User talk:Sailko

List of Italian given names
Ciao Sailko, sono Nick Glass. Sono felice che tu ti sia impegnato a migliorare la pagina sui nomi italiani, ma penso che le tue modifiche non siano esattamente opportune. Per esempio, non capisco il criterio con cui hai messo in italic molti dei nomi della lista. Se hai qualche fonte precisa sulla diffusione attuale dei nomi sarei contento se me la dicessi. Se ti sei basato solo sul buon senso o sulla tua esperienza (ad esempio le persone che conosci) ti assicuro che non è molto affidabile: alcuni nomi sono diffusissimi in aree relativamente ristrette e, fra parentesi, io non conosco nessun Giuseppe, Gaetano o Carmela! La scelta dei nomi da aggiungere l'ho fatta per dare alla wiki inglese una raccolta "completa" dei nomi più rappresentativi e non solo di quelli più comuni. Per quanto riguarda i nomi che hai tolto, anche qui mi sembra tu abbia usato un criterio un po' strano. Se si decide di togliere Azzo perchè può ricordare qualcosa d'altro (malizioso che non sei altro), allora bisognerebbe togliere anche Penelope ed altri che non mi metto ad elencare. I commenti che hai aggiunto mi sembrano poi poco utili o rappresentativi (dalle mie fonti risulterebbe che il nome Aligi è accentrato per 2/5 in Toscana e per il resto disperso al Nord ed al Centro). Magari si potrebbe pensare di aggiungere l'origine, il significato o cose così. Per questo potresti consultare il progetto antroponimi sulla Wiki italiana: una parte dei nomi gli ho aggiunti io. Ciao!

Nomi Italiani
Ommioddio!!! Il solo pensiero di nomi come Maicol, Chevin (anche scritto Kevin), Ilary o roba simile mi fa accapponare la pelle!!! Riguardo ai nomi rari o rarissimi sono abbastanza daccordo con te. Comunque i nomi che ho inserito nella lista, anche quelli a prima vista più strani, gli ho messi perchè, dalle mie fonti risultano ancora esistenti, anche se sporadici. Se ti chiedi quali sono le mie fonti, mi riferisco in particolare ad una elaborazione elettronica degli abbonati al telefono realizzato dal centro di calcolo della SEAT (società elenchi ufficiali degli abbonati al telefono), alla quale è seguito un processo di pulizia per togliere i nomi stranieri di residenti in italia ed i nomi palesemente non rappresentativi. Quindi in Italia esistono, anche se solo qualche centinaio o decina, persone che si chiamano Agilulfo, Astolfo, Volturno, Platone, Eustasio e così via. Tra l'altro non ho messo quelli che risultavano davvero rarissimi o le forme alterate più singolari (anche perchè ci avrei impiegato una vita!). Non ho messo neppure nomi storicalmente importanti. Vorrei poi farti notare che, dopo tutto, questa è solo una lista, che non si prefigge lo scopo di dare informazioni particolarmente dettagliate. Andrebbe piuttosto fatto un articolo (Italian Name che contenga tutti i dati a cui ti riferivi (compreso magari l'elenco dei nomi più comuni per quel povero inglesotto alle prime armi!), presente per altro per varie altre lingue, come il giapponese Japanese name o il tedesco German name. Ciao! Nick Glass.

The Malebranche
Hi Sailko. At List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy, I noticed you made an this edit saying that "Malebranche" was not a Luccan family name. According to Madelbalm p.376, in his note for Canto XX1, lines 118-123, "the names given to the demons in this pouch are generally fanciful coinages of Dante. Burt Malebranche (37) was a family name in Lucca, as were Graffiacane, Scarmiglione (105) and Cagnasso (here Cagnazzo)." Do you have any reason to doubt this? Regards, Paul August &#9742; 04:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sailko, I've replied to your post on my talk page. Paul August &#9742; 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Museum, Florence
Ciao amico mio! :) Multo grazie for your improvements to the Egyptian Museum article. Alastair Haines 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:UtrechtPsalterUnkFolios.jpg
For images that are moved to Commons, please subst onto the image page instead of using speedy. You may also be interested in this tool: User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js MECU ≈ talk 15:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gothic architecture
Thank you for your pertinent edit! It was stupid of me to leave that fact out (two facts, really). --Amandajm 09:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sailko! With regards to your suggestion, the famous English architectural writer Sir Banister Fletcher comments on the smmalll windows and doors and says that it was because of Italy's "brilliant climate", so he seems to be relating it to the brightness of the light rather than the heat of the sun, but I would think that the heat would be another important factor.
 * --Amandajm 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

HI
Thanks for the help and corrections. I have muddled through and have now found some more source material but at some point may need your help on the architectural terms. I was puzzled at 'water joke' but then found in English we just use the Italian, like in music (piano, forte &c). Best Hinnibilis (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Illuminated manuscript
I may be mistaken, but it looks like some of these are correct: If not, please correct me. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer)
Hi ! A biography which you  have either created, contributed to, or edited,  is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional  tone (see: COI). All articles, especially biographies, must  be neutral and adequately  sourced to  avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer), and improve the article. --Kudpung (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicted licensing on image File:Assunta spina.jpg
The above noted image or media file appears to have conflicted licensing. As an image cannot be both 'free' and 'unfree', a check of the exact status of this media/image concerned is advised.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 00:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup Oct 16
Hi Sailko. Thanks again for your work on the Wikipedia Loves Art Met images! I don't know if you live around here or not (it's a nice Brooklyn Bridge user pic, anyway), but I'd very much like to invite you to join us at Meetup/NYC on Saturday, October 16 :)--Pharos (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, it's too bad you're back from holiday then. I don't know if you're active in Wikimedia Italia or not, but they of course deal with many of the same issues of museums relationships etc.--Pharos (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucan Leonardo
I have just read your comment. This has been an ongoing argument ever since the page was created. If you look further up the talk page of Lucan portrait of Leonardo da Vinci you will see that I have made a strong case that this work is not by Leonardo, but user Murray Mezies is convinced that it is. At the same time, he has no understanding for Wikipedia Manual of Style and the restrictions on posting "Personal Research" and "Persoanl Opinion". He is quite convinced that everything he writes is "putting forward facts". I am becoming exhausted by the process of explaining to him, because he does not want to know. He frequently threatens to take me to the "Wikipedia Tribunal" for trying to suppress his valuable information!

Meanwhile, there is a group of people in Italy who said that this picture was a Leonardo, and have arranged for research to be done to prove this. There was supposed to be a press conference two or three weeks ago, but I have heard nothing. They have not contacted Wikipedia with any further information. Perhaps they have changed their opinion!

I think that the content of the article will have to undergo a review process of some sort. It would be good if you could make some comment.

Amandajm (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response! I am not prepared to propose it for deletion, because Wikipedia deals with everything. The fact that it was found, was "attributed" to Leonardo and that it was scientifically investigated is information that warrants an article. However, all the "Personal Opinion" and spurious nonsense must go. I have removed it, once again. But it will soon be put back, I have no doubt!
 * I wrote the original, (with some interference!) basing it on what the papers and other sources had said. The website "Mysterious Lucania" is the website of Nico Barbatelli's solicitor/attorney and his brother (as far as I can ascertain). Barbatelli discovered the painting and this website promotes it.
 * Two art historians have been involved, so the painting cannot be simply ignored. Today I have just discovered a statement by Vezzosi, the curator of the museum in Vinci. Vezzosi is usually very cautious. He is never in a hurry to jump upon the train. After some months he had stated that it was not (in his opinion) by Leonardo. However, I have only just found this statement now, because everytime I Google, I first get all the many statements on the "Mysterious Lucania" site. If you look at the page now, you will see what I have done. Maybe I will find something more recent.
 * Unfortunately, my Italian is poor, so I do not have access to the Italian articles. Amandajm (talk) 12:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * However much you might disagree that the Lucan painting is a Leonardo, you can't simply label it "spam", because all these blooming people have spent so much time and effort researching it! The heading that it is under makes it perfectly clear that the attribution is both recent and questionable.
 * They have gone awfully silent, for some reason. I have been expecting to hear back about how the conference went. I never have. I just get plagued by people who, recently, keep getting on the article's page and reverting edits, from different computers. You, and Attilios, are better placed to find out what has happened to that painting than I am. I am curious. Amandajm (talk) 09:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ciao!
Arigato! Thank for your help at Rosselli's painting. I've recently noticed an inexplicable lack of description about the wall frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, and the article you corrected is part of my effort to add a separate article about any of them. If you've time, can you give a check to my English there (the list of existing articles is in the dedicated section at Sistine Chapel)? Un salutone e grazie in anticipo da --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Pietà for Vittoria Colonna
Hi, I translated this article from your Italian version and updated it with some news about the related oil painting. I'm not sure, though, whether I've rendered Non è chiaro se quest'opera venne effettivamente dipinta o meno dall'artista correctly as "It is not certain that this work was painted by Michelangelo"; or maybe the point is not clear to me: is it in doubt that Michelangelo made an oil painting from the drawing, or is it uncertain whether he made even the drawing? Regards,  Sandstein   22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Leonardo
I do understand how you feel about this. However, I for one, am not at all sure that the pic in the Uffizi is a fake. I have never read about it in detail, but I'm prepared to believe that it is early 16th century. people can get almost as carried away with disclaimng "fakes" as they can with finding masterpieces. We don't want to "throw the baby out with the bath water".

As for the Lucan Leonardo, I am absolutely convinced that it is the work of Cristofano dell'Altissimo. It has the same thin paint quality, the same rather soulful eyes, the same rather sweet expression of the mouth, with the lips slightly pursed. The same lack of solidity in the body. It is clearly copied from that pic in the Uffizi, which supports the notion that the Uffizi pic is late 15th/early16th. Except that it is a much less substantial and three-dimensional and dynamic image than the Uffizi pic. Maybe they are both based on some lost picture.

Moreover, that inscription on the back looks exactly as if our friend Cristofano had a few practice goes at writing backwards and then did that himself. It looks exactly like his writing. In my opinion, that inscription was written by a right-handed person, writing backwards with their right hand. (I have practised writing backwards ever since I took an interest in Leonardo as a child) I know exactly how this person went about it.

I don't think the Lucan picture is a recent forgery. I just think that it is quite sincerely icky! It's too much like dell'Altimisso's work. If anyone was trying to fake a Leonardo, they would use sfumato, which is very obviously lacking in this pic. A fake Leonardo would turn out looking heavy-handed and as if it was painted by Salai, or Boltraffio or the de Predis. That is the way all those numerous copies and "works after" leonardo look. It's hard to avoid. This painting isn't at all heavy-handed in the same way. It has a completely different quality to all the fakes, copies and forgeries.

If you forget that Leonardo is supposed to have done it, and simply accept it as the work of a second- or third- rate painter, then it ceases to be offensive!

Moreover, because that section exists for Recent, disputed and just plain ridiculous attributions, it gives Wiki readers a chance to look and think to themselves "well, I don't agree with that!". We were careful in setting that up, to keep them out of the "accepted" and "possible" works.

Amandajm (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I created this page User:Amandajm/Leonardo da Vinci, investigation, attribution and speculation specially to put this sort of stuff about paintings like the Lucan portrait and so on.  But an administrator, and a couple of editors who don't do art pages, and have not contributed to Leonardo thought that it was "unnecessary" and insisted on deleting it!  I am rather pissed off!


 * As for the Lucan portrait, it might be a fake Cristofano dell'Altissimo, but it certainly wasn't painted as a fake Leonardo, because it doesn't have any of the qualities that a forger would put into a fake Leonardo.  If it is a fake Cristofano, then it is a very good fake indeed, because it has all the qualities that one would expect in a Cristofano.  (keeping in mind that, like every other Italian artist of his date, he was affected by Leonardo)
 * The notion, the proposal, and the insistence by some people that it is a proven work by Leonardo is foolish in the extreme.
 * Two points:
 * There is no point in deleting it from the section about recent and contested paintings. If you delete it from that section, then you will cause another problem. The supporters of the painting will put it into the top section, and say that the attribution is proved by scientific research, and verified by two art historians (who have both written published articles on Leonardo prior to this painting coming to light.)   I do not want to have to argue the point.  I have already, on the discussion pages, indicated my position, and made it fairly clear that I have quite a deal of knowledge on the subject. But s a voluntary contributor to  Wikipedia, I cannot stand in the way of  anyone who uses published opinion (in this case, statements by a couple of published, independent (?) art historians)  to make a point.
 * Secondly: You must understand that the only people who have published strong criticism of this attribution have been you and me. And we have both made our statements exclusively on the pages of Wikipedia. In other words, what they say is supported by published scientific findings and professional opinion. What we say is Personal Opinion and Original Research, neither of which are permissible on Wikipedia. Your recent intro to the Lucan Leonardo page is "Personal Opinion" and/or Original Research.   You cannot state that the painting is a fake based on another fake, unless you can trot out published material to prove it.


 * One has to walk a thin line on Wikipedia. You have to follow the rules.   At the same time, you have to keep idiots happy, because they have just as much right to edit these pages as you do.  It often comes down to a compromise situation. I have had to compromise over Leonardo rather a lot. The main article was taken over by some contributor whose sole aim seemed to be to prove that Leonardo was a pederast, and use this to gain favour for his personal cause.  At that time there was no discussion of Leonardo's paintings. I had a personal agenda to keep the main page clean because it is used by thousands of kids for their homework.  On the other hand, the fact that Leonardo was charged in Florence under the sodomy laws cannot be written out of any biography, because it is the only established date at that point of his life.  What I wanted to remove was the very pointed speculation and implications concerning Melzi and Salai, for which there is no proof, and a great deal of misinterpretation.  It was unencyclopedic, but supported by an author and the contributor (who wrote pederast stuff into every possible article).
 * The strategy that I employed was to start another page, specifically about Leonardo's personal life. I dumped all the Freudian and Pederast info on that page, along with vegetarianism, little birds in cages, mother was an Arab, fingerprints and so on and so forth. The sex stuff is all there, and has been editted lately to de-link material that should never have been linked. For example, a sentence that referred to Leonardo being cleared of charges over the male prostitute matter continued on to refer to his two young pupils, as if they were proven homosexual relationships. I fixed a few of these problems just recently.
 * Don't get me wrong about this. I was accused, (when I removed the unproven stuff from the main article) of being homophobe. That is far from the case. The point is this: if someone is going to write a chapters of a boook on Leonardo's repressed sexuality, or pederast sexuality, then anyone can quote it on Wikipedia. I personally believe that there is very little chance that Leonardo was having relations with Salai as a young boy. If that had been suspected, then the noble father of little Count Melzi would never have put his son in Leonardo's care.
 * My main concern was not to prevent this speculative material being published on Wikipedia, but simply to provide a place where it could be published without swamping and distracting from the main issue: Leonardo as one of the greatest artists that has ever lived.
 * In the present situation, it doesn't matter how strongly you object to the statement that the Lucan Leonardo is a self portrait, once the statement has been made and published, then it's publishable on Wikipedia.
 * The only thing that you can do is "damage control". In other words, you limit the places and the situations under which the stuff is published, by creating suitable and non-contentious headings, e.g. Recent and disputed attributions.
 * Once a heading like that exists (or a page, such as the one I created) about "speculations", then anyone who adds stuff speculative stuff, is obliged to put it under that heading, and if they do not, then someone is bound to move it there.
 * When that Lucan Leonardo was first published, the first move of Murray Menzies was to have it replace the image on the main page. That was what I had to battle. Having the image in a gallery of "disputed attributions" is much less of a problem than having it as the main portrait in the main article!  I am sure you will agree with that!
 * Meanwhile, if you write your own POV about it being a fake, it will promptly be changed by someone with the opposite POV. So to avoid an edit war which you cannot possibly win, because they can back themselves with references and you cannot, we take a compromise path, and write some information that is accurate but non-contentious in the first few sentences of the introduction.
 * You cannot win your case by taking an extreme position. Even if you are hugely knowledgeable about the subject, you cannot win an argument without the written, cited, backup! That is the bottom line!
 * Now what I want to do is get away from this "lost cause" and finish my articles on Ancient Greek architecture and add some domestic architecture to Romanesque architecture!


 * Tell you what! Why don't you drop PiCo and Attilios a message over this? I am sure that they would both be very supportive of your opinions!
 * Amandajm (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Great pics!
Thank you for taking those and putting them up. With regards to the craquelure; The breakdown of the paint on the cheek of the Lucan Leonardo is consistent with it having been altered and the newer paint being incompatible with what was underneath.However If you look very hard at the upper right of the best one of those low resolution pictures, you can see sign of some of the same sort of craquelure that your raked-light photo produced. It is very difficult to asses with such a poor reproduction. The main difference between the Lucan Leonardo and the Uffizi pic is that they all have layers of shiny varnish, while the Lucan pic does not. It makes a big difference to the whole appearance of the surface. I am still not entirely convinced that it's not dell'Altissimo or someone associated with him. Amandajm (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well! I just stumbled, quite by accident, on a slide show on Discovery Channel. Apparently Alessandro Vezzosi, of the museum at Vinci, has written a book about all the various portraits of Leonardo and he has finally come out and said that he ruled out the possibility of the Lucan portrait being by Leonardo. Now isn't that interesting?  I put it up on the article page, and did a little rearranging. When Vezzosi's book comes out, we will have to credit the book, instead of the website. Amandajm (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

La Bella Principessa
I notice that you moved this article. The painting has rapidly become known by this name. The fact is that almost every painting (and piece of music) that has a "name" as against a description, is "so called".

If you are going to use the heading So-called Bella Principessa, then you must do the rounds of So-called Mona Lisa, So-called Primavera, So-called Manchester Madonna, So-called Battle of San Romano, So-called Moonlight Sonata, So-Called Apassionata and a thousand other well-known works. As you can see, it is ridiculous.

Whether the name is a correct description or not La Bella Principessa is the name that has stuck on that little picture. It would be reasonable to change it to "portrait of a fiancee" with "La Bella Principessa" as a redirect. No-one will find it as "Portrait of a fiancee".

Amandajm (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Monna Lisa
I have just recently done some work on this article and was alerted by a recent edit to the talk page to the fact that back in 2009 you had made a comment on the use of the word "mona" and the fact that "Monna" Lisa is usual in Italian. Since I haven't had the page on my watchlist until the last few weeks, I hadn't read your comment. It was really quite a simple matter to fix, but instead of fixing, they argued!

Well, it's fixed now, to your satisfaction, I hope!

Amandajm (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, It's an English article, so we have to leave the usual English version of its name. But I rewrote the section on where the name comes from.  Did you check that out?
 * We can't blame the Americans. I would like to blame the Americans, of course, because I'm not American.   But no, it was the British who called her Mona Lisa.  They were not very particular about the spelling of Italian words, and probably didn't think that it mattered.
 * After all, why should the British say "Roma and Firenze and Venezia" when they can say "Rome and Florence and Venice"?  ;-)
 * Amandajm (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean. My changes had been reverted. Well, I have just put them back, but you may need to comment as well. Can you alert Attilios?  Amandajm (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, and why should the Italians say "London and Edinburgh" when they can say "Londra and Edimburgo"? Those sloppy Italians! Really, I do suggest you check up on the history of Italian orthography before you start altering correct information. See Talk:Mona_Lisa. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Getty Center
Hello Sailko

I hope this works because I am new to Wikimedia...

I am studying iconography of the medieval portative organ, and just saw your picture of Taddeo di Bartolo's painting - Madonna tra i Santi giovanni Battista e Girolamo - in the category Getty Center. This picture was sold at Sotheby's in 2008 (for a lousy € 2,377,282 ) and until now I didn't know where it went! Is this the Getty museum in Los Angeles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfried.praet (talk • contribs) 13:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Collezione Gonzaga
Hi, I wonder if you have any information concerning paintings donated by the Duke of Mantua to the Prince of Poland in 1625 from the Gonzaga Collection? BurgererSF (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Scuola di Andrea Orcagna
Hi Sailiko I mean this image Are you sure that Orcagna is an author of this painting? I have information that Agnolo Gaddi is an author of the mural. --Adamt (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * André Groult (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Musée des Arts Décoratifs


 * André Mare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Musée des Arts Décoratifs


 * Charlotte Perriand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Musée des Arts Décoratifs


 * Edmond Lachenal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Musée des Arts Décoratifs


 * Les Lalanne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Musée des Arts Décoratifs


 * Pierre Chareau (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Musée des Arts Décoratifs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hecatomnus
Why did you remove the image the statue in the Hecatomnus article? Blackguard 21:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Got a reference? Blackguard  05:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Hecatomnus
Hi, on 2 Aug of 2013, you have removed the image Hekatomid in the article Hecatomnus. Are they unrelated? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

use of san antonio image
We would like to use this image in an article in our magazine. How can we credit if you approve use?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Casa_Rio_in_San_Antonio.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.163.15.249 (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pic is not mine. --Sailko (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

use of urban VIII image
We would like to use this image in an catalog. How can we credit if you approve use?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c4/20120306225950!Gianlorenzo_bernini%2C_busto_di_urbano_VIII_01.JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.122.61.136 (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you need further authorization by the museum before. --Sailko (talk) 11:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi !  We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages

--

Disambiguation link notification for October 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Escrava Isaura (1976 telenovela), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Canal 13 and Kenia. 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) 10:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=700335527 your edit] to Galli may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * making sacrifices to Cybele and Attis, Museo Archeologico Ostiense, Ostia Antica.]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Counterfeit money, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Solidus and Fiorino. 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) 15:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Una richiesta
Ciao, Sailko visto che sei un fotografo molto meticoloso ti chiedo gentilmente se hai da qualche parte foto di due cose:
 * 1. il calice di Guccio di Mannaia che si trova nel museo della Basilica di San Francesco, e
 * 2. "La Pace di Siena" che si trova nel Diocesan museum of sacred art (Arezzo) (o qualsiasi altr'opera che contiene questo museo).

Mi dispiace il disturbo, grazie per l'aiuto e le foto già messe sul Commons! TimeForLunch (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TimeForLunch, grazie per la richiesta. Si tratta di due musei che non ho mai visitato, quindi non ho queste foto, però prima o poi chissà :) ti avviso casomai. --Sailko (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sailko (talk), OK Grazie. TimeForLunch (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forlivese school of art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Le Monnier ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Forlivese_school_of_art check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Forlivese_school_of_art?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lola Falana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mina.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rico Lebrun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malibu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sir George Barlow, 1st Baronet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Watson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2818 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Gerda Arendt thank you! I am very honoured to receive this award :-) I appreciated it. --Sailko (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maya.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 9 July 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) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Ive been wondering where you got this coin
Hi Sailko, this coin of Manius Aquililius I saw striked me as odd for some reason. Do you remember where you found it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roma,_denario_di_manius_aquililius,_109-108_ac_ca.JPG Mr.CheesyWeed (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Mr.CheesyWeed, yes it is from a museum in Pisa, Italy, palazzo Blu. Coins collection there comes from a private collection of a nobleman, do you think it looks fake? Or is it just mismatched with the captation? --Sailko (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Its just that I've never seen a camp crown on Roman coins before, I just wanted to know where you found it. Mr.CheesyWeed (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)