User talk:Marco Guardigli

Fravia once again
Hi, Marco

I have seen your effort to write a worthy article about Fravia as well as bone headed administrators' effort to foil it. Do you think it is possible to resurect your version of the article under Fravia's real name? OlegSmirnov (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mt9_movie.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Mt9_movie.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this:.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fravia
Hi - I moved your comment to the talk page. Evercat (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Image permission problem with Image:Fravswansinging 1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fravswansinging 1.jpg I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 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! --SineBot (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Questo non è il posto
Ho provato a leggere un po' dei tuoi tentativi di scrivere un articolo decente su Fravia. Ormai da tempo penso che questa wiki non è un posto adatto per "concentrare" conoscenza che non sia di massa (cioè, volendo essere snob... immondizia:D), e Fravia è sì rinomato, ma di sicuro non dalle masse. Inoltre qui hanno delle "policies" assurde sulle fonti, che automaticamente tagliano fuori moltissima conoscenza che pure è già sul Web, che dovremmo saper cercare per costruire la nostra rete di "references" che sicuramente saranno più autorevoli di quelli che questa wiki pretende. Ho già cercato di affrontare un discorso serio "gnoseologico", partendo dal criticare la presenza di alcune pagine che stranamente sopravvivono alla "censura" in contrapposizione alla prontissima cancellazione di innocue ma interessanti pagine... Ma non ho trovato terreno fertile: sono tutti concentrati a seguire scrupolosamente la burocrazia e della filosofia e delle conseguenze che un approccio più filosofico alla conoscenza in questa Wiki può portare, non gliene può fregare di meno. In pratica, il successo "di massa" di questa wiki ne fa uno strumento inadatto alla "conoscenza innovativa", che sicuramente Fravia rappresenta. In definitiva penso che questa wiki stia diventando un mostro in seno a una cultura autoreferenziale, priva però delle capacità critiche necessarie per "discriminare" le informazioni; mancando tale capacità, sia fuori che dentro questa Wiki, si attaccano a regole che non si sa bene che abbia scritto e seguendo quali illustri principi, che falliscono miseramente nel nuovo mondo delineato da Internet.

Vabbé, forse non sono stato chiarissimo... ma non ti abbattere per il fatto di non essere riuscito a tirar su una bella pagina su Fravia come desideravi; e il web testimonia la sua presenza, la sua grandezza e, in definitiva, l'immortalità del suo pensiero. Questa wiki semplicemente non è il posto adatto: troppo limitata! --Ittakezou0 (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)