User talk:Conte di Cavour

Thank you
Good job on your edits to the Italy article. The improvements you've made have had a great effect on improving the look and organization of the article. I hope you continue to contribute! Sicilianmandolin 13:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Politics of Italian regions
I noticed that you worked hard on many articles about Italian regions. You may be intersted to help me with the articles about Italian regions. You could start with the region you like or where you live, taking example from Politics of Veneto and related articles. --Checco (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Use edit summaries
Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this: The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. — Dispenser 22:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Riva group logo.gif)
You've uploaded File:Riva group logo.gif, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Province of Brescia
Good work in updating those Lombard figures. In this edit, however, you didn’t update the year. I’ve changed it to 2008, but just in case you were using some other year for some reason, I thought I’d mention it. Cheers, Ian Spackman (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Metro Manila GDP
$108B in 2005, but we're now in the year 2009 so Metro Manila's GDP is now $135.83B and its growing 5.9%! --Secaundis • (myTalk) • (myContribs) 00:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sicily

 * Conte di Cavour, please do not remove images on the Sicily article without prior discussion on the talk page. Sal73 and I have been working very hard on the article. It's tiresome to replace your deletions. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Daygum (talk)

Area metropolitana di Napoli
Ciao ho visto che hai modificato alcune cosette: allora i dati censis dicono che è la seconda area metropolitana dopo la mega regione lombarda, ma dunque è la prima tra le aree metropolitane "prodotte" dall'"eccentrismo" di una sola città, non so se mi spiego... dunque è importante far presente che per il censis è seconda solo alla mega regione lombarda!! altra cosa, io, francamente, eviterei di menzionare i dati ocse, sono quelli meno attendibili sull'area napoletana e poi sono, in maniera risaputa, alquanto campanilisti, come si suol dire voce di popolo voce di dio !!!... la stragrande maggioranza delle fonti è concorde sul fatto che l'area di napoli è seconda, o addirittura prima come mostra il recente rapporto CENSIS. questo è quanto, grazie mille e buona giornata.--Focak (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No, per carità non ho detto che hai sbagliato, è un semplice confronto!! però secondo me andrebbe specificato che i dati censis dicono che è la seconda dopo la mega area lombarda e non dopo l'area di milano, il che è diverso!! perchè l'hai cancellato? bhe, in quanto all'area di napoli, non essendo nè di parte nè niente, non posso fare a meno anche io di dire che questa in questione è senza alcun dubbio (ma proprio nessuno) la seconda area del paese, niente da vedere con quella di roma: ma non capisco proprio perchè i dati ocse la raffigurano seconda, mentre terza quella di napoli... sono un buon conoscitore dell'argomento ma non proprio un esperto e a parlarmi male dei dati ocse è stato un mio amico laureato in urbanistica e progettazione che fece riferimento ad un certo campanilismo ed altre supposizione tecniche sbagliate!! personalmente, indipendentemente che siano campanilisti o chissà quale altre supposizioni, io ti dico che quei dati sono semplicemente ridicoli (quelli soprattutto in riferimento all'area napoletana) 3.100.000 l'area di napoli?? e 3.700.000 quella di roma?? ma scherziamo?? è assurdo!! l'area metropolitana di roma non è altamente confrontabile con quella di napoli per motivi che sarebbe troppo prolisso spiegare.. poi avrei da ridiere anche sui 7 milioni dell'area metropolitana di milano, anche quì ho i miei dubbi, quest'area è puramente regionale e non è stata "prodotta" dalla presenza di una sola città, ergo, milano, come invece succede per napoli, dove la sua area ha preso vita grazie all'eccentricità di quest'ultima, non so se mi son spiegato!! quindi, per me, i dati migliori e seri sono proprio quelli censis!! ciao e buona serata :) .--Focak (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, sarò breve perchè l'argomento si prospetta insidioso e prolisso :) per me possiamo lasciare anche così, ma sappi che l'identificazione della mega regione lombarda è un tantino diversa dall'area metropolitana di milano, perchè è scaturita non solo da una "singola influenza eccentrica". In quanto ai dati, io ritengo molto più affidabili, molto spesso, quelli "di casa", perchè come si suol dire, si conoscono meglio i polli, eccetto i dati poco seri... ma i svimez, nulla da dire, sono ottimissimi e seri, consigliatissimi!! e poi l'ocse mi pare strano che rappresenta gli unici dati internazionali sulle aree, sulla wiki italiana sono stati presi in considerazione altri, li vidi in giro sulle voci sempre relative ad argomenti urbani, se non erro!! cmq sia quelli ocse per me e per molti altri rimangono quelli tra i meno affidabili, non ci resta che affidarci quindi ai dati futuri sperando di trovare maggiori consensi compatti e minori divisioni, ciao e buona giornata :).. --Focak (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comoros
Your recent edit seems a bit sloppy. You changed the figures in the infobox, but not elsewhere in the article, making it self-contradictory. More importantly, those figures seem suspect. They suggest that the country lost nearly 125,000 of 800,000 of its population in three years, but the population density went up 10%. Is it possible that the source doesn't include the disputed island of Mayotte (which by convention is included in our article)? Dominic·t 11:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'll revert then, until we figure out what is going on with the numbers. Next time can you give your statistics a basic sanity check? :-) Dominic·t 12:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

POV
Ciao! I've noticed your last addition in Ferrara (although useful) is rather full of what we call here POV and WP:Weasel words, such as "extraordinary", "probably" etc. Such subjective judgements usually must be provided with some source, as they clearly express a personal point of view or hypoteses which is not accepted in this encyclopedia philosophy. Ciao and let me know! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, beware of Bible which must be in capitals, and also that in English centuries use Arabic numbers (16th century, instead of XVI century). Ciao e buon divertimento!

Additions appreciated, but please discuss
Hello Conte di Cavour. Whilst I do mainly agree with some of your changes to the Milan page, do you mind please discussing them on the talk page, since they are relatively radical and change the page dramatically, so I'd appreciate that. Anyway, reply and ciao!--Theologiae (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A non sapevo che tu parlavi italiano. Io lo so parlare mediamente bene, allora puoi anche scrivermi in italiano--Theologiae (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Conte di Cavour, alcuni edits che io ho fatto sono state discusse (Italia e stata discussa tantissime volte, e altre citta). Nonostante questo, non vuoldire che gli errori che ho fatto io devo essere copiati da te. Milano l'ho solo migliorata, visto che prima era un po corta. Io non sto dicendo che quello che tu hai fatto e terribile (ansi e meglio), ma sto dicendo di discuterlo prima. E riguardando il fatto che Milano l'hai scritta tu, non vorrei distruggiere il tuo articolo, ma ricordati che nessuno e propietario di un articolo, e tu puoi aver' anche fatto degli errori (vedi la pagina Ownership of articles). Intanto, buon lavoro con la pagina, e sto pensando anch' io di cambiare alcune foto. Riscrivimi per dire le tuo idee.--Theologiae (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Saro collaborativo. Solo una cosa. Non trovi che magari sarebbe meglio mettere la foto dell' ultima cena assieme a quella di raffaello, visto che e arte, non un monumento. Vorrei invence metterci una foto dell' arco della galleria. Suggerimenti?


 * Un altro punto. Non trovi che questa foto Galleria vittorio emanuele ii 02.jpg sia meglio di quella foto che c'e della galleria? Questa qua e piu bella, mostra il ottagono e tanti negozi. Ho capito il punto della foto di Milano di 1900 e anch'io adesso capisco. All' inizio, pensavo che quella dell' duomo era piu bella, ma adesso so che e meno interessante e piu noiosa. Va bene, rispondi--Theologiae (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nature
Do you know why the sections on Nature and Vulcanism were removed from Italy? See my note on that articles talk page.Notafly (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Tethys Research Institute
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Tethys Research Institute, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.tethys.org/about.htm, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Tethys Research Institute and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Tethys Research Institute, in your email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Tethys Research Institute with a link to where we can find that note.
 * If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Tethys Research Institute. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at [ this temporary page]. Leave a note at Talk:Tethys Research Institute saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Alvestrand (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that you are a little bit paranoid. I've not copied, but in order to write something about that important Milan-realted institute, I took its own self-destription from its website...guess that that kind of brochure-stuff is thought exactly for this kind of divulgation work, and it doesn't have any academic value to steal, my dear zealous admin. Or should I invent things? Maybe think the next time before blaming people that work for wikipedia, creating pages from nothing, or if you continue this copyright violation which hunt you will destroy wikipedia.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's policy. We can't pick and choose what copyvio to overlook. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please don't mark your edits as minor unless they actually minor = see WP:MINOR. "Checking the minor edit box signifies that the current and previous versions differ only superficially (typographical corrections, etc.), in a way that no editor would be expected to regard as disputable." Your edits at Rome were not minor. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Issues on Economy of Italy
You know that what i did was not vandalism. I came with a good idea, but you don't accept it. So, i'll get the subject to the Moderation. When you said that has a better view on the subject, because you are italian and i'm brazilian, you made a mistake. This way, you are stating your POV. Read this: Neutral point of view

PS: Don't put other user on our talk, with what the other said about me.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you carry on complaining about imaginative persecutions? You DELETED things that you didn't like: you simply can't do it, you can't delete the WORK of a lot of other users with groundless reasons (lack of neutrality and poor grammar? absolutely false), this is the point. I'm involved in Italy page since 2007 (but the majority of the page was already here): in the last 4 years, we met a lot of users like you, who used to arbitrarily delete huge parts (leaving the graphics of the paragraphs with holes, without fixing it, like you've done), change everything, give lessons to others, being arrogant, starting flames, etc. You can ADD sourced parts, but you can't DELETE a big part just because you don't like it. If you start absurd flames about parts that have been written during many years and that are very well sourced, and if you DELETE these parts without discussing, and without sufficient reasons, it is nothing else but vandalism. The parts that you ADDED: no problems, they have been left and YOU KNOW IT. But you must RESPECT the work of other users: you can't come here and nonchalantly delete 4 years of work without a reason. And I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about myself, because I've written only small parts of the page. Today, unluckily, Italy is very fucked up, and hiding this reality would be dishonest, since we are not writing a tourist guide. Nevertheless, Italy has many good assets that are very well highlighted in the article as well. I've pointed out that I'm Italian not to claim a superiority, but ONLY because you said that the article is written by "haters" and it is not neutral: this is very absurd. Instead, it is perfectly neutral, and since I'm Italian, I can witness this simple fact: that it is balanced and highlights the weak and strong points of my country. IF IT WERE WRITTEN BY HATERS OF MY COUNTRY, I NEVER EVER WOULD TOLERATE IT. But it is absolutely not the case. And much more than this, every single line of the Economy section has a very good reference, so you can't absolutely delete parts, only add. So, please, stop your useless crusade against me and the page, it is a waste of time for everyone. Best Regards, --Conte di Cavour (talk) 11:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Take it easy. You accuse me several times here. I'm not on a crusade against you, i'm against the stupidities that someone, with low knowledge on the subject and grammar or lack of neutral comment, insert there. I talk to you on "Discussion", insert my sources, and you still calling me a vandal. I'm taking to a Moderator. You do not own the article.

Maybe you didn't realize that you must BALANCE controversial subjects (like "the sick man of europe"), to not sound moronic. Do you realize that this term has been applied to almost every country in Europe, and NOT OFTEN to Italy?

GustoBLSJP (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading your answer...it is crystal clear that you didn't read or understand my reply. I repeat for the last time: you can't delete parts that are well sourced. If you ADD something you are very welcome, but you simply CAN NOT delete parts that are well sourced. I never said that I own the article, you don't understand English, I didn't write it, it has been written by a lot of users in many years. The article does not say that "Italy is the sick man of Europe", but, as YOU are stating too (!!!), it says that IT HAS BEEN CALLED "sick man of Europe", with 2+ sources. This is REALITY, you can't deny reality because you don't like it! And please notice, that YOU are saying the same thing, but probably your low level of English does not allow yo to understand. So please, stop talking about grammar, because your level of English is very low compared to the level of the Economy section (not mine). You should write "You ARE still calling me a vandal", don't forget the verbs. For the rest, do whatever you want, if you don't have a life, and if you want to waste your time in stupid flames, but I would never go to the Brazil page with such stupid flames insulting and insisting in denying issues...that you clearly don't know, even without reading the sources, about a country 8,500 km far away from you. Now I'm very tired of you, I'm not replying anymore.

I tell you before, take it easy. At no way i accused you, at any time, and you attack me personally several times. It seems that you don't accept the mistakes and don't deserve my help. I have plenty of time. Wikipedia is a free and open encyclopedia. Read this: Avoid the word "vandal"

GustoBLSJP (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't bite Conte di Cavour, I'm sure you can help Gusto civilly here. New editors often need a bit of help getting acclimated to Wikipedia. Prodego  talk  20:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I ask you, please, to delete the talk we had here. Thank you, if you do. GustoBLSJP (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Conte di Cavour. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. CrimsonBlack 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am GustoBLSJP. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Conduct regarding User:CrimsonSabbath
Hi, this is a follow-up to the discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding the edit conflict at Italy and User:CrimsonSabbath. You argued that CrimsonSabbath should not be removing material simply because he does not like it. You are absolutely correct. However, please be aware that disruptive editing and stubbornness are not considered vandalism. Also, please keep a cool head in discussions and avoid uncivil actions such as shouting and swearing. Thank you for your edits and I hope you'll continue to improve Italy-related articles here on Wikipedia. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 23:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I certainly will follow your right recommendations.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Italian-Americans
Whoops, sorry. Carry on... Zeng8r (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Monte Bianco or Mont Blanc
Hello Conte di Cavour, I would appreciate if you could give your opinion on the following subject: Should we use Monte Bianco, Mont Blanc or both in the main article about Italy? If you can please let me know what you think here. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Paulista, thank you for the consideration. Even if I'm Italian myself, I would say that we unfortunately should use the French word "Mont Blanc", because it is also the English and international version of the name. Regards.

--Conte di Cavour (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Conte di Cavour. I disagree, it is not the "international" version, what is the "international version"? Are we talking about Esperanto? But anyways, I am done, I just wanted to improve the article. I am not trying to please the editors of Wikipedia, it seems that most of the time we are trying to please "egos" and not the ultimate user.  I believe we should try to please the readers, they are going to look at their Italian guides (published in English - like the DK Italian Guide) trying to find the Mont Blanc, they will not find it, most modern books about Italy use Monte Bianco. I give up, but I still believe it is the wrong choice. Thanks for your opinion. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Italy
I think you'd better support your changes with better arguments (WP:PRETTY). You've also added some mistakes and ignored bad refs, which I'm trying to fix while you editwar. It is also customary to leave an edit summary, which you have consistently avoided. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Conte di Cavour
Dear Conte di Cavour,


 * it is a long time since we last spoke, but I wanted to pop by and say hello (just before you question who I am, it's user:Theologiae)

I took a long break from Wikipedia, having realised several things. I was very busy with my personal life, but when I started editing the encyclopaedia back in 2009 I was very, very young. The main reason behind my several contributions Italy and relating articles was because, having browsed through them years before, I realised how lacking in information and life they were. In comparison to other WikiProjects, such as France and Germany, Italy fell as flat as a pancake - very few FACs and GAs, as well as the very slow update of information. Looking at archives, if I remember, you were the one who, back in 2006/07, 're-wrote' all the articles and brought a lot of life back to the project, alongside several other valued editors. I wanted to do the same, to some extent. Being very young, I didn't know all the Wikipedia policies on MOS and editing style, but I grew to learn them. My aim was to get the Italy wikiproject back to thinking - a rejuvenation, let us say. I wanted editors to talk, discuss and improve. I maybe was a bit too bold, but I feel that, for better or for worse, I did do, to some extent, what you managed to achieve back then - being a hectic time in life, many edits were rushed, but I started 127 different articles and proposed new ideas.

I realise that maybe, back then, you saw me as a bit of a 'disruption' to your work - I re-wrote the articles, changed the pics, etc. I was a bit over-enthusiastic, don't get me wrong. But now that time has passed, I would like to see such edits in a favourable light, as well as our many discussions, which only improved the Italy wikiproject.

Now, I don't work on Italy-related pages as much. I felt I achieved my aims, and that, whilst there still is a lot of work to do, it could be dealt with by more experienced editors such as you. Hence, nowadays I work mostly in the fields of arts, music, contemporary affairs, culture and different countries. However, I am in the process of finishing a long article on Culture of Naples, which I've spent ages on looking for sources, getting information and pictures.

Before we end, however, I would like to award you something you've deserved for a long time:

--&#38;レア (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC) (that's my new signature)

Milan
Potresti per favore evitare di cancellare ogni volta la tabella con i paesi di provenienza della popolazione di Milano? Non capisco perché essere tanto ostili ad un'informazione tabulata che si trova in tutte le voci sulle grandi città mondiali. Inoltre quando si fanno modifiche così radicali su una voce così importante sarebbe meglio discuterne prima sulla talk page. Grazie. --Ita140188 (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to talk
Hello Conte di Cavour. First of all congratulations for this important name. We have problems with some users which add false infos in the article Sicily and replace new photos with old ones in the article Italy. Help me when you have time. --93.32.133.101 (talk) 19:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Benito Mussolini 02.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Benito Mussolini 02.jpg

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (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) 11:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

3rr - Italy
Your recent editing history at Italy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. And don't label edits you don't agree with as vandalism. You don't WP:OWN the article! — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Enok, actually you are (on a daily basis, and massively) reverting all my edits, thus practicing a form of vandalism or, at the very least, disruptive editing. Since there are no apparent reasons for your behaviour, it would appear that you are taking it personal.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

ITALY,ITALIANS AND RELATED ARTICLES
Read Italy  Talk please.Thanks.151.40.29.113 (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

MILAN'S POPULATION DATA AND LINKS
Hello Conte di Cavour,

Your last edits on the Milan's page about Milan's population are wrong as you removed my updates with the latest and/or official available demographic data and their links. For the Urban Area's population there is a new version of the study, Demographia 2015, the same document that you also linked, but you wrote the old, 2014, population data and the title you wrote is the old one, Demographia 2014. You also removed the population data and link about the official Metropolitan City. You removed all these updated data without providing links to your old not updated data. The only link you provided has a wrong title as it says Demographia 2014, but when you open the link, it's the new 2015 edition (because it automatically updates itself), the same one I have already provided with the data I updated, so your data are wrong as there is a new version of that demographic study with new population data, that I updated and provided the link but you removed it.

Please restore the page as it was updated.

Thank you very much, — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOMADEITALIKA (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

NOMADEITALIKA (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok I may be wrong on Demographia, I will check. But relating to the figures that you continue to put in the box, they are not only wrong, but invented. They luck references, and the only one that has a reference is wrong. You put the population of the city proper (commune) to 1.5 million, citing a "Comune di Milano" pdf, but in that text the population is reported as 1,353,000. Then you put the metro area at well over 8 million but without any source. The only source that we have about the Milan metro area is a paper by OECD that puts the figure at 7.4 million. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Conte di Cavour,

For the Municipality of Milan I put the official data of the Comune di Milano which is 1.353.882 with link as you can see in the Edit History, I never wrote 1.5 million.. You have written 1.3 million, which is wrong, you can check the total population in the link which is 1.353.882. There is no link to your data for the Urban 3,869,037.. What does that mean? The anagraphic data of the Urban Area that you have written is wrong as there is an updated version of its study which I had updated already. There is an updated study of the Metropolitan Area by ISTAT with its link which also can be found in the Edit History.. Last but not least, Milan is a Metropolitan City but you removed such important data and information about it. It would be important restoring them and correcting the text where says Province into Metropolitan City.

I never invented anything. You can find the links to the official data or studies. I suggest you to write the correct data and information. It would be professional and fair.

Thank you very much, NOMADEITALIKA (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace
If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Help with translation
"Dell’Albania conservo qualche familiare, ma sono greco in tutto e per tutto".--Z oupan 16:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sulcis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy. 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) 09:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Benito Mussolini into Italian East Africa. 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. 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 Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, in 10+ years of editing, I've never heard about this. Thank you. Anyway, how can I know who's the contributor of a portion of an article?--Conte di Cavour (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edits to Milan do not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Peaceray (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey there!
We are discussing about the new pic of the economy section of Italy, would be great if you say us what do you think about it on Talk Page of Italy, cheers PS : you are free to invite friends to visit the talk page--Ivankazz (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * it seems that you had forgotten to answer my question!.Ivankazz (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Ivankazz, unfortunately I was locked out of my account for about three months.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milan metropolitan area, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lodi ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Milan_metropolitan_area check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Milan_metropolitan_area?client=notify 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) 11:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Economist &#34;Berlusconi Basta&#34; cover (2006).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Economist &. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your report at ANI
I have closed the thread you opened at ANI. You may read my closing statement there however the bottom line is that the only actionable behavior might be your own. I strongly advise you to take the cautions there to heart. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Very well. Wikipedia is losing more and more users. Ask yourself why. A little clue for you: people with Judge Dredd delusions. I have nothing to add. --Conte di Cavour (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mussolini biografia.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Mussolini biografia.jpg, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
 * It is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content, and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. (See section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then you should do two things. First, please state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions. Second, please add the relevant copyright tag.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Generali Tower Milan 02.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Generali Tower Milan 02.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Majora (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Benito Mussolini 02.jpg


The file File:Benito Mussolini 02.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Bosco Verticale towers in Milan, Italy 02.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bosco Verticale towers in Milan, Italy 02.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Dylsss(talk contribs) 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Benito mussolini28.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Benito mussolini28.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. — Ирука13 09:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Piedmont Region Headquarters 01.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:Piedmont Region Headquarters 01.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused duplicate or lower-quality copy of another file on Wikipedia having the same file format, and all inward links have been updated.

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. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 02:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)