User talk:Salvio giuliano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Salvio giuliano)
Jump to: navigation, search


My people are the people. They’re everywhere on the planet.

Today's Motto of the Day


Prime Focus Technologies (PFT)[edit]

Hi

I’ve been trying to upload Prime Focus Technologies’ profile on Wikipedia and was told that it clashes with our parent company’s profile, Prime Focus Limited. Prime Focus Limited is a publically held company with two subsidiaries: Prime Focus World (PFW) and Prime Focus Technologies (PFT). PFW is the creative services business offering visual effects, stereo 3D Conversion and Animation to Hollywood studios. PFT is the technology business and behind the world’s first hybrid cloud enabled Media ERP technology, CLEARTM targeted at Media and Entertainment companies.

PFT has a separate board, executive leadership, employee base and locations/markets. It reports revenue independently and has a different set of customers across broadcast, studios, brands, sports and digital, globally.

PFT recently acquired DAX, an American company and our focus is to grow in the US market. It is important that we communicate to our customers, investors, employees and industry at large that PFT is a technology/product companywith global footprint which should not be confused with our Hollywood focused creative services business, Prime Focus World.

If I merge both the companies’ profiles into one Wiki, it is not going to help address the confusion that currently exists. It is extremely important that we are seen as two different companies with different set of stakeholders but one common parent.

I have separate websites for each of these companies as well and you’ll see how different each company is from theother:

http://www.primefocusltd.com/ (Parent) http://www.primefocustechnologies.com/ (Technology) http://www.primefocusworld.com/ (Hollywood)

I have many external references for PFT as you’ll see in the content submitted to you already. With time, we’ll only have more:

http://www.livemint.com/Consumer/Tu5vLwPagZ4kr51LzvrzDP/BARC-inks-pact-with-Prime-Focus.html http://www.ap.org/Content/Press-Release/2014/AP-wins-Focal-International-Award-for-archive-digitization-project http://www.studio-systems.com/Flips/May-June2014/Default.html http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/prime-focus-technology-subsidiary-secures-iso-27001-certification-114052800553_1.html

Here are examples of parent and subsidiary company on wiki for your reference:

Capgemini (parent company) and Sogeti (subsidiary) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgemini (parent) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogeti (subsidiary)

L&T (parent company) and L&T Infotech (subsidiary) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_%26_Toubro_Infotech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_%26_Toubro

Should you need any more information, we’d be happy to provide. Richa101091 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand why the article was deleted; the reason was not that we already had an article for the parent company, but rather that the page was written in a promotional tone, which is explicitly prohibited by our policies (and may actually lead to the speedy deletion of the article in question – see G11, which is exactly what happened in this instance). I suggest you familiarise yourself with our policy on conflicts of interest and, then, if you still wish to create an article for PFT, you create it as a userspace draft. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Roma locuta, causa soluta[edit]

Rome has spoken, and the case has been solved. Who is Rome? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I wondered that. It could be Newyorkbrad, whose comment immediately preceded it and whose sagcacity is something of an institutional cliche. Of course, NYB was quoting Horace, so the "Roma" was a nice bit of wordplay if I'm correct. Interesting that two lawyers were quick to dismiss someone whom I have always thought to be a wikilawyer (I'm assuming Sandstein isn't actually a lawyer but might be wrong). In any event, the entire farrago is now resolved and it was a fair outcome. As I said in the discussion at ARE, a dose of common sense was needed and that is something that is often absent in the wacky world of Wikipedia process wonkery. Some people need to get a life. - Sitush (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep, our good NYB was indeed the person I was jokingly referring to – for the reasons that Sitush has correctly identified. Sit, would you like becoming my spokesman? Face-wink.svg More seriously, I have often said that even when enforcing ArbCom sanctions, admins should still user their common sense; the fact we have made a decision on a given issue ought not to rob them of that. Not all admins agree with me – some say that once we have restricted a user, then their hands are tied and they have to enforce our decision as literally as possible... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
On this point, if you haven't already seen it, you all might be interested in my comments here, and especially the law-review piece I link to at the end. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I remember reading it once, when you mentioned it on the mailing list (or on Wikipedia, I don't remember), agreeing with you and loving the essay. I was actually trying to find it a couple of weeks ago, when a friend invited me to give a brief lecture to her students on the varying ways different systems have of interpreting legal texts, but obviously couldn't find it for my life... Heh, I have now downloaded a copy... Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
(watching) Interesting reading "here"! Could it be that the word "be" is missing in the sentence after the list? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing, Newyorkbrad. Looking at the cases, would police ever evaluate that the spirit of the sign is to protect the park and its users, so check if the "animal" does something negative to the park, like dirt or noise, and let "animals" pass which/who don't? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Excellent! Of course, it is the very fact that legislators cannot reasonably foresee/account for every eventuality that often puts the burden of interpretation on the courts. In a situation such as the recent one involving Pigsonthewing/Nikkimaria etc, the legislators were, effectively, ArbCom and the courts are AE.
BTW, I have my own legal problems at User_talk:Jrh1980#Sourcing. Yet another new user who is going for the nuclear option in relation to caste subjects. I've lost count of the number of times I've been threatened with legal action here. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Soluta: we have some peace music on the Main page, good news from Ukraine for a change, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
As a non-native speaker of English, I would like to learn if "no violation" can have any other meaning than "no violation"?
It looks like the articles in Andy's BBC project get their infoboxes the normal way, by editors who collaborate and agree that articles of these topics should have infoboxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, good to see your name again![edit]

I don't think we've interacted, but (from my bleacher seats) I remember you as being _the_ admin to wade through the particularly tough-&-lengthy ANI cases or what have you and deliver the exactly-right closure. So, seeing you turn up to close a couple of random MfD's I was involved in seems a bit weird--a bit like showing up to traffic court at night and having an especially distinguished Supreme Court justice on the bench--but still good to see your name again! --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I began my admin career patrolling wp:mfd and wp:uaa and still like to pop up over there from time to time, especially when there is a backlog. Then again, I don't consider myself particularly distinguished, so I don't find my closing a couple of mfds that strange Face-smile.svg, but thank you for your kind words. They are really appreciated. See you around! Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Treats![edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Treats!. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]

File:Flag of Friuli-Venezeia Giulia.png[edit]

Hello Salvio. Could you please check the links to the legal texts provided below the file summary? We're trying to find out at NFCR whether this is copyrighted or not, but the links are all in Italian. I'd appreciate your help. De728631 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@De728631: first, a necessary disclaimer: my knowledge of copyright law is exceedingly limited, as I have always found the subject mind-numbingly boring and so I have always tried to steer well clear of it. That said, those links are to decrees of the President of the Region, describing the flag and other symbols of the Region and detailing how and where they can be used (however, these rules only apply to official uses of the symbols, which this is one is not). So, those texts are pretty much inconsequential in this case. So, I'd say, you're left with the standard rules concerning fair use. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. Anyhow, at NFCR we're now debating whether there's a detailed description that focuses on this particular depiction being the official flag, or if the decree simply gives some guidelines of the design like in a heraldic blazon. De728631 (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Art. 2, § 1 of Regional Law 17 October 2001, n. 135, describes the flag of the Region as follows: la bandiera della Regione Friuli-Venezia Giulia è formata da un drappo di forma rettangolare con al centro lo stemma della Regione, posto su fondo azzurro. Lo stemma ha dimensioni pari a tre quinti dell’altezza della bandiera che a sua volta deve essere alta due terzi della sua lunghezza meaning that the flag is rectangular, with the regional coat of arms in the centre on an azure background. The coat of arms is three fifths of the flag's height and the flag's height is two thirds of its length. The decree of the President of the Region, then, describes the regional coat of arms as d’azzurro all’aquila d’oro al volo spiegato, afferrante con gli artigli una corona turrita d’argento. Now this is more complicated, because I'm not familiar with either the Italian or the English terms of art, but it's something along the lines of "a golden eagle flying with its wings spread, holding (technically, it's "afferrare", i.e. seize, grasp) in its talons a silver turreted crown on an azure background". Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So there is no direction on how to draw the eagle and the tower. That's very valuable information. Thanks again for digging this out. De728631 (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)