User talk:Raniero Supremo

February 2009
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Versus22 talk 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia page about a still-not-released film
Hi, is it allowed to write a Wikipedia page about a film which still hasn't been released??--Supremo (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability (films) documents the current consensus on that question. If you are involved with the film, also keep Conflict of interest in mind. -- Beland (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply Concerning Hapalodectes
Hi! Unfortunately, I haven't been able to read that article beyond its abstract. I have, however, gotten other articles like these --Mr Fink (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been meaning to insert those articles into the references, but I've been procrastinating/forgetting.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Like before, about a still-not-released film
Yes, I read what you sent me but how can I know if the film is known enough to deserve a Wikipedia page??--Supremo (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the film isn't well-known enough for somebody else to have created the article by now and Notability (films) didn't make it clear to you the film clearly deserves an article, it's likely the best thing to do is simply wait until after the film is released and see what happens. If you aren't satisfied with that answer and you have third-party references to document the notability of the project, feel free to create the article, knowing that someone might request that it be deleted. It's up to you. -- Beland (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Damned by Dawn
Hi, yesterday I wrote this page, but since English is not my first language (I'm Italian), it could contain some error within the form. Please, could you control the page and correct any possible error?? Also, since it misses the image, could you give me an help about how getting an image of a film?--Supremo (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did a quick copyedit of the article. You may wish to take a promotional image from the official website and scale it down.  Other movies have scaled-down versions of the movie poster (do they still make posters for movies?), or you could take a screenshot of a DVD if there are no legal issues in Italy with doing that.  Once you have a digital image, you can use the "Upload file" link in the Toolbox on the right side of any Wikipedia page.  Because the image will be copyrighted, you will need to claim fair use (see Non-free use rationale guideline) and that's also why scaled-down images are better.  Take a look at what has been done for e.g. Independence Day (film) if you need an example.  Good luck!  -- Beland (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Saskia Burmeister
Hello, I wanted to inform you that there's an error in the page of Saskia Burmeister, since the person shown in the photo is not her! We should remove it, don't you think??--Supremo (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what she looks like, but feel free to correct glaring factual errors like that yourself. 8) -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can you confirm it is not Saskia? You know her personally? Family friend? Lover? Rain the One  BAM 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you have known her in real life since you were a teen? The image is from a very active sydney celebrity photographer. It is just that me and another editor both agree it is her. Also, I like how you miss that detail out. To be frank, I don't like your style of adressing me either. Your last message inparticular, I do not really contest Jamie's picture because I haven't seen any of his work prior, so I'm not in any position to preach there.. Rain the One  BAM 23:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page. There's little point in arguing about it on three different user pages. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Your recent editing history at Saskia Burmeister shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Emma Leonard for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emma Leonard is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Emma Leonard until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)