User talk:Raistolo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Raistolo! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! --Celestianpower talk 11:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Deleting old msgs

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:User page. Many people feel that oen shouldn't delete msgs on ones own user page too propltly, particualrly without archiveing them. Of course, they are still in the history, and there is not clear agreement on this. DES (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy tagging

Hi, radio stations like DZMM 630 are not candidates for speedy deletion. Please only put tags on articles which meet the criteria. Kappa 12:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, but still the article is painfully short and void of info-contest-link to and from it... your choice however :) --Raistlin 12:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedy deletions are not a matter of choice. The criteria are strict for a reason. Yes, the article is short, but it's still valuable because previously wikipedia had no information about this important topic. We have {{stub}} tags for short articles. Kappa 12:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, took notice :) --Raistlin 12:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
  • By the way, please don't use the generic {{stub}} if you can find a more specific stub tag. There is a link in WP:STUB to the complete list of approved stub tags. Also when you do tag articles for speedy deletion, i think it a good idea if you use {{db}} or one of the specialized tempaltes that supply a reason, rather than the plain del which does not. Also, articles which are not spedy candidates can always be tagged with {{vfd}} and placed on VfD for a proper deletion decision by any editor. DES (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yup, I used it only when I was unsure which was the appropriate one. Is it better to use a more specific one which could be incorrect ? I used the plain del only for empty articles, but if that helps, OK ! --Raistlin 17:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Personaly I would prefer that people never use plain del. If you aren't sure which of the specific tags to use, use db and write out your reason. if you can't think what to write, then maybe you shouldn't be tagging the article for speedy deleteion. There is {{db-empty}} for truly empty articles. DES (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blank of Incomplete Triangle?

Hi, you just left a message on my user page suggesting I had blanked the article on Incomplete Triangle. My username appears nowhere in the article's history and I had never even looked at the article, let alone attempt to edit it. How come you thought it was I who blanked it? Thanks! --High(Hopes) 20:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply! And thanks for clearing up the confusion about the pages - thought someone had gotten into my account! I left a note on the discussion page for Australia in England in 1981 stating my intentions - I had begun to edit it but ran out of time and did not want to leave it as was. If you wish to delete the page (are you an admin?) feel free; I'll draft the article on my user subpage in future and then post the whole lot once it's finished. Thanks! --High(Hopes) 17:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Delete's

Hi! I recently changed an article (247G) you had tagged as a speedy delete to a vote for deletion. I agree with you that the article should be deleted but it did not qualify under any of the categories listed under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Lack of notability (with the exception of "article(s) about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance" is not a reason to list an article as a speedy delete. Whenever an article does not clearly qualify, its always better to just list it as a VFD. Cheers! Gblaz 16:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ultimate Answer

I see you've speedy tagged it as unencyclopaedic. How about turning it into a redirect to The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything? Tonywalton  | Talk 16:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a good 'un. I wish I could see the face on whoever created the "The Ultimate Answer" stub if they come back to look at it. "Eh? Where did that lot come from?" Cheers

Tonywalton  | Talk 21:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Probably the server did it itself " Now that would be bloody scary. I'd have done it, but I've not been round myself long enough to quite take Be bold on completely... Give it time, and I'll stop just sticking {{db}} tags on stuff and hoping someone else will sort it, and start fixing stuff myself instead!

As for it being like Deep Thought, I think it's more like some biological system; deleting cruft articles is like the immune system (one sort of white cell marks "intruders" – puts up for speedydel in WP terms, another actually does the killing, or deletion... ) Perhaps Blogsphere isn't too far from the truth... Tonywalton  | Talk 22:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politecnico

I don't feel like getting more involved in that article at the moment, but it would be nice if both you and Orzetto could work on the article using good references, and perhaps focus on hopefully non-controversial aspects, such as the history of the institution. If there is a published history of the Politecnico, you could use that as a source, but take a look on the general history of Italian and European higher education to get some context. We need better coverage of European universities in the English Wikipedia. Uppland 15:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Politecnico - Talk page

Having read your contribution on the talk page of Politecnico di Milano, I have to ask you to read:

As you violated all these in one way or another. Your list of contributions is long enough to expect you not to make newbie mistakes such as cut&pasting from a copyrighted web page. --Orzetto 13:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Benildus College

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I can confirm, as a student of the school, that most of the new edits are pure BS. I will therefore revert the page back to your last edit.--Play Brian Moore 02:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politecnico di Milano

Raistolo thank you for letting me know about this. You have the great benefit of speaking several languages, while unfortunately many persons do not. As a native english speaker, I have no idea what "Politecnico" means, and the convention is to WP:use english. Politecnico di Milano may be an exception to the rule of common usage being in the native language, but this is an English encyclopedia and needs to conform to its users. I do not plan on changing this in the near future, but I personally think that a majority of foreign unversities do need to be renamed to their English translation. I will make sure to invite you to the conversation. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Politecnico di Milano

Hi! I intend to renew the page on Politecnico di Milano. Since I've seen you are really interested in that page, could you give me your opinion on the proposal I posted on the Talk Page of the Politecnico? Thx! --Eldar Featel 12:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! At last I've updated the Politecnico di Milano page as I proposed! :) Waiting your opinion! Thx! Bye! --Eldar Featel 14:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etiquette in Europe

Hi, you reverted most of my changes to the Etiquette article, re-introducing something that is not really true (the fact that italians do not like to discuss Roman Church scandals, in fact we do LOVE to discuss that...), and deleting most of the things I added. Is there a reason I cannot see to this? :) --Raistlin 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi. Some information you provided had value, but you didn't edit carefully enough...and that's disrespectful. In one swoop, you took an article which was very well-polished and (1) added non-Wikified material i.e. Turin and Palermo should have been linked (2) made several typos i.e. americanism, anti-americanism, Italians -- all should have been capitalized (3) made some suspect generalizations such as the one about business attire being more formal in Italy than "most of the rest of the world" and (4) inserted material that was already covered...i.e. the bit about anti-Americanism; and I also thought you repeated the bit about crossing eating utensils but that actually wasn't you.
  • What do you think when you see an article with a lot of typos or irregularities in it? Personally, bad style makes me inclined to disbelieve what an article is telling me. It hurts the article’s credibility.
  • Honestly, I am usually very gentle with people and I typically would have been corrected your mistakes rather than just reverse everything you did. But your edit with many careless errors caught me at an impatient moment and I decided to exercise my prerogative and just erase it. Go ahead and carefully reinsert what you think is necessary, just please keep comments brief (as is the style of most points in the article), make sure your not saying something that was covered in the intro, etc.
  • I am glad you sent me a note; I don’t want you to be discouraged from making edits in the future. If any mistakes do slip in -- hey, we're only human -- just please edit with great care.◄HouseOfScandal► 01:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi. Thanks for your excellent additions to Etiquette in Europe. Your mention about una bella figura was an especially good addition to the section. I added some material and citations to back-up your statements. I hope you had a Buon Natale. ◄HouseOfScandal►House of Scandal 04:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] references

kk thnx, i got the extra information from the book into the article and took out the HTML tags, everything should be fine now.

Nateland 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Bfi.jpg

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bfi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Butchered From Inside

An editor has nominated Butchered From Inside, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butchered_From_Inside and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

(No sourcing, stub content, couldn't find a press hit anywhere for the magazine).

--- tqbf 16:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy vs. debate at AfD

Regarding Sameh El-Shahat‎ I wasn't sure if when you placed the speedy tag you were aware I had already declined. In any event, please take to heart the difference between the basis for speedy deletion under A7 and what we do at AfD. You were absolutely correct in your edit summary when placing the speedy tag that the sources listed were "no proof of notability." However, articles do not need to prove notability to avoid speedy deletion under A7; they must simply have an assertion of importance, which is clearly met by mention in a major source such as the NYT. In this case, on the merits at AfD, we have found that this does not appear to be the tip of the iceberg. In other cases, we might find scads of proper sources where a single very prominent source mentions someone in passing (I have seen this many times). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stadia in Romania

According to Wikipedia itself, Stadia is a correct term stadium (plural stadiums or stadia in English). As the original contributor's choice is not incorrect, there realy is no need for you to decide it needs moving, especialy as you now have an article entitled "Stadiums..." that uses the word "Stadia" repeatedly. cheers. Idreamofjeanie

  • I'd say that "Stadiums" is the plural commonly used nowadays, while "stadia" is used rarely, and not for sports locations. Google for evidence. --Raistlin 15:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Goldman

Please, I'm in the middle of writing this. Could you have a look at it in half an hour and see if it's OK? Thanks.--Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks.--Bedivere (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation?

Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am alerting you that we are now considering a Request for Arbitration regarding him as an alternative to mediation, and would like your opinion on the matter. BOZ (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)