User talk:Dejudicibus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Talk page for discussing changes by Dejudicibus

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

Talk page guidelines

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

Last Name[edit]

Your last name is outrageous! Is it from the Latin preposition de + judices (judges)? How do you end up with an Italian first name and a Latin last name? Is that common at all? I have taken both Latin and Italian and I'm mystified by this. Any clarification would satisfy my curiosity- I'm not trolling you or anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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

Biography and autobiography[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euro coin icons[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Template for deletion[edit]

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

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

windowHome Template[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

An Automated Message from HagermanBot[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig2.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


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

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


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

ehm... chi sei? Non hai firmato....
Scusa, di solito non mi scordo. Ero quello dell'ultimo messaggio qui sopra. --Attilios 21:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dario de Judicibus[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Dario de Judicibus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dario de Judicibus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Martino de Judicibus[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Martino de Judicibus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martino de Judicibus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Judica Cordiglia brothers[edit]

Hi, I removed them because, to my eye, it is mostly speculative in nature and relies strictly on the brothers' claims of factuality (despite the recordings). As far as I've seen after dealing with this Cordiglia thing popping up in various places recently, there doesn't exist much of anything else to support their claims, and certainly nothing official. I am not suggesting they are wrong or lying or anything else, but to challenge an event that can be proven with one that has not (and likely cannot, unless the Russian gov't decides to release records) is remiss. Huntster (t@c) 17:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand and appreciate what you are saying, but it doesn't change the that their evidence is entirely their own and not supported by any other material as far as I can tell. That's the problem with any conspiracy theory, whether entirely fake or entirely real (and I do suspect this situation is real)...unless solid supporting evidence can be located or is given up by the government in question, it can only be considered here-say. Huntster (t@c) 22:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree, fully. It is always sad when those lost cannot be remembered. That is one reason I've always been so proud of the transparency in which the U.S. space program has operated, and how, years later, we have departments actively searching for the remains of those soldiers missing and lost in action from previous wars. Everyone deserves to be remembered...let's just hope that those Cosmonauts, if they existed, will someday become known. Huntster (t@c) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the source you sent me? I quote:

In the Northern Italy, between 1957 and 1965 two young Turino brothers fan of communication but not amateur radio, Achille and Giovanni "Gian" Battista Judica-Cordiglia set up the first amateur tracking station, "Torre Bert". The History of Torre Bert

(EhJJ)TALK 18:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

George Obama[edit]

I have removed the reference you added to Family of Barack Obama. It offered no additional value beyond the existing reference about George Obama, and it referenced your personal site in violation of WP:RS. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It references the Italian article. The scoop was by Vanity Fair Italia, not Vanity Fair. About the reference to L'Indipendente, you can keep or remove, as you like, but consider that the reference to the Telegraph is not to the original source too, so it is worth as well as mine.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. Your site is not. I have reworded the text appropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting statement. So you state that a blog is by definition less reliable than a newspaper. Why? (it is a serious question, not a provocation)--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a set of policies and guidelines. One of the guidelines concerns reliable sources (please click that link and read it). Blogs are not considered "reliable sources" by Wikipedia, unless they are part of mainstream media publications (such as a political blog on the website of a television news network).
I have "watchlisted" this talk page, so you can just reply here and I'll see it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for "watchlist". It makes easier to discuss. OK, I understand the Wikipedia point of view, but in my opinion web 2.0 is going to change this. For example, the Telegraph is surely a serious and reliable source, but the Sun and few other UK tabloids are not, not in my opinion at least. I do not know what is the situation in USA or UK, but in Italy most media are connected to political parties or industrial trusts, so they are not necessarily reliable. On the other hand, many Italian blog, in the past, published reliable news before newspapers. So, we probably should redefine the concept of reliable source. In theory Wikipedia itself could be considered not reliable with respect Britannica or other famous paper encyclopedias, if we apply the same criteria. A wiki is reliable as a blog, from that point of view. This is a danger I already signalled: we risk to have an encyclopedia which is just a digest of news published by media. If you are famous because of media, you are in Wikipedia, otherwise you are not. But today many personalities are created from scratch as a commercial product. So, where is Wikipedia really different from the mediasphere?--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. The proper approach to sourcing would be to use the most credible and reliable source you can find. To use your examples, if you have a choice between The Telegraph and The Sun you would use the former. But if the only source available comes from The Sun then you would either use it, or drop the new information until a more reliable source can be found. Newspapers (normally) have some level of accountability, whereas regular blogs have none whatsoever. My personal policy to this dilemma has always been this: If in doubt, leave it out! If the sources I have aren't considered reliable, or if they lack credibility, I don't use them - even if that means leaving something out of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Your position is reasonable, even if it is very difficult to understand if a source lacks of credibility or it is reliable. Rating newspapers and magazines is easier, but what about blogs? Assuming that they are less credible by definition is a prejudice. Of course, it is very difficult to rate a blog. Number of visitors, of trackbacks, or of links are not a reliable rating system for various reasons. The problem is more difficult if you consider foreign sources too. For example, my understanding is that you was born in UK but you live in USA, so you probably have a good understanding about which newspaper is more and which is less reliable. But what about French, German, Spanish or Italian newspapers? What about Chinese or Arabic magazines? Probably an Italian or Chines wikipedian will have more chances to rate an Italian and a Chinese media, respectively. But in Wikipedia everybody can remove what other people added. So, you might decide to remove a French source that is considered reliable by a French guy since you have no idea if it is really reliable. What would you do if some Chinese person would remove a source you added, let's say, about Daily Telegraph, because he does not know if it is reliable? You probably would be upset. Few weeks ago I wrote an article about dominance of English language in world. This is a serious problem today for all non-anglophone people. In the past, a troll stated that I was not a writer since he was not able to find my publications in Amazon (no Italian books are in Amazon nor exist an So, Amazon is a reliable source, but that does not mean that you can use to demonstrate if a book was published or not, especially if it is not in English language. There are also books that are not sold anymore in USA, so you will never find them in online bookstore, but they were published. So, what is reliable? Yesterday many blogs and sites refer to pieces of information published on newspaper. Today more and more newspapers refer to pieces of info published on blogs. So, if a blog is not reliable, why the newspaper is when it publish news whose source is the blog itself? I have not an answer, but I think the way we approach the debate is probably wrong or at least obsolete. In Wikipedia there are a lot of biography of minor personalities who did provide no contribute to the world, even small criminals, second league sportsmen and women, secondary porn stars, but if you add the biography of valuable foreign people you get a lot of attacks. Often there are no English sources speaking of those people, but many English wikipedians expect they should be at least famous as Dante or Wagner to be mentioned. There are unbalanced criteria, an asymmetry. Again, I have not a receipt or a proposal, but the problem does exist, even if sometimes I have difficulties to explain it to English people. --Dejudicibus (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
These are easier concerns to address:
  • Foreign language sources should only be used in foreign language articles, unless a reliable translation (preferably from an English-language reliable source) can be found. In the Italian edition of Wikipedia, the Italian edition of Vanity Fair can be directly sourced; however, the English version of Wikipedia should rely on an English-language reliable source that refers to the Italian version of Vanity Fair.
  • Blogs are never considered reliable sources unless they are part of professional news organizations (and even then, they are considered "less desirable" than proper articles). The number of visitors, links and trackbacks they get is irrelevant. "Popularity" is not a synonym of "reliability".
  • As far as books are concerned, proof of their existence can be found with an ISBN. The next time someone complains they "cannot find it on Amazon", just give them the ISBN.
  • The issue of imbalance toward foreign (not English-speaking) nations is indeed a problem. In fact, there is a special project on Wikipedia to try to alleviate this issue: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. You may wish to join that project to help address your concerns.
All sources, regardless of how reliable they are, must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You said: «Foreign language sources should only be used in foreign language articles, unless a reliable translation (preferably from an English-language reliable source) can be found.»
That's the point you can also find in my article! Most English info are translated to other languages but it is not true the opposite. This is why the Italian, French, German Wikipedia contain article also about minor English personalities whereas you find only big "foreign" personalities in English Wikipedia. And since most people in world read English rather than other languages, that is baiasing the world culture! You got the point!--Dejudicibus (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You said: «As far as books are concerned, proof of their existence can be found with an ISBN. The next time someone complains they "cannot find it on Amazon", just give them the ISBN.»
I did, but the Italian ISBN begins by 88. A lot of "ISBN search engines" are based on.... Amazon database. So if you search for a book beginning by 88 you simply cannot find it. Try to add an Italian book to Shelfari. It will be rejected because not found. Furthermore ISBN are used a lot in USA and UK, but up to twenty years ago most Italian books had no ISBN at all and still now most Italian people are not used to ISBN. If you go to an Italian bookstore you have to provide author and title, not ISBN to find the book. Our cultures and history are different. The assumption that what works in USA may work in other countries too is wrong. This is a typical example. Like assuming that phone numbers beginning by 555 do not exist. They do, in Italy ;-) --Dejudicibus (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You said: «You may wish to join that project to help address your concerns.»
I'll do! Thank you very much for the pointer.--Dejudicibus (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Joseon tongsinsa[edit]

This unexpected request follows your recent posting at Manage multiple terms in different languages. You pose an interesting question which seems to be just one level more difficult than the one I'm bringing to your attention; and I look forward to following that thread as it develops.

Your user name is interesting, and when mild curiosity led me to discover that you're Italian, the names Matteo Ricci (1552-1610) and Giuseppe Castiglione (1688-1766) sprang to mind in one of those impossible-to-fathom leaps of odd logic one sometimes experiences.

Will you help me create a neutral disambiguation page for a term which is identified differently in three languages?

As you may not already know, Korean missions to Edo, called Joseon tongsinsa (조선 통신사, 朝鮮通信使) Joseontongsinsa in Korean and Chōsen Edo nobori (朝鮮江戸上り Chōsen Edo nobori?) in Japanese, were diplomatic and cultural missions dispatched by kings of Korea to the shogun of Japan between 1607 and 1811. Interest in these serial embassies, in commemorative reenactments, and in on-going scholarly investigations are brought together in UNESCO's current evaluation of an application to register "Joseon tongsinsa" on the World Cultural Heritage list.

The outer cover of Sanrim gyeongje (산림경제), a non-Hangul Korean encyclopedia -- plausibly construed as a precursor of our 21st-century wiki-project?

At present, three English-language articles are about to be merged. Initially, Joseon Tongsinsa and Joseon tongsinsa may become redirect pages and Korean missions to Edo is likely to be re-named in the near future. Regrettably, the work on this subject has been affected by a number of resolving disputes, which include:

In this context, I wondered if your disinterested involvement might help in ameliorating some aspects of naming controversies which may arise in the near future?

As a non-Korean, non-Japanese contributor to the English-language Wikipedia your perspective might be seen as helpful. As a disinterested reader whose maternal language is not English, your point-of-view may be construed as meaningful.

In a sense, it makes sense to ask for the involvement of an Italian because of Fr. Ricci's influence on the early development of the Silhak school, which is credited with helping to create a modern Korea.

At a minimum, would you please consider watch-listing Talk:Korean missions to Edo? --Tenmei (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This turned out to be premature. I had thought that things were on the cusp of working out, but that turned out to be overly optimistic. In any event, this becomes an unexpected -- and hopefully interesting posting, albeit misguided. --Tenmei (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

September 2008[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Gaia (mythology) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there. I had no problem with that aspect of your edit (I am not in a position to comment on the correct spelling of Gaia's name), but rather with your replacing "Uranus" with "fuckkk". However, on closer inspection, it appears that you had just accidentally put back in place an edit by I can see it was unintentional on your part, but please be more careful in future. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Central hub for interlanguage links[edit]

I like the idea you suggested at Help talk:Interlanguage links#A proposal: language disambiguation pages. Let's say (for the sake of discussion) that there are 250 language versions of Wikipedia. And let's say that a new article (for example, on Hurricane Gustav) is added to each of them. Then 249 interlanguage links need to be added to each of the 250 language version; that's more than 7,000 links in all. By contrast, with a central hub, only one entry at the hub, plus 250 links (one per language version) is needed. That's not only many fewer links, but it means that with the addition of a single interlanguage link added to an article, the article is immediately connected to up to 249 other articles on the same subject, but in different languages.

And it's already been suggested here: m:A newer look at the interwiki link. I think you ought to post something at WP:VPPR, and see what other editors on the English Wikipedia think. But this is really a proposal for all language Wikipedias, so even if there is a (very) positive response on this language project, that doesn't mean that anything will happen. The developers (and I'm not one) will need to (a) decide that this is something supported by most language projects, and (b) that it is a high enough priority (in their view) to spend time working on. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ernesto Burzagli[edit]

As you may already know, young Lieutenant Ernesto Burzagli served in the Russo-Japanese War as a naval attaché with the Japanese fleet. Relying in large part on the Burzagli article in the Italian Wikipedia, I've creating the beginnings of an article in the English Wikipedia. I wonder if you might be persuaded to add this to your watchlist? Possibly you might be able and willing to contribute to its further development?

In addition: Possibly something might interest you in the related text at Military Medals of Honor (Japan)#1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War? Just a thought ...? Thank you again for your contribution to Joseon Tongsinsa. It seems not to have produced the constructive results I'd hoped for, but I found your comments very helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jyoti Raju[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Jyoti Raju requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Panoptical (talk) 06:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Jyoti Raju[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)



In the talk page for 'infinitive' you'd posted asking why there was no mention of the subjunctive MODE. THANK YOU!!! You used 'mode' correctly and did not call it 'mood'! I am usually the only person on here and just about any other online community I participate in. You're a breath of fresh air! --drewDrew.ward (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Associazione Nazionale Felina Italiana[edit]

Hello, Dejudicibus,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Associazione Nazionale Felina Italiana should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associazione Nazionale Felina Italiana .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Powers T 01:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Heaven (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Done: corrected with DABLink

"War films"[edit]

Hi, thank you for your contributions and interest in this topic. I'm sorry to have to revert your edits, but it isn't enough for us to believe that something is a war film (that's WP:OR); we have to provide evidence that reliable sources - film critics, film historians writing in academic journals or serious newspapers - have actually stated that these items are considered to be war films.

This means that links to other Wikipedia articles, or citations about the films themselves, are not sufficient. Those things show the films exist. We need proof that the "history films" or "sword-and-sandal films" or whatever are considered by serious authors to be "war films", or they don't belong in this article. Thank you for your understanding. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)