Welcome!

Hello, Wololoo! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing!  Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 03:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

February 2017

Information icon
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Centre-right coalition (Italy) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iryna Harpy, as already explained the page on the centre-right coalition has to be re-written because it has to concern all the centre-right coalitions in Italy, furthermore currently there is not a national centre-right coalition and the data about the seats concerned only three parties. For this reason I am re-writing part of the page--Wololoo (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Wololoo. Please feel free to revert me after creating a new section on the article's talk page explaining your changes. This allows other editors to comprehend the details as to your content changes as a matter of transparency. I'm not very familiar with the party, and I only have the article on my watchlist due to past edit warring over the content. Welcome aboard, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: Ok, of course! ;-) --Wololoo (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Parliament election, 1984 (West Germany), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Democratic Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Sergio D'Antoni

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Wololoo, thanks for creating Sergio D'Antoni!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. For a blp, more than one source would be useful to indicate that the article is not biased.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello, Wololoo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Italian coalitions

Hi, thank you for your helpful and comprehensive edits to the articles of Italian parties! I only have one note – when a political party is running as part of a coalition, the correct way to phrase it would be to say that it participates "with" or as "part of" that coalition, and not "into" it. For example, IdV's page should say that it ran "with Civil Revolution" in 2013, and not "into Civil Revolution". I would never normally have pointed it out like this, but it seems to be an issue that is now affecting a lot of Italian parties' pages. And so while it's absolutely not an urgent issue, I would greatly appreciate if you'd consider making the changes necessary. Cheers! — Μαρκος Δ 21:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Μαρκος Δ, I am italian and I don't know the most appropriate terms. As soon as I can, I will make the necessary corrections. Bye! --Wololoo (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian general election of 2001

Where is the discussion in which it was decided that you could unilaterally keep adding a minor, third party into infoboxes which, for Italian elections since 1994, despite you being reverted by other users and being told that it was consistent to show only major coalitions there? Third parties are only shown in elections since 1994 when they are large enough to merit inclusion in the infobox (i.e. 1994, 1996, 2013 and 2018). Situations where tiny parties are put together to the larger coalitions would be to give undue weight to them. Impru20 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Impru20 That situation was consolidated long since! It's just your discretionary choice without consensus. Until November 2017 there was also the third position. I have to revert the previous version, it is necessary to seek consent before changing a consolidated situation --Wololoo (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Consolidated? As far as I see, user @Nick.mon: removed PRC from the infobox on 7 December 2017‎ in accordance with consistency applied in other articles. Then, you choose to re-add it without discussion on 3 March 2018, three months later, when the "consolidated situation" was that PRC was out of the infobox as per WP:CONSENSUS. Maybe you should engage in discussion in talk before unilaterally imposing your views under your discretionary choice, maybe? Until then, the article will be reverted to its latest consolidated situation, which was to have PRC out of the infobox. Impru20 (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, you've edited your comment to highlight that it was "until November 2017" that there was a third position, so you now acknowledge that, since that date, that was not the consolidated situation. So, you should seek consensus if you wish for the third party to be re-added, because three/four months seem a pretty decent amount of time for a situation to consolidate under WP:EDITCONSENSUS, specially if when reverting it, no other argument but that "the usual number of candidates is 3" (which is not true) is brought forward. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 Which is the criterion for excluding the third training only for the 2001 election? No one! In November 2017 Nick.mon modified a long time consolidated situation without apparent reason. Minor candidates are also present in other elections, not only in the 2001 election. The "consolidated situation" was the previous version, not the only last 3 months, it's evident. Why I have to seek consent and not who has modified a consolidated version for a long time? Can you explain it to me? If I reverted it immediately then I was right, while after 3 month I can't anymore... I do not see the meaning of this reasoning...--Wololoo (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read anything of what I've told at Talk:Italian general election, 2001#PRC/third party in infobox? Looks like you didn't. Besides, the third party is excluded from the 2001, 2006 and 2008 elections, where results for third parties were either weak or negligible (that's the criterion you ask for, I think; actual party strength and relevance compared to the larger bloc-shaped coalitions).
In November 2017 Nick.mon modified a long time consolidated situation without apparent reason. And no one discussed it for months. That's what called consensus through editing. Besides, I should note that the previous "long time consolidated situation" also came as a result of him adding PRC to the infobox back in March 2014, so we can arguably say he was only reverting one of his edits; actually, the "consolidated situation" before he added PRC in the first place was for only the two larger coalitions to be present in the infobox, so you are not correct on this point.
Nonetheless, I also agree with Nick.mon on removing PRC from the infobox, and I guess that should consensus be sought on the talk page and only the three of us did participate, consensus would still be in favour of removing PRC from the infobox 2 to 1, so, where's the consensus to have them in? Impru20 (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 I saw that discussion later, we continue the discussion in Talk:Italian general election, 2001#PRC/third party in infobox--Wololoo (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, check the discussion at Talk:Italian general election, 2001#PRC/third party in infobox. That the issue was limited to and appliable only for post-1994 was mentioned at every comment in the discussion. It was never hinted that any threshold at all should be applied for third parties pre-1994. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Impru20 maybe your implicit intention was the application to post-1994 elections only, but the discussion was general. A 7% party remains a 7 % party --Wololoo (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The discussion at Talk:Italian general election, 2001#PRC/third party in infobox is very clear: all the time it was clearly stated by all participants that the scope of the changes and thresholds to be introduced applied only to post-1994 elections, as a result of pre-1994 infoboxes showing parties and post-1994 ones showing coalitions. Even you yourself did not mention pre-1994 elections at all or even suggested the slightlest possibility that you intended to apply this pre-1994. You're violating WP:CONSENSUS, so please, revert your edit and refrain from engaging in edit warring. Impru20 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 Never talked about the only application post 1994! If there is a coalition we indicate a coalition, if there is a party we indicate a party, your speech is not correct, the discussion was absolutely general. There isn't difference between the result of Socialist Unity in 1948 and UDC in 2008--Wololoo (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference pre-1994 and post-1994 is the presence of coalitions, but this has nothing to do with the relevance of a party, a 7% party remained a 7% party both in 1948 and in 2001. So I'm applying the criterion decided in that discussion --Wololoo (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not even mention the 5 Star Movement here, I don't know what's your point in claiming it isn't a coalition. Returning to the issue revolving Talk:Italian general election, 2001#PRC/third party in infobox, the whole discussion revolved on post-1994 elections. See:
  • From the opening comment in the discussion, from myself: It'd be also useful if some common paramaters can be obtained to determine when a third party should be in the infobox or not for post-1994 Italian politics
  • Your response: "Large enough" it is a generic definition, if we exclude the Prc in the infobox of this election, then we also have to exclude the Northern League in the 1996 election and the UDC in the 2008 election, but also the centrist pole in the 1994 election. Indeed in these italian elections the political context was substantially bipolar. If you want to include in the infobox only the political poles that have reached at least the 10% of the votes, instead you must also include Monti in the infobox of the 2013 election. (you limit yourself to post-1994 elections).
  • From my response: Looking at elections from 1994 to 2018, it looks like the 10% threshold seems enough for a party or coalition to be considered as "significant" in post-1994 Italian politics, and I'd be fine with that.
  • Your response: My position is to include third parties if they have obtained seats in parliament. The LN in 1996, the PRC in 2001, the Udc in 2008, but also Monti in 2013 are considerable as outsiders, regardless of 10%. Furthermore, you must consider that the Civic Choice party in 2013 took only the 8% of the vote (only the coalition barely exceeded the threshold of 10%), this detail must also be considered.
  • My response: Well, given that Italian electoral systems post-1994 rely primarily on coalitions, coalition vote is the one which must be counted. If Civic Choice ran within a coalition which polled above 10%, then it's the coalition vote which should be included; if you see, separate parties are not included (this, obviously, not considering single-party coalitions such as M5S, but With Monti for Italy was a coalition on its own).
Note how the only reference you made to pre-1994 elections in the whole discussion was about the PSI's alleged performance in the 70s (which, btw, was untrue), which I replied explicitly mentioning (again) post-1994 politics. No one else did ever mention pre-1994 elections, and you yourself focused on post-1994 elections for the remainder of the discussion. But let's keep going:
  • Nick.mon's response: Well, in my personal view, we should maintain only the two coalitions and a third party that does particularly well (maybe more than 15%), for example the M5S in 2013, and also the Pact for Italy in 1994. So we could remove PRC, UDC and if you want also Lega Nord; but in 1996 Lega won many seats in the north and it appears in the map, so I think we should leave it.
This revolves on the same terms, until Checco's intervention, which focuses essentially on post-1994 elections: In my view all coalitions scoring more than 10% should be included in the infobox. Other than the centre-right and the centre-left, that means the PpI in 1994, the LN in 1996, the M5S and CMpI in 2013. However, I would not invent a specific rule, but be flexible.
As you see, no one ever discussed the possibility of forcing this threshold into pre-1994 elections. If you want that threshold to be applied there, seek consensus for it. The reached consensus at Talk:Italian general election, 2001#PRC/third party in infobox was very clear at focusing in post-1994 elections only, when parties frequently coalesce into coalitions (as opposed to pre-1994 elections, where no coalitions were formed).
In consequence, please revert your edit. If you wish to have the 10% threshold applied for pre-1994 elections, seek consensus for it first. Impru20 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm applying the criterion decided in that discussion. Don't manipulate WP:CONSENSUS, that was not the criterion decided in that discussion, as that discussion revolved only about post-1994 elections. The decision to apply this criterion to pre-1994 elections has been unilaterally decided by you, not by anyone else. Revert your edit and seek consensus if that's your choice, but do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Impru20 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Impru20 As you see, also if you focused on post-1994 elections, no one has talked about the only application post-1994! We have decided to indicate in the infobox the parties/coalition over the 10% to, your words, not give undue weight to the small parties. Where is the difference between a 7% party pre-1994 and a 7% party post-1994? No one! This discussion does not really make sense, the criterion decided here is absolutely general, it is not written or decided anywhere that this criterion applies only to elections post-1994 --Wololoo (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1) I opened the discussion leaving it crystal clear that it was limited to post-1994 Italian politics; 2) the conflicting issue revolved on post-1994 elections; 3) You yourself acknowledged it and limited it to post-1994 elections; 4) Both Nick.mon and Checco discussed post-1994 politics only; 5) The reference to post-1994 elections was very clear and regular throughout the discussion, and you (nor anyone else) never mentioned to apply this beyond the 1994 to present timespan.
(edit conflict) We chose to show in the infobox parties/coalitions above 10%, but just for post-1994 elections, so it comes as a suprise to me that you, who did not agree with such a limitation at first, now try to impose it beyond the scope that was initially agreed upon. Don't pretend to game the consensus reached and ignore it by trying to impose such a threshold everywhere, because that's disruptive and a clear case of WP:POINT. Again, I ask you to revert your edit and seek consensus for apply the 10% threshold. Impru20 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And... the 10% is your choice! I have applied a criterion decided by you, try to be consistent, I don't manipulate anything!!! --Wololoo (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if there was still any doubt about WP:POINTy behaviour, here it is... Impru20 (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered my question: where is the difference between a 7% party pre-1994 and a 7% party post-1994? Why after 1994 there is undue weight and before 1994 not? You looked olnly post-1994 elections, and then? A rule is general, if the opposite is not specified. Are you surprise about my edit? I was contrary to this rule, but the most important thing is the consistency, I wanted to insert the third parties also if under the 10% threshold, but if a party is too small to be inserted in the infobox of 2001/20018 elections, it is also too small to be inserted in the infobox of 1948 elections, it's an obvious thing. And about the PSI: in the 1973 and 1976 elections it took under the 10% of the votes for the Chamber--Wololoo (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pannella.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pannella.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello, Wololoo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

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

Susanna Ceccardi

Ciao, se hai tempo segnalo anche a te User_talk:Checco#Susanna_Ceccardi dove ho chiesto un parere su una bozza.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Alexmar983, forse una pagina su di lei nella Wikipedia in lingua italiana non potrebbe essere mantenuta, ma qui non credo ci siano problemi, esistono pagine molto più irrilevanti. La bozza che hai scritto sembra completa, unica cosa che ti faccio notare: la Ceccardi è nata il 19 marzo 1987 ([1]) --Wololoo (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wololoo figurati se la faccio su itwikipedia! :D un giorno sarà sottosegretario, eurodeputata, presidente di regione o che altro ma al momento, mi basta la notabilità qui. Ok rifinisco e poi boh in genere se qualcun altro sposta la sandbox al mio posto preferisco, mi pare un utile secondo passaggio. Soprattutto considerando che non sono un utente frequente su enwikipedia (anche se sto lavorandoci molto in questo periodo)--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983 Beh, non vedo quale sia il problema, se l'hai scritta te è giusto che sia tu a pubblicarla ;) (e poi le pagine appena pubblicate vengono comunque revisionate) --Wololoo (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wololoo allora procedo. Grazie.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983 Di niente! :) --Wololoo (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domanda preliminare: tu che ne pensi dell'avviso POV appena messo? Perché io a voce l'ho scritta in base a cosa trovavo sulle fonti, è stata lì per mesi, l'ha rivista un sacco di gente e non mi pare proprio che l'abbia pèensato nessuno finora. Anzi le parti aggiunte dopo gennaio sono personali (la parentela con Zanicchi, la figlia in arrivo, la carriera politica al liceo) ma non politiche. Un po' troppo semplice buttare un avviso senza dire nulla così, no? Chi fa così non penso abbia tanta voglia di esprimere concetti articolati quindi io mi ci si ficco solo se ho la rasscurazione che è un avviso eccessivo a detta di altri. Premesso che io in italiano non l'avrei tradotta così, ma più altro per via di altre parti, roba come enfasi a palate è impropria. La non-località del voto è rappresentata dal fatto che sui giornali anglofoni c'è finita quasi subito e sta nelle fonti.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fra l'altro è buffo, in italiano invece di rimuovere le parti più fuffose come quelle personali o dettagliate, sono stati falcidiati proprio gli aspetti fontati dei punti chiave della sua carriera politica, di un politico è essenzaile sapere che la sua vittoria è stata così rilevante da avere una valenza nazionale (è finita pure su giornali esteri) e che ha contribuito all'elezione di due parlamentari, moooolto di più che ha dato la cittadinanza a Magdi Allam. Mah...--Alexmar983 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao Alexmar983 beh, diciamo che alcune espressioni possano effettivamente apparire abbastanza enfatizzanti: frasi come "She was therefore considered a rising star in the party" oppure "The result was not considered local: Matteo Salvini, who at time was only leader of the Northern League, gave himself news of her victory to the national audience during the television late night show Porta a Porta. It was seen as a key example of the political shift fuelled by the topic of immigration which later occurred at the national general election in 2018" alla luce dei fatti sono veritiere però danno troppa enfasi alla pagina e la fanno sembrare poco neutrale. Magari con la rimozione di queste due espressioni potrebbe essere rimosso anche l'avviso. Invece mi sembra decisamente incomprensibile la rimozione da parte di Vituzzu nella pagina in italiano del fatto che sia stata eletta dopo 70 anni di sindaci di sinistra, questa mi sembra una cosa importante da sottolineare ed infatti intendo reintrodurla.--Wololoo (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wololoo le espressioni che io sappia sono quasi tutte nelle fonti. Se puoi controllare anche tu, magari sono state influenzato dalla vox populi locale (vivo nel comune adiacente) ma davvero lo shift politico è un dato politologico. Guarda, se trovi una versione diversa per me va benissimo, secondo me fai prima tu a aprire la fonte e limare, non voglio nemmeno apparire io come uno che ci si agita troppo. Solo che la stanno traducendo e se non possono valutare le fonti in italiano è meglio rimuoverlo questo template (fosse una voce non sotto massiccia attività di traduzione, ci potrebbe stare per mesi finché non si trova una quadra). Su itwikipedia non mi pronuncio, davvero, lì. Credo che sia stato tolto del succo politico, ma se la vedano lì. Io non l'avrei tradotta in quel modo, ma erano altre parti cha andavano tolte.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983 Non ho capito benissimo il tuo discorso della traduzione, comunque ho già specificato che tali affermazioni sono veritiere, tuttavia direi anche che non sono strettamente necessarie e che potrebbero enfatizzare la persona in questione. Non so il motivo specifico per il quale sia stato inserito l'avviso, non saprei neanche come "limarle" sinceramente, ma per me al netto di queste due espressioni la pagina è neutrale.--Wololoo (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Se traduci un sacco di roba inutile per i canoni di itwikipedia, va tolta. Solo che se poi chi sfoltisce, lo fa male e toglie quello che non va tolto... certo è che se non portavi una voce troppo dettagliata per i canoni di itwiki era meglio. io non l'avrei mai tradotta così. Poi certo quell'avviso qui è un'esgaerazione itwikipediana importata qua di botto. Su enwiki limi per due aggettivi non spari un avviso senza motivazione strutturata. Comunque prova a togliere "a rising star" in blocco intanto. l'altra frase ci discuto un attimo con altri madrelingua e vediamo come la limerebbero loro.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983 Ah ok, mi sono accorto ora che la pagina italiana è stata tradotta da quella inglese, effettivamente poteva essere tradotta meglio. E anche sul fatto che l'avviso poteva essere motivato hai ragione. Comunque per ora rimuovo dalla pagina la frase sulla "rising star", che in effetti è po' altisonante.--Wololoo (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
io comunque faccio notare che scrivere "She was therefore considered a rising star " non è la stessa cosa di "She was therefore a rising star ". Cioè la seconda non è neutrale, la prima è una frase su cui si può discutere, basta dire p.e. che ci aspetta più di una fonte per dirla (il che mi va benissimo). Per il resto vedremo ma la parte di Salvini che la annuncia in diretta mi pare proprio fosse in un capitolo di libro.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: la neutralità di una pagina dipende molto dai punti di vista personali, il fatto che lei sia un'astronascente della Lega mi sembra una cosa abbastanza certa, tuttavia non è strettamente attinente alla sua biografia o alla sua storia personale. Così come il fatto che sia stata annunciata in diretta da Salvini, di per sé è un fatto oggettivo, però non è una informazione strettamente necessaria. Comunque se vuoi rimuovere quell'avviso dovresti parlarne anche con l'utente che lo ha messo, secondo me le frasi che potevano sembrare poco neutrali sono quelle due.--Wololoo (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wololoo mah quella cosa della TV io l'ho trovata proprio mentre cercavo fonti su libri (e nei talk show ci si ferma a livello di capoluoghi di provincia o di curiosità tipo candidati assenti, parenti o morti, a me pare di rilievo che lo abbia voluto annunciare in diretta). Io comunque con Vituzzu ci parlo solo alla fine, proprio perché non ho fretta di toglierlo in sè. Del resto il suo bias a sinistra (mi ricordo ancora la sua posizione su tenere Accorinti prima del ballottaggio a Messina, a differenza di altri candidati dove è stato severo) è noto, così come lo è il fatto che la sua pulizia in italiano è fatta maluccio (lo noti anche tu senza che te lo dica), e proceduralmente saprebbe bene da utente esperto sia come leggere gli osservati speciali (Talk:Susanna_Ceccardi) e che un avviso del genere si motiva se si vuole far crescere l'enciclopedia. Per il bene dell'enciclopedia e di chi traduce in questi giorni io lo posso anche sistemare l'avviso, ma il rispetto mio personale e in generale di chi lavora io appunto non ho voglia di dibattere contro me stesso. Ne ho avuto abbastanza di anni di situazioni in cui per sua esplicita amminissione con me lui ci ha giocato (se vuoi te le trovo anche) quindi cerco gente più estranea alla faccenda e competente.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983: Beh sì, certamente l'avviso andava motivato, anche se poi la sua presenza nella pagina non è un grandissimo problema. La grande risonanza mediatica sull'elezione della Ceccardi fu dovuta proprio al fatto che vinse in un comune (di dimensioni certamente non irrilevanti) che per 70 anni era stato amministrato dalla sinistra, quindi a mio avviso questa informazione è essenziale (ed era stata ingiustamente eliminata dall'utente nella pagina in italiano). Magari potrebbe essere indicato nella pagina che la sua elezione ha avuto una grande rilevanza mediatica, senza però specificare il fatto che Salvini l'abbia annunciato personalmente in TV. --Wololoo (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wololoo ma sì facciamo come dici tu, è abbastanza elegante. Poi non ho trovato la fonte con rising star (a parte una successiva di poche settimane fa) ma credo sia quella che non posso accedere più perché è a pagamento. Son passati mesi da gennaio ma non è un espressione che normalmente userei in inglese né tantomento in italiano e poi tradotta, quindi secondo me anche quella l'ho presa da qualcuno. Grazie di tutto!--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexmar983 di niente! :D --Wololoo (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Renzi Cabinet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Giuseppe Castiglione, Enrico Costa and Domenico Rossi
Gentiloni Cabinet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Giuseppe Castiglione and Domenico Rossi
Letta Cabinet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Giuseppe Castiglione

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amato II Cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luciano Guerzoni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Political career of Silvio Berlusconi into Berlusconi I Cabinet. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of David Sassoli

Notice

The article David Sassoli has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the ((prod blp/dated)) tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Craxi II Cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francesco Forte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bobo Craxi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socialist League (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party (De Michelis)

Just a friendly heads up on Socialist Party (De Michelis). I had to decline your speedy deletion request because that's not a valid speedy criteria. Your best bet is to list it at WP:RfD. Cheers! ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you.--Wololoo (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007). You could probably list them in the same RfD. ----Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M5S

I understand that 10% is relatively high, but they do not play a role in a camp party system, especially if it is 50% to 35%

And the curious assumption 11.88% should be included because it is the 3rd place, whereas 11.97% is only optional because they are 4th, I find strange Braganza (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: Optional only because in the pages on italian elections a maximum of three positions are generally entered in the infobox (with at least 10% of vote), but I am not contrary to including Tosi in the infobox. If you find it strange, you can freely implement the infobox, but don't remove the 3rd position.--Wololoo (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point

I think only from 17% (regardless of whether the President or Parliament) would be a recording necessary, there were elections in which a candidate with 10% has won no seat (Sardinia 2014), but one with 6% won a seat (Sicily 2012 )

You really should set a limit that now does not include candidates with 10-15% distance and well below 20%.

Besides, I did not make the change at 2018 Friuli-Venezia Giulia regional election, After all, @User:Nick.mon was the one who did this Braganza (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: the 10% threshold for the infobox has been established for the parliamentary elections (and I was also against this threshold), so I also applied it to regional elections, Nick.mon was wrong to remove the third candidate in the 2018 Friuli-Venezia Giulia regional election. You're right about the election in Sardinia, but that was a very special case, 17% is a pretty strange threshold. After all, the current italian political system is tripolar, and one pole is represented precisely by the M5S. --Wololoo (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean general election with parliamentary elections... what about With Monti for Italy in 2013 with 10.6 % Braganza (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and you're right there are 3 poles, but you also have to note that in surprisingly many 2013-15 regional elections I added the 5-star movement with values ​​around 20%, but 10-14% are really low compared to 45% CDX and 35% CSX
Incidentally, I come to 17%, in which I take middle between 15 and 20 minus 1% and situations like Lombardy 2018 (17.4%) Braganza (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: those rules were not established by me; based on those rules, for the national elections, the first 3 poles (and leaders) are included in the infobox if they have obtained more than 10% of preferences. Now, this rule can be applied also to the regional elections, sincerely, 17% seems to me an arbitrary thresold...--Wololoo (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of this rule, where does it stand? Braganza (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza: Obviously it isn't a real "rule", but it was discussed in Talk:2001 Italian general election (I was contrary to remove the third position in the infobox of some national elections).--Wololoo (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian Minister of Economic Development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giuseppe Guarino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 19

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2010 Italian local elections (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Lodi, Iglesias, Alessandro Bianchi and Francesco Ricci

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (The Right (Germany)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Right (Germany).

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Good work overall, although I'm not sure about including (historical) "revisionism" in the Ideology section, even if they do it a lot.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Rosguill)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creating disambiguation pages

Thank you for creating disambiguation pages when they’re needed (such as Andrea Caroppo). Please be sure no links are left pointing to the dab page once you’ve created it. One tool that can help with that is DisamAssist.

Also, if you need to link directly to a dab page (such as in a hatnote), use the name of the page with " (disambiguation)" appended to it. (See WP:INTDABLINK). If that page doesn’t exist, running DisamAssist will create it. Happy editing! — Gorthian (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very practical with these tools but I'll try, thanks! --Wololoo (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antonio Angelucci, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libero (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Oddo Biasini, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited De Mita Cabinet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enrico Ferri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andreotti I Cabinet moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Andreotti I Cabinet, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Andreotti I Cabinet has been accepted

AFC-Logo.svg
Andreotti I Cabinet, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MJLTalk 17:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Italian Minister of European Affairs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francesco Forte (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Thanks for creating Federal Italy.

User:Lefcentreright while reviewing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Good article

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Lefcentreright)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Lefcentreright (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Franco Nicolazzi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Arona
Guido Bodrato (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Giuseppe Guarino
Salvo Andò (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ragusa

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italian governments

Hi, I would like to know why you've removed all the investiture votes in the articles regarding Italian cabinets. I would be glad if you re-add them. Moreover, the style of the table is different from the one used in recent articles (Gentiloni, Conte, Renzi and so on). Maybe it would be better starting a discussion, before changing all that articles... -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick.mon, I removed them because they were uncorrect: they were not "Investiture votes", but tables about parliamentary groups in a given period, pratically two different things. inoltre non è sempre facile distinguere i partiti di maggioranza da quelli di opposizione in una semplice tabella "yes/not". I briefly discussed the matter with another user (Ritchie92), the tables used for the recent cabinets are substantially correct, because they really concern the investiture votes and they must indicate also the absences. These tables should be corrected also in the pages of it.wiki...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had to remove these tables again, because they are not correct (i.e., they do not concern investiture votes), not because I am against the tables about the "investiture votes", which instead would be strongly needed but which should be setted differently.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the explanation :) Anyway I thought that they were useful. Maybe we should discuss with other users if they should be re-inserted. -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick.mon: the tables are very useful, but the institure votes are the actual votes in favor and against at the time of settlement. Unfortunately their correct compilation, with the indication of the parties, takes enough time. A table would be simpler without parties but only with favorable, contrary and abstained votes (as for the Spanish governments). Unfortunately, however, the impostation of that table is a little misleading, the composition of the majority may vary during the term of government. However, I didn't understand what you don't approve of the tables in the pages on the most recent governments (that I have not done myself) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my view we should insert the investiture votes as we did here. Regarding the table, maybe I didn't explain me well, I said that I'd prefer the tables that we used for the most recent governments (see here) with the offices in bold. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick.mon Ah ok, so we agree on this topic. About the offices written in bold I have no preference, I set the tables of governments essentially always following the same order. Maybe I prefer the white background to the blue one, but for me it's not a problem ;) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should use the bold one because we use it also for the cabinets of the Kingdom of Italy (for example) so per consistency I think it would be better. -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick.mon For me no problem, but be careful with rollbacks, because you had removed some information and changed the order of ministers...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Councils

Hi, would you stop edit warring and start a discussion in the talk pages? You are not restoring the "original version" by the way... Stop edit warring and discuss. Next time you revert I'm reporting. --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep warring. Discuss! --Ritchie92 (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not restoring the "original version"... in a page created by me! No comment...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You don't WP:OWN the pages you create... You don't get to decide about their future history just because you created them... --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92 "You are not restoring the "original version": I don't decide about their future history, I only respond to your nonsense --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If by nonsense you mean edits which follow what WP:RS say... well, I am happy to contribute with it! If you mean that the "original version" is the one before my July edits, then you should have reverted that edit! Instead you created new (arbitrary) translations of the group names, different from the original, therefore you did not restore any original version! That is what I am saying. You are misrepresenting what happened there... --Ritchie92 (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS it does not have anything to do with it, in these pages the parties are indicated with their name, without useless frills. I HAVE NOT created new arbitrary translations, I have only kept the names of the pages of the parties that already exist, it is already so for the elections, the principle is the same. Stop talking nonsense, please --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS has everything to do with anything there is on Wikipedia... You are arbitrarily translating, there's no way around it. Also, this is not about an election page. This is about the group composition of a Council: official names are the only way, since the groups do not necessarily correspond to parties. Now discuss in the Talk:Regional Council of Molise, let's not double the discussion. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92 Instead we are talking about groups that correspond to parties! Where is the arbitrary translation??? It's because I've removed "Legislature XVII" from "Democratic Party", "Salvini" from "League" and "Berlusconi Presidente" from "Forza Italia"? Is it an arbitrary translation?? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Those are the official names. "Berlusconi Presidente" and "Salvini" in the names are crucial. Not sure about "Legislature XVII" for PD, but who are we to question the names that the groups decide to have? It's not up to us to make them "readable" or more familiar. --Ritchie92 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On edit warring

I note that you were recently involved in an edit war at Regional Council of Molise. Please be careful about edit warring and reverting, even if you think you're right. Well meaning edit warring can still get you blocked, even if you don't break the 3 revert rule. I have given this same warning to Ritchie92, as I believe it applied to both of you. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lega per Salvini Premier

You're confusing everything. There is a new page now called League per Salvini Premier. This was never the original page. The original page was Lega per Salvini Premier. My move was correct. "League (english) per (italian) Salvini Premier" makes zero sense. User:Checco had a typo when he moved the page. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are three pages now: Lega per, League for, and League per. The latter is ridiculous, please. --Ritchie92 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie92: Actually you are the one who did not understand: you have moved the contents from the original page (created by Ec1801011 on 10 September 2019), with the correct chronology, to a redirect and vice versa. This is not the correct procedure, I have already requested to move the page to the correct title (Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests), but the contents must not be moved! I don't know what chaos you and other users have made with these titles.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did not know about the chronology. The error was made in the first place by Checco here, then I tried to use the "Move" option but it could not work because the page already existed. It was such an ugly mistake that I could not bear to see it anymore, but you're right. --Ritchie92 (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92: I absolutely agree that "League per Salvini Premier" is a wrong title, but that was not the correct procedure. For me, when the page is moved, that redirect can also be deleted. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Sardinian regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Futura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2006 general election

I don't see any such "overflow", nor I am sure what are you meaning with it. The tables are the same length with the edit and without it, but the edit breaks consistency by bringing using non-official coalition name shortenings. Impru20talk 09:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are not explaining yourself correctly, because I don't think a Wikipedia article has a perimeter.
An enormous amount of Wikipedia articles use similar or even larger tables. Sometimes, such a size is needed. Cheers. Impru20talk 10:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, I already answered that question, so I'll point you to the conversation we just had because I will not go around in circles on this. Cheers. Impru20talk 17:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read again. Aside from that (which is enough reason for your edit to be contested), I also said "the edit breaks consistency by using non-official coalition name shortenings" (curiously, you omitted this part from your literal transcription). Which basically makes your edit original research. So yes, I explained this to you, no matter how much you try to overlook it. ;) Cheers. Impru20talk 18:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't see how any of the reasons I gave were wrong. Yes, the tables are of the same length with the edit and without it (do you mean width instead? And this is absolutely meaningless, because no one but you seemingly cares about a table "overflowing", if we can know what does that even mean). In this case the current wording is needed because it shows consistency with the rest of the table (it won't make much sense to use Italian acronyms at leisure on one formations but not others, and this in turn is not consistent with practice elsewhere in WP; also it's not clear what the need for your edit is). And thirdly, it would be L'Unione and CdL, not Unione and CDL. So no, I can't see how could you have your edit restored. You could possibly raise the issue in the talk page and see if there is any consensus for it (this is how things are typically done), instead of trying to press me on my talk page for it. Thank you. Impru20talk 21:23, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant width and not length (my error), however Unione as abbreviation certainly exists (also because the L'Unione is not an abbreviation). No doubt there is no inconsistency because I wrote most of those tables and the abbreviations are there anyway. I could open a thread in the talk page but I no longer want to spend time with all these discussions, at this point it remains so. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Tagging of Let Veneto Decide

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Let Veneto Decide. I do not think that Let Veneto Decide fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because No valid speedy deletion reason provided. The reasons you cite might be appropriate at an AfD discussion.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Let Veneto Decide for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe Medici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Elidio De Paoli

Hello, Scia Della Cometa,

Thank you for creating Elidio De Paoli.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi, I have added a few tags to the article and tried to do some tweaks here and there. Please improve.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Lefcentreright)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 21:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization, how it works

Welcome back! Let me explain to you how categories work on Wikipedia. If a page, say Tricolour Flame is already in a subcategory (in this case Category:Eurosceptic parties in Italy), it makes no sense, and it's actually disruptive, to add it to the main category Category:Political parties in Italy, because then it will appear twice as a political party and ruin all kinds of counts, statistic, and orderliness! Please revert all your edits that you are making in this sense. These are going to be cured anyway by a bot or a script sooner or later, but your edits are damaging the categorization now. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ritchie92 I perfectly understood the reason for the removal of that category, but as I have already explained, the removal was only done on a few pages, while the pages that have a subcategory are many more, so it was only a partial and useless removal. I just restored a category that was still present in many sub-categorized pages, for a reason of consistency. If that work was done on only a few pages, it was quite useless... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is not the point here. You are basically and literally duplicating many articles' entries in the lists of the category Category:Political parties in Italy, and this is disruptive. The other pages you are talking about that indeed are still in that category are either (a) wrongly added, or (b) not in another subcategory yet. But the point is then to fix these pages, not to break the others... So again please go back to the previous situation, or if you prefer I will, or in any case some script will. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92 I understood, but this work makes sense only if done completely, otherwise it is better to keep them all even in that category --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that some improvement on Wikipedia is either made everywhere or nowhere is frankly wrong and short-sighted, and potentially would block every improvement on WP since obviously it's impossible to have perfect content everywhere at once. It takes time and Wikipedia is a work in progress. Moreover, in this case we are not talking about some content policy and "consistency" within articles (and by the way, consistency within different articles is no policy on Wikipedia, I don't know why some editors keep using it as an argument), but even if consistency mattered, here we have a technical improvement (correct categorization), that has very precise and clear rules about subcategories (see WP:SUBCAT). So, I will try to implement it for all Italian parties articles soon, obviously not for all at the same time, merely for time reasons. Let me do this, and please do not revert while I am finishing. --Ritchie92 (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92 essentially, what I meant to say is that removing the category from only 15 pages is not a real improvement because this type of (technical) correction, even if gradual, should concern all (or most of) the pages involved.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understood what you mean, for the third time you repeat it, and I reply again that this makes zero sense. Please read the rules and notice that nowhere it's written that "either you apply them to all pages or to none", because, again, this idea is plainly wrong. Anyway, I will go and apply WP rules in the next days, possibly for all Italian parties. If you would have let me before starting your edit war, today we would have had a clean category for the Italian parties already. --Ritchie92 (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92 this work was not started by you, so I didn't stop anything, I simply restored the category that was removed by another user only from a few pages (edits that were reverted a few second later by you...). --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC
...and yes, that was also disruptive because the work done by that other user was to adhere to WP categorization rules, which, contrary to what you personally believe, do not say that the rule is either applied everywhere or nowhere. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie92 There is no point to continue this discussion, but I don't believe that the rules say that category is either applied everywhere or nowhere, I only said that there was more convenience in maintaining a category with a "complete" list of parties rather than removing only a few parties from that category, but I had not interrupted any "work in progress", although the attitude seemed disruptive.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dante Schietroma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Farini Cabinet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Giovanni Ricci
Meuccio Ruini (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lazo
Nello Formisano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Luigi de Magistris

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mario Cingolani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page University of Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liberal Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergio Romano (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Alliance C – Christians for Germany

Hello Scia Della Cometa,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Alliance C – Christians for Germany for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

JBL (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve The Violets (political party)

Hello, Scia Della Cometa,

Thank you for creating The Violets (political party).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Hi I’m reviewing this new page and I’ve added a notability tag because only one independent source is provided. More independent sources are required to demonstrate notability. Thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Mccapra)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Mccapra (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Matteo Adinolfi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Campanian regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Article One (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Italian Movement of Social Unity for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Italian Movement of Social Unity is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Movement of Social Unity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your cut and paste page move has been reversed

Information icon
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give National Fascist Party a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Fascist National Party. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, I moved the content to Fascist National Party to correct another cut-and-paste move (done in 2007). However I asked to move the page again to National Fascist Party (the correct title), but I didn't know that I could request the history merge without move before the content to the original page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Salvatore Lauricella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Giuseppe D'Angelo.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Athos Valsecchi
added a link pointing to Adda
Domenico Rossi (general)
added a link pointing to Teulada
Loris Fortuna
added a link pointing to Francesco Forte

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Giuseppe Castiglione (politician)
added a link pointing to Bronte
Giuseppe Grassi (politician)
added a link pointing to Materdomini

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Latvia's Regional Alliance politicians

A tag has been placed on Category:Latvia's Regional Alliance politicians requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 16:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Future moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Generation Future, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 14:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Socialist Youth Federation moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Italian Socialist Youth Federation, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Carlo Scarascia-Mugnozza, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Burke.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1989 European Parliament election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian People's Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Socialist Union moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Independent Socialist Union, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Federalists and Liberal Democrats, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luigi Negri.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Spring moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sicilian Spring, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) While most likely notable, the single reference provided does not provide WP:VERIFY for the information in the article. I could have left it in mainspace, but that would have meant gutting the article, so I felt it was better moved to draft to give you a chance to add the appropriate references. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 22:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1 July 2021

Hey Scia Della Cometa, I see that you have re-requested the same move not even a month after the first RM was closed.

Initially, I wanted to close your second RM as 'moved', since you have provided thorough and comprehensive reasoning, backed by reliable sources; the RM also has one concurrence and no objections. But I can’t do that if I take Andrewa's comment from the first RM into account.

Now the thing is, you shouldn't have started a second RM in the first place, you should have initiated a move review, because I agree that the first RM's closure was clearly premature and also simply wrong; a single objection and single supporting vote (the nomination) doesn't constitute a "consensus to not move". Personally, I would counsel you to withdraw your second RM and still, retroactively start a move review, as that would be in full accordance with the guidelines and convention, and have the greatest potential of succeeding. I otherwise doubt that any editor is willing to close this RM any time soon. Alternatively, you can ping Andrewa and draw their attention to this RM, perhaps they no longer object to your new reasoning.

Regards, Colonestarrice (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colonestarrice, thanks for your suggestions. I'm not very familiar with certain procedures. Since I started a second procedure, would it not be more practical to ping the user who intervened in the first procedure? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Practical? Yes. Perhaps pinging them and trying to talk it out works perfectly fine. But if it doesn't (or they don't engage) I'm afraid that this RM will likely result in a "no consensus" in the end.
Alternatively you have the chance to initiate a move review. Apart from being what the guidelines want, move reviews are also known to prompt more input than normal RMs, which might be advantageous in your case. Ultimately it's up to you and how much 'bureaucracy' you want to go through really. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonestarrice: So, if I understand correctly, first, should I discuss with the closer of the RM? Is it correct?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you pick that option, yes. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Colonestarrice: Ok, thank you, I'll try even if I'm not too practical --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I will also add a comment–explaining my view on this subject–to the section you opened on the closer's talk. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sicilian Spring has been accepted

AFC-Logo.svg
Sicilian Spring, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Socialist Union has been accepted

AFC-Logo.svg
Independent Socialist Union, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Goldsztajn (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salve - FYI, I found Sergio Dolmasso's piece which looks to be an excellent source for the article.[1]

References

  1. ^ Dalmasso, Sergio (1973). "I SOCIALISTI INDIPENDENTI IN ITALIA 1951-1957 Storia e tematica politica" (PDF). Movimento operaio e socialista. XIX (3).

A presto, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll see how I can use it ;) --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1995 Tuscan regional election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labour Federation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Generation Future

Information icon
Hello, Scia Della Cometa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Generation Future, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Italian Socialist Youth Federation

Information icon
Hello, Scia Della Cometa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Italian Socialist Youth Federation, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Italian regional elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francesco Acquaroli.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Italy

I read the RFC that you posted in July 2021, and two editors opposed your proposal, not just the one that didn't respond at DRN. You appear to be trying to address three different or partly different issues. If you want to request assistance in formulating another RFC, which I will split into parts, and will mention at WT:WikiProject Italy and WT:WikiProject Politics/Political parties, I am willing to help you. If it really is one against one, as you say, then you don't have a consensus; but it isn't one against one. So either ask for assistance with another RFC, or accept that you didn't get your way, or ask for advice at the Teahouse or Village Pump. But don't request arbitration. So on these three issues it would be a one-on-one, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a race to get to write the rules of a page first, the rules would have to be agreed to be valid (or at least I knew so). There isn't a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Effectively, the July RFC concerned another issue (which was not resolved with the RFC, but with a subsequent discussion). However, on the three issues I raised in Wp:Drn, no user, other than the one who wrote the rules, expressed his opposition. So on these three issues it would be a one-on-one, but Wikipedia shouldn't be a competition to see who comes first to write the rules. The rules would have to be agreed to be valid (or at least I knew so). Honestly, I have some doubts even about the real fair conduct of the user (writing the rules of a page by himself and tring to make the discussions about their possible revision fall on deaf ears, except to make rollback if a user makes some small changes without the his consent, does not seem extremely fair). Apart from that, it is true that the three issues are different from each other. What to do? Should I report the original searches in Wikipedia:TEA? And ask for separate opinions for the other two issues in Village Pump? I just want the rules on that page to be approved by consensus.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018 Italian general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Latina.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Social Action, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roma.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration declined

Request for arbitration titled Legitimacy about the imposition of never approved rules has been declined. Please review the comments from the arbitrators for more information about why and suggested next dispute resolution steps. For the arbitration committee, -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Teahouse logo

Hi Scia Della Cometa! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Question about the legitimacy of one page's inclusion rules, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.


See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2011 Italian local elections, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ragusa and Carbonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Information icon
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lega Nord into Lega per Salvini Premier. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa I think I have solved.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lega per Salvini Premier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Claudio Borghi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Del Debbio moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Paolo Del Debbio, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 TT me 13:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@onel5969 I have corrected the draft, now all the information are covered by sources.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"League per Salvini Premier" listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect League per Salvini Premier and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#League per Salvini Premier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Yakme (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding List of political parties in Italy. The thread is Disruption_of_consensus_building_process_on_List_of_political_parties_in_Italy. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Scia Della Cometa

Thank you for creating Social democracy (disambiguation).

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with ((Re|North8000)). Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban and partial block

Hi, per the ANI discussion you have been topic banned and partial blocked from List of political parties in Italy and Talk:List of political parties in Italy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SDC. Your TBAN from Lits of political parties in Italy means you can't edit pages related to that topic. This includes, for instance, the Closure requests discussion. I encourage you to self-revert your recent edit there. TBANs are tough to successfully navigate. I encourage you to read WP:TBAN, steer clear of the edges of the topic area, and ask questions if you're unsure about a particular edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: I removed my comment, but I continue to think that if the Rfc were closed after having received a topic ban for that reason, it would be really illogical...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paolo Del Debbio has been accepted

AFC-Logo.svg
Paolo Del Debbio, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]