User talk:Gianluca91

Welcome!

Hello, Gianluca91, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 10:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Eurovision Invitation![edit]

	You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Eurovision!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining WikiProject Eurovision. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like Eurovision and facilitate team work in the development of Eurovision articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list, and add the project talk page to your watchlist.
	I hope you accept! - Wesley Mᴥuse 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Gianluca91. You have new messages at AxG's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

[[ axg // ✉ ]] 00:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing sources[edit]

Gianluca, it has been noted that you constantly change sources on Eurovision articles to those published by ESCToday. This is raising concerns that there may be a conflict of interest or a biased approach. Wikipedia is not to be seen as favouring towards a specific website, and must use citations from a wide variety of websites. Also the most earliest publication is the preferred choice of citation. If you continue with this disruptiveness, then a temporary loss of editing privileges may occur. Wes Mouse ✒ 12:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I apologize if it may seem that way, but I swear that I'm really not involved with that website, I'm not an editor or anything. The only reason why only sometimes I change sources is because the other sources are not really sources, they just do nothing but mention other unreliable sources themselves... for example, the previous source for Hungary wasn't really a source, if you read it you will notice it yourself. Other websites such as Eurovoix or Wiwibloggs are not really reliable, trust me. Most of the time they just make up articles, just like when Eurovoix literally invented the return of Turkey. Gianluca91 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca, seriously this must stop. You cannot make slanderous accusations about websites and stating they are not reliable. Wikipedia does not, and MUST NOT, favour any specific website. I think it is time you familiarised yourself with a lot of the rules around here. Such as what Wikipedia is not, and dealing with primary, secondary and tertiary sources. If a publication mentions where it got its news from, then that makes the publication more reliable then if they were to have published an "exclusive". The community have used Eurovoix and other Eurovision websites for the past 10 years now, and believe me they have never yet published any lies. You may also want to check the full list of sources that have been classified as being reliable sources. If you continue to change sources in favour of your personal "favourite" website, then your actions will be seen as disruptive. And trust me you do not want to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as that can lead to a block. Wes Mouse ✒ 06:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only one who's accusing is you. I didn't do anything, the only times when I mentioned ESCToday as a source was when it was the primary source for the confirmation of many countries. The fact that Eurovoix invented the return of Turkey is not my imagination, it's a matter of fact. Not talking about all those fake Wiwibloggs articles. Besides, mentioning the earlier source instead of the later one is clearly wrong, as the countries start officially submitting their paperwork to participate in Eurovision in September/October, not in summer. Therefore, all of the summer "news" are not the reliable ones. Also, the source about Hungary that is being quoted in the ESC 2016 article is really silly, I mean, that's just a general article where there is written "Oh, and then also someone has said during ESC that Hungary will participate next year". Do you really believe this a source? ESCToday's article about Hungary was much more complete and it also talked about the NF, this is why I thought changing it was a good idea. Of course all of this is just my opinion, and I want you to know it, I don't wanna break the rules or anything. In general, there's not any bad intention from my part and I'm not related to ESCToday, I already told you that. But if you wanna keep mentioning weak sources, it's fine by me. Anyway, I've noticed that you are used to complain a lot about my edits in general, I found other messages of you here in my user talk that I deleted because they were just mere baseless accusations. I kindly ask you to stop doing writing these posts with this kind of tone, thank you. Good morning Gianluca91 (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused anything bad towards other websites. You are the one who did. Remember that all pages on Wikipedia, including talk pages, are visible to the whole world. Even deleting content can still be viewed via the page history. You accused Eurovoix and Wiwibloggs of being unreliable. There are employees from both Eurovoix, Wiwibloggs, and other Eurovision websites, that are also editors for WikiProject Eurovision and they could easily come along and read your comments above and the way you are making bad faith accusations towards them. They would be within their right to make a complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation about your conduct. And that could result in a block. I am only pointing the wider consequences that may happen, so that you can avoid getting into trouble. Something which I am sure you would not want to happen. Eurovoix did not make up lies about Turkey at the time of their publication. They quoted their news stating it came from a Turkish website. That made the Eurovoix news a secondary source. News can change over time, and when it does, we update the articles - as has been done in this case.

As for it being "clearly wrong" to use an earlier source is partially incorrect. ESCXtra's source verifies that Hungary have confirmed participation. Does the latest source from ESCToday provide a date for a national final? If so, then that source would be used to verify the addition of dates within the table. And it is not me complaining either. If you would like to know, other editors have raised concerns at your behaviour and the way you change sources to specifically using ESCToday. One project member even discussed reporting the action to conflict of interest, but I managed to change their mind. You need to remember that you are an editor of a greater community, and we all work together as a team and to reach consensus when required. If you are not happy that other websites are being used as sources, then open a new debate at [{WT:ESC]]. Although I doubt you'd get much support in only using ESCToday as a source. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all a cheap, lame drama and I'm not interested in it. I don't wanna be involved in any of it. One thing is sure: there are a lot of ESC-related pages that mention Wiwibloggs, which is a BLOG and nothing else, instead of the official site of Eurovision. This basically says it all, really. Having said this, I already expressed all my opinions. Fine, if this is what you want, when there will be new news I'll just report them and I'll leave to you the burden of mentioning the appropriate source. I'm already done with it. Bye Gianluca91 (talk) 10:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's being the lame drama queen? "Wiwibloggs, which is a BLOG and nothing else". Can one not spell? The website uses 2 G's in its name, and despite the fact they call their company Wiwibloggs (2 Gs) does not imply they are a "blog" (1 G). They are a newsblog website which is permissible per WP:NEWSBLOG to be used. Also you may wish to know that their website has undergone a rigorous checking process for reliability and verifiability. You alone cannot make the sole decision that a website is "unreliable" just because you personally don't like them and prefer a more personally favourable ESCToday. Besides, the EBU endorsed several ESC-related websites a while ago - which was discussed by WikiProject Eurovision. Both Eurovoix, Wiwibloggs, and ESCXtra were on the EBU's list of trusted websites. Learn your research please. 'Wes Mouse ✒ 12:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would've been better to ignore this post, but seriously, the things that are written here leave me speechless. The first part is simply hilarious, really. And anyway, it's not simply a matter of me disliking certain websites, it's a matter of constantly checking all of them and only few of them being serious. Something that Wiwibloggs and Eurovoix are not. Seeing it quoted so often in most of the pages instead of the official website of Eurovision is simply laughable. I can't believe that Wikipedia prefers websites which do nothing but just copy-paste (even Eurovoix.com quotes ESCToday often) instead of sites which bring in real news, and they are not even able to do that in a proper, professional way. Sorry but your "process of reliability and verifiability" kinda failed on this. Another example is when last year Wiwibloggs invented that Polina's song was called "Secret poison", do you remember that? And the EBU endorsing those websites is just for the accreditations, nothing more than that. Seriously, I don't wanna sound rude but having faith in certain "websites" is lack of professionality from Wikipedia's community's part. I have nothing more to say, just like I said before I'll keep reporting news but I'll lave to you the "honour" of mentioning Eurovoix and Wiwibloggs as sources. This is something I'll never do, because I prefer the official website of Eurovision or sites which report exact news on the participation of the countries, such as ESCToday. Bye. Gianluca91 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wesley Mouse:: since you're accusing me again of favourizing ESCToday (when I haven't changed not even one source lately), then I assume that you never read this post that I wrote last year. Please, read it and get a grip. Gianluca91 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I had read it last year, and as you signed off with a "bye", I did the correct thing and just dropped it and stopped feeding the troll. Telling me to "get a grip" however, is a personal attack. Consider your choice of words more cautiously in future. We wouldn't want one ending up in trouble now. And for the record, I am not the only editor who thinks you may work for ESCToday; so I cannot exactly be accused of casting accusations when others also have the same concerns about your conduct towards only using a specific website and disregard the usage of other reliable websites, including Eurovoix. That does sound off alarm bells that an editor is acting in what may be suspicious paid editing. Food for thought! Wes Mouse ✒ 22:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, the fact that you never replied is because you actually know that I was right and you didn't know what to answer anymore. Besides, I don't know how many times I said that I don't work for ESCToday, I'm not paid and I'm not involved in any dirty practice. You can investigate about me as much as you want, you will still not be able to find anything bad about me, as there is NOTHING about me that you can condemn me about. I'm just a hardcore Eurovision fan and I know more about sources. Just accept this and stop attacking me. You aren't authorized at attacking me in this vile way, therefore, for the umpteenth time, I demand you to stop bashing me, since you have no right for this. Yours are personal attacks as well. If you don't share my opinion about sources, just drop it. Gianluca91 (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHA you really make me laugh so much that my ribs are now starting to hurt. You really think the reason I never replied is because I had nothing to say and that you were right? You are pathetic and living in a fantasy world if that if what you really thought about me. If you really wish to know, I thought your reply was lame and bored the shit out of me, and I concentrated my time onto more useful things like moving into my new home, rather than waste it on some low-life cyber-bully like yourself. I don't need to share your opinion on sources, because I know how Wikipedia works and its policies on citations and sources - something which you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge about. WP:PSTS states that we are to use independent third-party sources, rather than primary ones. Eurovision.tv is a primary source; ESCToday is a secondary source; all the other even if they do quote the main 2 are classified as third-party sources; and it is those that are strongly encouraged to use. Now, who needs to get a grip and learn? Turn and face the mirror to seek the answer to that question. Goodbye! (and I turn walk away and work on things that do not bore me or people who are more vile than ISIS). Wes Mouse ✒ 00:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can moan as much as you want, but I know what I'm talking about, and you'll never see me quoting sources from websites which literally invent news only to search for clicks, we already talked about this months ago. You can't force me to do that, I would rather prefer to make edits on the articles without reporting sources at all. The "news" about Turkey's return from Eurovoix and the "news" about Polina's entry called "Secret poison" from Wiwibloggs are enough examples (along with many others) for me to not take them seriously. They have the same credibility of Oikotimes. If Wikipedia's policy allows this lame and extremely amateurish attempt at dealing with sources, it's not my problem. So yeah, you better start dealing with it... and also, after all, what have you done so far? You don't have not even one valid proof against me and you tried to give credibility to your hilarious accusations by insulting me, calling me names and so on and on. But this pretty much doesn't work, your attempts are being kinda useless, you're not the first nor the last one who behaves this way about me. Just thank that I don't know how to report all these personal attacks that you've been making against me for months now, and therefore you're getting away with it. So, once and for all: forget about my existence and go on with your life. Gianluca91 (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Macy Gray discography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dangerous Woman. 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) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing off page moves[edit]

Gianluca, when you did the page move for Nina Radojičić, please remember to complete the action by finding all the articles that she is linked to, and changing the links on them. You shouldn't be leaving the task for others to tidy up after you. Wes Mouse ✒ 10:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I won't certainly waste my time checking whether all the pages have a link on the article that I moved, I mean, the fault is on who created the page with the wrongly-spelled surname, in the first place... and besides, even if other pages contain links to Radojčić, whenever one clicks on it, it's redirected to the same page. What's the problem, really? This is basic Wikipedia's functionality, it's called "redirects", never heard of it? Jeez, I'm so tired of you... You will never stop finding ridiculous excuses and pretexts to attack me, won't you? Gianluca91 (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not finding "ridiculous excuses to attack you". And with you coming out with that kind of remark is actually an attack on myself. So one shouldn't be throwing stones, especially in glass houses. And if you read the procedures at Wikipedia:Moving a page then you will see that what I wrote above was advice to you, and not an attack. When we do a page move, the burden is on the editor who performs the task to do so completely and change the links. Standard procedure, unfortunately. Wes Mouse ✒ 11:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Gianluca91. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter as sources[edit]

Unfortunately, Gianluca, your edit to Eurovision 2017 has been removed. WikiProjct Eurovision does not accept WP:Twitter as a form of citation. Please reinsert the content once you have found a better and more reliable source. Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that that was the official account of the Bulgarian broadcaster, so I don't know what source could be more reliable than that one... but anyway, if that's so, why hasn't the edit about Switzerland been removed as well? That uses Twitter as a source too! Gianluca91 (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed Switzerland also used a Twitter source, but thanks for letting me know as that will also be removed. Wes Wolf ^Talk 16:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Gianluca91. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Gianluca91. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]