User talk:Alessandra Napolitano

Welcome!

Hello, Alessandra Napolitano, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few things to keep in mind as you start editing:

We're here to build an encyclopedia, but you probably knew that already. Still, it's important.
Be nice to other users. It's a lot easier to get along people when you're nice and when they're nice.
Don't worry too much about the rules. The only things that will get you immediately blocked from editing are clearly disruptive, so go, be bold, make changes, and have a blast.
You'll probably see other users using jargon like WP:CIVIL or WP:V (sometimes without the WP: at the beginning). If you want to know what these are, type them into the search bar at the top of every page and hit enter.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please remember to sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this way we know who says what, and when, in discussions. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! lifebaka++ 05:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Hi. I think you put this edit in the wrong section of Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, or you thought that the section "Wikipedia is not a democracy" is part of the section above it, which it isn't. Perhaps you would like to move or delete that edit? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is relevant to the "not a democracy" section. Exactly what sort of non-voting, undemocratic consensus can be determined from 425,198 bytes of discussion? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper Masquelier

I've been working on the article for Prosper Masquelier, fixing someone's poor trans-wiki of the article from fr.Wikipedia, adding proper reliable sources, correcting errors created by the mis-translation to English, removing hyperbole, and making the whole thing properly encyclopedic per OUR manual of style.[1] More to do, as I found far more sources than seemed the nominator here. God love the French, but they use a skewed set of guidelines and policies... similar to, but not quite the same as, ours... and per OUR policies and guidelines, I think the GNG is met. More to do and I'll keep working on it. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep. Thanks for informing me about this. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching through fr.Wikipedia was a surreal experience. Your writing "massively different notability criteria" is an understatement. Our standards might be confusing for newcomers and sometimes seem as over-complicated, but they work. Their's are simply bizarre. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/William S. Dalton

Hello,

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William S. Dalton. I've responded to the copyright concern. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alessandra

Would you mind giving me a concise statement of what you think is the problem (we can discuss the solution later) is with our curation of controversial images here? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maisie Williams

I understand where you're coming from, but what we have here is coverage for a singular event... her participation Game of Thrones. Despite her push at the GNG, until she has another notable role she fails WP:ENT. And as her sourcability is for just the one thing, this becomes a WP:BLP1E. I think a merge is the solution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your edits on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles?

Hi Allesandra, I think your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Are All Men Pedophiles? are needlessly offensive. Uncyclopedia is a website for humor and jokes. When you transwiki an article that was created in good faith, and not intended as a joke, you give me the idea that effectively, whether you intend to or not, you are equating their good faith efforts on Wikipedia with a joke. While I don't know if that was your intention or not, please be a little more considerate to our editors, even if you don't agree with them, and especially when they don't have a lot experience on Wikipedia yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is only humorous because it describes an (apparently) absurd documentary in such a deadpan-serious way. However, since the article was written by Janwillembreure (talk · contribs), who appears to be the producer/director/writer/editor of the film, Jan-Willem Breure, I admit that ridiculing the film could be construed as a slight against the author. In the alternative, taking the film, the message apparently conveyed, and the producer's use of Wikipedia to promote these as in earnest, I assure you that I would have far harsher words to say about the entire enterprise. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I haven't seen the film. Actually, (almost?) nobody has, which is pretty much why I suggested its deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BPD

Hi. I hope you didn't mind me doing this, straight after your good edit. I had been meaning to flesh out that section for some time, and your edit reminded me. I don't think I've contradicted you at all, I just think it's an important enough aspect to lavish a bit of space on. I asked User: Casliber to look it over but he hasn't got to it yet. If you have any thoughts or criticisms about what I wrote, I'd really appreciate hearing them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Everything we write is probably going to be revised at some point in the future. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An expose on fsck in the NYT

I'm still chuckling at the thought. If you participate in enough AfDs, you can't help but be struck by how different they can be. In some, you're struggling to explain that, no, the vendor's website really doesn't count as a source. Here we've got someone quibbling that even with both the WSJ and the NYT on-board, it still seems dicey. Msnicki (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, insuring that AFD operates in a coherent, predictable manner is often an uphill, if not sisyphusean, battle. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the NYT should really take this up. No acts of official malfeasance can compare to the scandalously large number of corrupt superblocks :) Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank you

Thank you for your support at my recent successful RFA. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. We have occasionally disageed, but I like and respect the civility you carry. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xxxterm

I've written an editorial for OSNews; yesterday it got reviewed and accepted, so I added it and requested move back. Please comment. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability for elementary schools which have been "Blue Ribbon Schools"

I am contacting you because you participated in either the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in a redirect or the deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review#Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) which resulted in restoration of the article because it was once a "Blue Ribbon School". I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#US elementary schools: Inherent notability: for "Blue Ribbon Schools" as to whether the 5200 schools which have been found awarded the "Blue Ribbon" seal of approval get inherent notability, or if they each have to satisfy WP:ORG via significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Your input is welcome.Thanks! Edison (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]