Gratia tibi ago propter magnum opus (Verdi, Puccini etc.) Ciao--Massimo Macconi 05:37, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

imagines onerareRecensere

Gratias ago ut imagines oneravisti. Quaeso te ut imagines non in Vicipaediam Latinam oneres, sed in Vicimediam Communiam. Imagines ibi oneratae nam in omnes Vicipaediis adhiberi possunt. Vide Vicipaedia:Imago.

Thank you for uploading images. Please upload images not to the Latin wikipedia, but to commons:, images uploaded there can be used on all wikipedias just as if they were uploaded locally. See Vicipaedia:Imago. Thank you for contributing, and have fun on the Latin vicipaedia! --UV 22:14, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Gratias milies! However, could you explain to me exactly how to do it, step-by-step? I've been to commons a few times but have been perplexed as to where to go. Thank you again, grazie di nuovo, vielen Dank ... GiovaneScuola2006 22:22, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Look at commons:Commons:First steps. (There is also an Italian translation at commons:Commons:Primi passi but it is incomplete.) If you have any further questions, just ask me! Greetings, --UV 23:04, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I repeat my request to upload images to commons only. Thanks! --UV 06:38, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

slow down!Recensere

Hi, what language do you prefer? I write to ask you to slow down a bit! You have created much today, and it needs to be better before you create more. For not write in an article vide [[Genava (urbs)]], but use a redirect like I did. You can do this by typing "#REDIRECT [[Articlename]]" as the only content. You also need to check your names in some cases, and note categories are marked by [[]] not by {{}}. Also, PLEASE provide interwiki links, I clicked on the article on the slovakian town in slovakian, and there were dozens of interwiki links. Also, it is not enough to just make an article that says "Town (language: "el towne")" in an article. At least make one sentence. Sorry if this was alot, but I fear I will have much to clean up if you don't take these necessary steps. Thanks! Ioshus (disp) 23:40, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Italian, English, or Neapolitan are fine. Don't worry about this "skeletal" process. I plan on doing all the cleaning up myself. I hereby appoint myself the slave to Urbes Europaeae. I, of course, would like feedback, from you and all the others. Just a little guidance here and there. But I will do the labor. Does this sound like a fair plan? In any case, I am almost finished entering the new cities, and then I promise to go back and make them better. Actually: why don't you give me a template or example of what you feel a stub for a city should look like. I will go back and make EVERY ENTRY conform. Scout's honor! GiovaneScuola2006 23:42, 23 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Fons urbesRecensere

La fonte per tutte le città europeane cui voci ho scritto oggi si trova qua:

Vi prego, per cortesia: non farmi ad aggiungere quella "footnote" su OGNI pagina che ho fatto! Pazienza ... GiovaneScuola2006 00:48, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)


per le molte nuove pagine che hai aperto. Mi peremttevo soltanto di consigliarti di verificare su altrte wiki ad esempio se esiste già una pagina in latino. Alcune infatti c'erano giä. Ancora grazie e buona serata--Massimo Macconi 16:53, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

'O fazzo mo'. Grazie comm'a sempe. Statte bon' GiovaneScuola2006 19:32, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Urbes EuropaeRecensere

Hi, if you want that a page will be deleted, just put the command {{delenda}} into the page, provide a reason and sign it with ~~~~. Or, if you have moved the content to another page, put #REDIRECT [[Other page]] into it. --Roland (disp.) 18:48, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Roland. I was absolutely unaware of that procedure, and I will use it in the future (even though I was deleting a page that I myself had created. GiovaneScuola2006 19:31, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Examples of such pages you'll find here: Categoria:Deletiones propositae and some hints here: Vicipaedia:Deletio. --Roland (disp.) 19:44, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Aha. Now I will now for the future. Tantissime grazie. GiovaneScuola2006 19:47, 24 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Cities with FRecensere

I have answered your question and removed some supercategories, please see Vicipaedia:Categoria#Supercategories. --Roland (disp.) 21:55, 25 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Urbes XY and XYRecensere

It's me again ;-) ... I think, if something is in category "Urbes XY" it is implicitly in category "XY" as well, because "Urbes XY" should be in category "XY". So the page itself should not be put into category "XY". If you do not think so, please let's discuss it. This Vicipaedia does not have so much rules which are written down, so sometimes our philosophies clash when different cultures come together. This is mostly not a problem but sometimes it causes some confusion first. ;-) My idea is, that we should write down "our" rules in the Vicipaedia namespace, in this case maybe page Vicipaedia:Categoria would be appropriate. From these pages we can have interwiki links to other "cultures", I mean "wikipedias", like en:Wikipedia:Categorization or de:Wikipedia:Kategorien. --Roland (disp.) 10:48, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Roland. I agree with your philosophy, as I understand it. In fact, I have been going through all of the Urbes Europaeae and changing the category from "parent" to "child." In other words, if a Serbian city has "Categoria:Urbes Europaeae", I'd deleted that and put "Categoria:Serbia" and "Categoria:Urbes Serbiae". This was my understanding of what you were recommending. If not, I say to you and all: I will personally go back and change all of my vandalism! But as I understood it, this is what people were suggesting. GiovaneScuola2006 10:51, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism is, what a vandal does. You are not a vandal, but a busy contributor. :-) Thank you for your work. There is no need for an excuse. It just shows that we should write down more of what we feel to be established as rule or convention here. Making the category as specific as possible was good, like changing "Categoria:Urbes Europaeae" to "Categoria:Urbes Serbiae". But then "Categoria:Serbia" becomes a supercategory of "Categoria:Urbes Serbiae" and is not necessary any more ... in my opinion ;-) ... although I know of some people who would agree with me in this point ;-) There is even a page where I tried to show some inconsistencies with the categorisation: Vicipaedia:Categoriae et paginae, however, it has not been discussed much, so it is more or less just my personal opinion. Generally: Feel free to bring in your opinions. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 11:14, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm too new here to have a strong opinion about this. HOWEVER, I do agree -- and it was something I noticed on other websites like -- that it seemed funny to have pages in a category and then have subcategories. Anyhow, I went through the 51 cities, so that now:

Categoria:Urbes Europaeae

Categoriae inferiores

Paginae in categoria "Urbes Europaeae"

now there are no longer straggling pages under paginae.

Next problem: I noticed that under Categoriae inferiores, "Urbes Lithuaniae" (to give one example) did not come up automatically. I actually had to go to Category:Urbes Lituaniae and put in some code. So I found myself straining to remember all the countries that were missing (Melitta, Nederlandia, etc.).

Anyhow, I am relieved that I seem to have achieved what you had in mind, and that I am neither a Vandal nor a Goth! GiovaneScuola2006 11:20, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I do not understand the problem with "Urbes Lithuaniae", but maybe it was just a caching problem. In case you do not know, there is a "Special page" (see "Paginae speciales" in the left column) which lists all pages without categories. Then there is a list of pages which do not have parent pages etc. I have put some of these special pages into page Vicipaedia:Census. --Roland (disp.) 11:43, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)


Always me ... ;-) You should not trust everything you find here ;-) In Noreia I collected links to show some contradictions. Some sources say Noreia = Neumarkt in der Steiermark but other sources tell that Die Lage der Hauptstadt Noreia ist bis heute unbekannt geblieben. (The location of the capital Noreia is unknown until today.). It seems that there are several theories where Noreia was located. --Roland (disp.) 20:08, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

No problem, Roland -- edit as you see fit. Cum amicitium (accusative, right????) GiovaneScuola2006 20:23, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Cum takes ablative... amicitia...--Ioshus (disp) 01:21, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

many thingsRecensere

  1. Dutch is properly lingua Batava, the adverb being Batave.
  2. Use a heading ==Vide etiam== if you want to tell someone to see something else.
  3. Link the language name to the corresponding latin article.
  4. Link the name of the city to the proper local language wiki. Use commas in between languages for, and colons after language names in the title sentence.
  5. Go to the english article or the local language article, and get all the interwiki links for the article.
  1. While you're there put a link to the article on the english wiki or the local language wiki to the latin article.

Please go to Aldenarda to see the format changes I have made. Adhere to them in your past and future work. Thank you.--Ioshus (disp) 23:06, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

and one more thing: If you create a category, please add interlanguage links to the corresponding categories on other wikipedias, like here. Thank you! --UV 23:16, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks to both of you. I will do as instructed. GiovaneScuola2006 23:45, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Dutch is properly lingua Batava, the adverb being Batave. OK, I won't say "Batavice" any more. However, in the case of these cities in the Flemish part of Belgium, I feel that it should be lingua Flandriae, adverb Flandrice. GiovaneScuola2006 23:51, 26 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think the adjective is Flandrica, let's not use a genitive of Flandria.--Ioshus (disp) 01:20, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Let's please make a decision either way. I'm more than happy to do the leg-work and go back and change all the adjectives. However, shall we make a firm decision? To whit: Does the word "Flandrica" show up anywhere? GiovaneScuola2006 01:24, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Yes. As I said, it is the proper adjective.--Ioshus (disp) 19:45, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Flandricus/a/umRecensere

I searched around and, indeed, Flandricus, -a, -um would be the correct adjective for Flemish. I will have to assume, then, that the adverb would be simply Flandrice. I will go ahead and make the changes. GiovaneScuola2006 03:37, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)


Just like in english or italiano est does not go at the end of a sentence in latin.

A est B


A B est.

"Lingua blah blah blah est lingua adhibita blah blah blah"


"Lingua blah blah blah lingua adhibita bla blah blah est."

--Ioshus (disp) 01:14, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh... Did not know that. I knew that the verb goes at the end generally (like in German). However, I should have known better: even in German, ist usually does not go at the end. Mea maxima culpa, and many, many thanks. GiovaneScuola2006 01:17, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
"Just like in english or italiano est does not go at the end of a sentence in latin." In the pattern "A est B," yes, usually so, as evidence on my page illustrates; but in association with a participle in the perfect system, it seems happy to be there (as in, e.g., "Et homo factus est"). This distinction shouldn't be hard to grasp, as those patterns are as different as night & day. My suspicion is that if an old Roman saw a sentence of the shape "A B est," the est would have a mentally musical "ta-da" attached to it, so that an appropriate English translation might be something like "A really-really-really is B." In other words, est ordinarily has no stress (and often gets reduced to a vowelless st), but when it gains stress by position, as when it ends a copula, that result must mean something—something more than just the semantics of 'to be', maybe something like "ta-da." IacobusAmor 03:26, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Cesare FrankRecensere

forse si potrebbe muovere a Caesar Franck, vedo che le altre pagine biografiche riportano il nome sempre in latino.

Cavoli che bel lavoro stai facendo, buona giornata--Massimo Macconi 05:19, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

forse si potrebbe muovere a Caesar Franck Sí sí, hai ragionissimo.:
Cavoli che bel lavoro stai facendo In quel caso, perché non mi nomini per un premio, "per il suo instancabile lavoro sulle città d'Europa." O forse solo gli Admin possano ricevere i premi. Boh, vedi tu! Un abbraccio, GiovaneScuola2006 05:21, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)


sai sono relativamente nuovo sia della wiki in italiano sia ancora di più di quella in latino, non so chi da i premi e chi li riceve ( se ce ne sono), io in ogni caso sono con te. Ricambio l'abbraccio con amicizia--Massimo Macconi 05:24, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

I find the amount of things you contribute wonderful! However, in order to ensure that the vicipedia encyclopedia is useful to users who use it as a reference, the articles should have a common structure and style which is determined in discussions of the contributors (not the administrators!). You will "receive a prize" when you contribute in such a way that does not make other contributors feel that they need to clean up after you. Please do not understand me wrong: As a new user, everyone understands that you do not know all the "rules" established by the community yet, and people will give you hints on your talk page like the ones above. It might also be a good idea to watch the pages you have started or changed and just to observe what changes are made by other users afterwards.
Why don't you, as Ioshus suggested above, slow down a bit concerning the creation of new articles, create less articles in number but pay extra attention to their quality (including interwiki links and all the stuff as suggested above)?
Nevertheless: Good to have you here, and continue to enjoy improving the quality of the Latin vicipaedia! Greetings, --UV 06:38, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I am anxious to know what the "common structure and style" should be. That is to say: what is an article of a city which, you feel, is archetypical? Please don't say London or Paris; most of the cities are smallish towns that there just isn't enough information for. Maybe you could do this for me: pick any given Flemish city, edit it the way you all feel an article here should be, and I myself will do all clean-up work. Scout's honor. No one should ever feel I'm making them clean up, because I have offered and continue to offer to do the cleaning myself. If what I'm doing at the moment is a little skeletal, that is the way I work the best, if that is alright. Till soon, GiovaneScuola2006 08:24, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at Antwerpium – alas very few content, but has good links and a structure ready to be expanded.
  • if there is an image (not necessary), display it as a thumb but do not specify an absolute size (200px). Include a caption that describes the image.
  • The name of the article, exactly equal to its title, bolded (nothing else should be bold).
  • A reference to a reliable source where this particular name is attested.
  • ([[Lingua Batava|Batave]]: ''[[:nl:Antwerpen|Antwerpen]]'') The name in its native language (only).
  • At least one sentence that explains what this article is about, e. g. … est urbs in [[XXX]]. Add internal links if pages about countries, regions etc. exist already. Do not put "est." at the end of the sentence.
  • Notae/references
  • An external link to the corresponding page at commons using the {{Communia}} template. If there is no corresponding page on commons but a corresponding category, link to the category. If there is neither a page nor a category on commons, omit.
Heading is "Nexus externus" if there is one external link (including the commons link) and "Nexus externi" if there is more than one external link.
  • urbs-stipula
  • A specific category (or more specific categories), excluding all supercategories.
  • Interlanguage links to the corresponding pages on other wikipedias (not categories).
Maybe other people will complain here that one sentence is not enough – but I would accept a one-sentence-stub (with a specific category and interlanguage links) if it explains clearly and without flaws what this page is about.
If you are unsure about grammar, spelling and the like, you can always add {{reddenda}} at the top of your article, then others will check it.
Greetings, --UV 23:36, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Many, many thankyous! I'm especially pleased to know about fn|reddenda -- often I have indeed had questions. GiovaneScuola2006 23:38, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for compiling this list. This receipe should be copied to the Vicipaedia namespace. --Roland (disp.) 07:39, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
yes, that's the problem that makes it difficult for new users: our help pages (in the Vicipaedia namespace) still need to be improved a lot … -- 14:14, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Cities in native languages ONLY ?Recensere

Dear UV et al.,

Just today, e.g., I was trying to figure out the Latin name for Kiev. I had a purgatory of a time, and so I went ahead and added "Anglice: Kiev." I mean, how am I supposed to decipher Cyrillic? That, in my opinion, is taking de-anglicization too far.

Another example would be countries in which there are more than one native language. Belgium and Switzerland immediately come to mind. We could think of many others, I'm sure. Malta, for instance, has two official languages, Maltese (a Semitic language) and English.

Was wondering if you all could give a bit of thought to these two points.

Cum multis gratiis (abl. pl. -- did I get that right?) GiovaneScuola2006 23:53, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Parts of your question I have answered on page Disputatio:Chiovia. --Roland (disp.) 08:44, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
So did I: Disputatio:Chiovia. Greetings, --UV 09:26, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Me too. Frankly I don't think we take de-anglicization far enough around here.--Ioshus (disp) 15:38, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
Consentio. Latina aut mamma! <---Horrible pun, intelligible only in English. IacobusAmor 16:32, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Helsingia (Finnia)Recensere

For the usage of Roman numbers see Vicipaedia:Numerus ;-) --Roland (disp.) 09:14, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

I am not a big supporter of the "Arabic numbers fraction" but they have the better arguments ;-) Roman numbers are more fun. --Roland (disp.) 09:42, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
We can still use them to enumerate centuries, kings & queens & other high-ranking political figures, popes, modern Olympics, movie sequels, superbowls, volumes (of books), and such. We have moderation in all things, including our fun! IacobusAmor 13:06, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
These are all small numbers (e. g. Ricardus III Angliae Rex) ... ok, the popes sometimes come near to 30 ... but "circiter 562'570 incolarum" ... this would be REAL BIG fun!! ... hmm ...maybe too funny ... obviously it is more sane to use Arabic numbers. ;-) --Roland (disp.) 13:30, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)
I agree -- in fact, unless I'm mistaken, a number like 500,000 could be written only with lines over the letters, which no computer that I know of is able to do. Am I correct in that? GiovaneScuola2006 13:57, 27 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Uploading imagesRecensere

Hi, you uploaded some images, like  . UV was heavily engaged in moving images from the Latin Vicipaedia to Commons some time ago. He moved hundreds of them. And then we deleted those hundreds here. There is some information at Vicipaedia:Imago#Imagines_onerare. --Roland (disp.) 08:34, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact it is the first issue on this talk page.--Ioshus (disp) 15:36, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)


While there is a discussion about a page, you should leave it as it is. And the meta information should be on the talk page, not on the page itself. The current situation with partly redirected pages is a bit confusing. --Roland (disp.) 19:39, 28 Octobris 2006 (UTC)


ma non merito tante lodi ho fatto solo due o tre modifiche. Ancora grazie e ciao--Massimo Macconi 18:10, 16 Februarii 2007 (UTC)


Dear GiovaneScuola2006, as you can read in several places in your talk page, please DO NOT UPLOAD IMAGES HERE on the Latin vicipaedia.

Instead, please upload free images to commons:. Copyrighted images should not be uploaded anywhere.

If you are unsure about whether an image is free or copyrighted, please ask at commons:Commons:Village pump (in English) or at commons:Commons:Bar italiano (in Italian) or ask me.

In many cases, images are copyrighted until 70 years after the death of their author. If you take a photo of an old picture, you need to specify the author of the original image so that it can be verified whether he/she really died more than 70 years ago.

Please go to the image description page of all of the images you uploaded and add either the name of the author, the source and the licence (see commons:Commons:First steps) or add {{delenda}} to the image description page of any image you may have uploaded in error. Thank you! --UV 22:00, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

No need for alarm. I reuploaded all five images into commons. THEY ARE IN COMMONS. No need for alarm. Take a deep breath. Ahhhhhh. GiovaneScuola2006 01:46, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Please don't be sarcastic, Giovane: UV has a point, in that this is the third time we've asked you not to do this.--Ioscius (disp) 04:59, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
But why do you keep asking? What's the rationale? and why should it prevail over alternate rationales? See "Commons" below. IacobusAmor 12:17, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
And furthermore, why the CAPITAL LETTERS and condescension? I don't reckon there are many editors on Vicipaedia -- those few that you have you should treat more civilly. GiovaneScuola2006 16:02, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
The capital letters are out of frustration, and nothing else. We value you as an editor, here, and we always have, but this is a violation of policy about which we have asked you twice, already, to no avail. You're right, there aren't a whole lot of editors here, but the ones that are here are expected to follow the rules, or contribute to the development of those rules. They are not expected to silently persist in violation. I'm trying to play middle man here, so I think we should all check our tone and relax.--Ioscius (disp) 18:22, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the capital letters. Indeed, they were the result of frustration, having asked you for the same thing on Oct. 23, 2006, on Oct. 27, 2006, and both Rolandus and Ioscius on Oct. 28, 2006 (see above on your talk page), and I was trying to get your attention. Thank you for responding. --UV 20:51, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)


Re: "Instead, please upload free images to commons:."—The argument for a request to upload only to commons is obvious, but one wonders if there isn't a valid counterargument, by which differing wikis might be urged to have different emphases and contain different information (including images), rather than merely being echoes of each other. Maybe this issue has been discussed in taberna or somewhere else already. IacobusAmor 22:13, 9 Iulii 2007 (UTC)

Mostly for legal reasons. Anything uploaded to commons becomes the problem of the folks at commons if licensing issues arise. If it is an object which may not, for licensing reasons, be uploaded into commons, then it also can't/shouldn't be uploaded here. Anything uploaded to commons can be used not only by us, but by any of Wikimedia's 10-odd projects in its 300-odd languages. Utility begs for it. Then, all images, which are legal, and permitted, may futher be organized and categorized in a single place, instead of dispersed into the 3000-odd wikis that 10 projects in 300 languages makes.--Ioscius (disp) 18:19, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Re: "Anything uploaded to commons can be used not only by us, but by any of Wikimedia's 10-odd projects in its 300-odd languages."—Yes, I know, but what I'm saying is that that isn't self-evidently a Good Thing. IacobusAmor 19:38, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how self-evident anything is, but I am saying it's a good idea. There aren't any, as I see them, self-evidently good reasons for uploading pictures into individual wikis.--Ioscius (disp) 19:51, 10 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Ioscius already stated the main reasons (legal and practical reasons):
  • The guys at commons, and not us, have to invest their time in dealing with nonfree images,
Let's be careful to call images restricted to certain wikis "partly free," not "nonfree." There are hardly any rights that are truly "free"—absolute and not restricted in some way. In the United States, the famous "right to free speech" is an example of a right that's not absolute. IacobusAmor 14:06, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I call images that are restricted to certain wikis nonfree, as they lack the freedoms
  • to use,
  • to modify, and
  • to redistribute them (in unchanged or in modified form)
for any purpose, including for commercial purposes. Images that are restricted to certain wikis are in my view not much better than typical copyrighted images used on the web - yes, you can view them where they are, but you cannot do much more with them.
See commons:Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses, wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy and the Definition of Free Cultural Works. --UV 21:50, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
  • an image is stored and made accessible (categories etc.) in one place and not in several places (saves space and reduces the risk of incoherent and possibly contradictory metadata such as descriptions and licensing information)
I don't see why an image uploaded to a single wiki and used only in that wiki is necessarily stored "in several places." IacobusAmor 14:06, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to identical images uploaded several times to different wikipedias by contributors eager just to enrich their "home" project. --UV 21:50, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
  • no one requires all wikipedias to look all alike. Commons gladly accepts free resources, even if they are useful to one project only (but I think most resources can be useful to more than one project, so why not make them readily available?) --UV 20:51, 11 Iulii 2007 (UTC)
Because there are shades of gray. The suggested policy is black & wuite, all or nothing: an image should be available to every wiki, or to no wiki. But some contributors might prefer to restrict the distribution of their images.
Such images are unwelcome on Wikimedia projects, see the resolution by the Wikimedia Foundation. --UV 21:50, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
It's like university scholarships: at a given institution, many are "all or nothing," and any student is eligible for any of a large set of them; but some scholarships come from bequests that restrict them to particular classes of students, such as those who score above a given level on a given test, or those majoring in biochemistry, or those from Barnstable in Massachusetts, or those who are descendants of members of the class of 1825,—and Harvard College has a scholarship exclusively for students whose surname is Pennoyer. Would you have universities reject such bequests? IacobusAmor 14:06, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)
It is up to each university to decide which bequests it wishes to accept and which to refuse. My university is very unhappy with trusts that wish to offer bequests to male Roman Catholic students only (yes, there are such trusts). The Wikimedia Foundation decided to refuse images that it considers nonfree (for details, again see the wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy), and in my view, it has every right to do so. Otherwise, there would not be much difference between this "free encyclopedia" and copyrighted encyclopedias, restricted for private, noncommercial use only, and revocable by the copyright owner at any time. --UV 21:50, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

caro GiovaneScuola2006Recensere

mi sono permesso di disporre diversamente le foto sulla pagina della Basilica di San Marco? Spero ti piaccia anche così. Complimenti per le tue nuove pagine.Ciao --Massimo Macconi 07:10, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)07:09, 23 Iulii 2007 (UTC)


The page which you started twice -- once at Fori Veti and once at Forum Vetum -- has now come together at Forum Vetus (Lugdunum). Vetus is an irregular 3rd declension adjective.

But surely Fourvière is a district of Lyon, not a region of France? That's what the French page says, anyway. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:19, 7 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Atti del VaticanoRecensere

non lo so dovrei guardare i miei vecchi libri di diritto canonico, se li trovo ancora o cercare altrove adesso vedo. Ciao e grazie per le nuove voci--Massimo Macconi 19:26, 8 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

Links to VictionariumRecensere

I understand, GS. Let me explain further. Within Vicipaedia (or within any other wiki) it is very useful to create appropriate redlinks, because everyone can see them -- they are red! -- and they may encourage soumeone else to write an article. Across wikis, it's different, because the links (whether valid or not) always appear pale blue, and because it is rather unlikely that someone who follows them will be prepared to set to work making articles in that other wiki. That's my view, anyway -- others may disagree with me -- but I think it's better not to make interwiki links and cross-wiki links unless they are valid. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:12, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, I don't know how it happens, but you often start pages on subjects that interest me very much! I intend to write more about Cyrene. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:24, 17 Augusti 2007 (UTC)