Talk:Antonio Pio Saracino

Copyvio concerns
I'm aware that the page that was formerly here was tagged for copyvio. User:Zanglazor and I are working to fix this, so I would like to politely request that any potential deletion tags be held off for just a little while while we fix this. I'm going to go to class, but I am going to try to get to this article this afternoon once classes let out. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   13:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well,, I've held off for a while as requested. With all respect for your efforts to improve it, this COI mess should in my opinion be deleted forthwith as a G11, unambiguous promotion. It was originally created by dumping this page wholesale into Wikipedia, as far as I recall with only minimal changes, and was correctly deleted as copyvio ( also did the same on it.wiki, where the page was deleted twice in a day for the same reason). If I understand the history correctly, this page was then userfied, and subsequently moved back to mainspace. At no time that I can see was the original copyvio material ever actually removed. I'd like to suggest that if there's to be an article on this person (and he seems notable to me), then it should be written from scratch, by wikipedians, the way we write articles here, and not something based on the subject's own press release. What are your thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I can understand where you're coming from, but I'm hesitant to recommend a complete firebombing and re-writing of the article unless someone is willing to write an entirely new article from scratch before it's deleted. I did work on a new copy of the article with the person who placed the copyvio in the mainspace, so it's different enough that it probably wouldn't be considered a copyvio at this point in time. If you're still uncomfortable with it likely being written by someone with a COI (the other editor), then we can always ask someone from WP:ITALY or another type of WP to help re-write it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I ran a duplicate detector scan and I can't see where there's a complete duplicate anymore. It does list the works he's done, but that's something we can't really count as copyvio because well, list of works can't be re-written. Everything else I'd either removed entirely or substantially re-wrote, and right now it's different enough to where I don't think it really deserves to be speedied just because the original editor was very likely paid to create the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed reply. There seem to be three different potential problems here:
 * Copyvio: I fully agree that the Duplication detector report you give shows no substantial problems (as I would expect, since it was you that rewrote it), though the listing of a selection of works or shows or whatever is potentially a copyright infringement as the act of selection may be considered creative. However, this DD report shows that the initial version of this incarnation of the article has substantial copying from the subject's webpage. That seems to have been a mistake, the page should have been created from scratch; our instructions for rewriting content are: "Please do not copy over the version of the article that is a copyright problem as your base. All copied content, or material derived from it, should be removed first."
 * COI: we seem to agree that probably has some sort of conflict of interest here, though my guess was someone close to the subject and yours was a paid editor. Perhaps Zanglazor would care to respond?
 * The page was contributed by a probable COI editor and based on the subject's own webpage. To my mind, in spite of your subsequent contributions, it remains unambiguously promotional. Do we really need to be told twice that he is "among the most prolific Italian designers abroad and has been beatified by serial accolades", for example? Or even once, actually?
 * The quote is included twice to meet the wp:lead guidelines, as a generalization of the reception/style sections for the intro (not sure if I included that quote first or Tokyogirl). Feel free to swap it out with something better, there's a bazillion different quotes included in the references. Zanglazor (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In my view, a clean start would solve all the above in one sweep. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lol. Lots of insinuations about me, not sure where they're coming from. Because I contribute a lot of information I have a COI? Is being a good editor suspicious now? I'd appreciate it the future if you don't cry COI, just on the basis of some quotes.
 * Anyways, no hard feelings. I do a lot of research at one time, and sometimes just getting the information up there, organized, and referenced is my priority, not the particular quotes I pick (which I figure are more easily switched around and swapped than facts like dates and showings). To Justlettersandnumbers, you're very welcome to include negative quotes, or remove any quotes you feel makes it seem weighted one way or the other.  Zanglazor (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyways, no hard feelings. I do a lot of research at one time, and sometimes just getting the information up there, organized, and referenced is my priority, not the particular quotes I pick (which I figure are more easily switched around and swapped than facts like dates and showings). To Justlettersandnumbers, you're very welcome to include negative quotes, or remove any quotes you feel makes it seem weighted one way or the other.  Zanglazor (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ref errors
Hi! Please check the References, there's several red links / errors. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)