it's better to have some in case the validity of the article is questioned again. ~ trialsanderrors 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dejudicibus/WindowHome

Hello, I've userfied your template since it seems no one else picked it up. No problem sending it back into mainspace if it is adopted by other users, but for now userfication seems the proper action. I hope this did not create any disruption on your user page. Take care, trialsanderrors 23:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I promoted it somewhere, in case anybody else may want to use it.--Dejudicibus 19:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

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 Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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! HagermanBot 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ostia

Ciao! Thanks for good work at Ostia, Portus etc. I noticed it was a mess all around, but had little will to tackle it. Just a note: I think that Ostia proper should direct to the district Ostia Lido, as it is what mostly today people would seek for. Bye and good work. --Attilios 09:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. In fact I am looking for all occurrences of Ostia and editing articles to ensure that all references to Ostia Antica takes directly to Ostia Antica (archaeological site) and to the modern town to Ostia (town).--Dejudicibus 09:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've expanded Ostia Antica (modern). Maybe you can copyedit my English there (I'm Italian). Ciao and good work. --Attilios 09:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Certo. Ho appena notato la tua pagina personale... devo confessarti che sembra un po' WP:vanity, dato che effettivamente non hai pubblicato nulla (un po' come nel mio caso). Cosa ne pensi? --Attilios 09:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, NOOO! Come non detto. Avevo letto male (cioè, letto per niente...) la tua bibliografia!! Pardon. --Attilios 10:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ciao!

Ciao, sorry for the misunderstanding of last time. Spero non ti inc...erai, ma ho dovuto sopprimere il tuo nome dall'articolo Armenia (publisher) in quanto la sua inclusione da parte tua viola quanto riportato in WP:Conflict of interest. Poi, alcune note di stile: gli articoli dovrebbero cominciare con una frase chiara che descrive esattamente di cosa si tratta (cioè, "XXXX is an Italian publisher", e non: "The Italian publisher XXXX was founded by..."). Inoltre non vanno usate le prime persone, singolare e plurale. Ciao e buon lavoro.

ehm... chi sei? Non hai firmato....
Scusa, di solito non mi scordo. Ero quello dell'ultimo messaggio qui sopra. --Attilios 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/j/User_talk%7EDejudicibus_1611.html"