User talk:Grifomaniacs

This user may have left Wikipedia. Grifomaniacs has not edited Wikipedia since 12 September 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hi,

While the history section of the above article may incorporate the text, you must cite it as well as simply mention it as incorporated elsewhere in the article. 'Perugia today' is completely unsourced, and the 'Main sights', if they are to remain, will need sourced and cited individualy, or else if individualy notable, create articles on them (just a stub will do). I hope that helps, but contact me if you have any more problems. Good luck on the article, I suspect you should find the task not as daunting as it may at first seem (although it is rather time-consuming). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved. I promise to give it a good look over tomorrow, though (I'm about to go to bed, being in the UK). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, really is brilliant! Just keep going as you are for a little bit longer, the job id near-complete. If you would like, let me know and I will specifically tag each individual statement on the article that still requires cited. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar I award this Barnstar to Grifomaniacs for an excellant job referencing the Perugia article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say great job adding all those refs to the Perugia page.  :) Pnkrockr 16:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course!! I will add my book soon (I bought it when I visited the city last year... if you've time, give a glance to Foligno). Ciao!!!! --Attilios 22:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked Perugia Cathedral? Surely needs some copyedit of my English. Ciao! --Attilios 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an edit war ongoing with a frantic, Wiki-illiterate editor who doesn't accept my Wikifying of his (her?) article. Help is needed to reach a consensus about a decent version will kept here. Can you help? Thank you. --Attilios 11:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I seem initially I explained her (him?) the reason of my intervention. But, when (s)he started to say I was brutal or whatever, or to say meaningless things, I lost a bit of pleasantness. Sorry, anyway. Thank you much and see you soon on our fine Italian art pages (I've just added Cappella Niccolina... hopefully I'll visit it next Sunday with three Swiss girls!! Let's see...) --Attilios 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Project members, I am very busy now, completely involved in work, and I'm going to get a pause. If in the meanwhile you will have left here any message or request, I will politely reply as soon as possible. I look forward to posting by the end of this month. Regards, --Grifomaniacs 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, blanket deletions is the violation here. My edits to Umbria are well researched and documented. I don't know why it's being considered a joke?--Caligvla 03:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem of course. Iblardi (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recently convicted murderer Amanda Knox is most definitely a notable alumnus of the University for Foreigners Perugia. Why do you feel that adding her name to this page is vandalism? If you feel that it is because it damages the reputation of the university, then I must inform you that (a) Wikipedia is not a PR exercise, and (b) her crime is not due to the university, so shouldn't affect its reputation. I think your deletion of her name is vandalism. 08:38, 8 December 2009

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus.

Accusing someone of vandalism does not in my opinion constitute good faith. Removing then explaining the precise definition for notable persons used in wikipedia should have been your course of action. It is editors like you who are making wikipedia less and less interesting for the common man, for those who try to contribute small things here and there where they see something they feel is incorrect or requires elaboration. I have edited hundreds of articles over the years, usually with small corrections, in both the Dutch and English wikipedia versions. Usually they concern inaccuracies or omissions, but sometimes they have been larger pieces. Just because I am not a registered user does not give you the right to treat people like you do. You are not God. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.165.188 (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Petter laz (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Hi my pelasgian brother! Would you give your version for Cippus' translation please! Do you have any scientific argument?[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Logocomuneperugia.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logocomuneperugia.png. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Specifically, accusing me of discussing only by placing words in others mouths is not acceptable - it is a comment on me, not on the specific argument. Please don't repeat this. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very quiet and I've politely conversed with you. I quote here pieces of conversation from your answers to me:

• • Your personal views about how Italian appeals work
  • Does that mean innocent untill sentenced by trial courts then guilty until unsentenced? I have no idea - neither do you.
  • Here's someone linking to a crowd-sourced mistranslation (with bonus invalid link on the mistranslation!) to restore your statement [44], committing OR by SYNTH by removing a reliable secondary source for their personal interpretation of the italian constitution.

Furthermore you referred to me twice as "someone" (I am not someone, I got a username, or at least you could have said "an editor"). So who is keeping conversation personal? Please respect other editors.--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never called you a bad editor, I called your edits bad - they were. You used a mistranslation, edited based on your personal knowledge. I never once put words in your mouth. I suggest you take a big step back. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I'm very quiet and I think your comments are not constructive. I hope you'll come back discussing on the article, but please be more faithful in other editors. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just edited my previous comment to reflect my good intent. Will you do a step into a more collaborative conversation in exchange?--Grifomaniacs (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit-warring. Please read BRD - it is now time for the "discuss" phase. pablo 15:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serious? I thought I was RCP. I have already pointed out my remarks on the talk page where discussion had started before these recent edits. It would have been better that the anonymous user would have added his comments to the talk page instead of removing useful and verifiable contents in a disruptive edit. I already added my reply to other users suggestions and I'm waiting for an answer. --Grifomaniacs (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logoprovinciaperugia.png. 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) 17:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]