User talk:Tia solzago

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Your deletion request for User:Diamantino Micic

Hi Tia, I took the freedom to decline your speedy deletion request because the "spam" category is not applicable to the user namespace. Somehow, all user pages somehow advertise for their individuals.

I agree that this particular page should be deleted, though, and have taken it to WP:Miscellany for Deletion instead. You find the discussion entry here.

When tagging pages for the speedy deletion process, please always give the correct criterion under which to delete the page.

Thanks and happy editing, Pgallert (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LN

They are Autonomist, Federalist, Regionalist, but also, Right-wing populist, in fact they are part of Europe of Freedom and Democracy.--GiovBag (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference defines the Lega Nord as a Right-wing populist party. And is an official source of the European Union, like it or not. --95.245.22.240 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more honest?, you don't want to discuss, just obstruct. Because in your opinion the Lega Nord is not a Rght-wing party, but you do not give arguments, show no evidence and delete the references. That's sabotage.--GiovBag (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are an hypocrite. The real reason why you have blocked me in italian wiki [1] is because you are an activist. I presented several references of different nature and origine (from medias - BBC or Der Spiegel -, universities, books; from England, Germany or Austria). You're hiding behind a "supposed consensus" to obstruct the article deleting the references. If you have a disagreement, requests for intervention, but can not be you to block me. That's dishonest.--GiovBag (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not an activist, you look like one.--GiovBag (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you did it. Against the references, against the reason, against the common sense and against wikipedia, you've defended your party. I have to recognize, you're a patient and good activist. You could say any thing you want or deny the reality, but the Lega remains what it is, a right-wing populist party. By the way, am not hiding behind an unknow IP. In fact, I had problems with internet for 3 days ... and I can't even connect more than 5 minutes. GiovBag--95.247.232.173 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tolerate your attacks: the only one who works against wikipedia and consensus is you. I said to you to discuss in talk page, you've preferred starting an edit war: I think is quite clear who has had a destructive behavior --Tia solzago (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lega Nord

Excuse me. I saw the history of the article. But, this article is of your own?, who choose you as a "guardian" of the article?, what kind of consensus are ou talking about? (the changes dicussed by no one?), and why you delete all my contributions?, who are you?. I remember you, this is the Free Encyclopedia. Bye.--ForEverRome (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: No-one in particular owns our articles. Consensus is agreement among multiple editors for something to happen, and, reaching consensus is how we make decisions. The only problem with it is that decisions often come very slowly. See WP:OWN and WP:Consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand. But how to achieve a consensus with someone who opposes a priori, which considers invalid all references and revert without giving any reasons?--ForEverRome (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not true. As you can see, in talk page everyone argued his positions, none opposed without motivations --Tia solzago (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you. ForEverRome is a new editor. I am also working on this. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

FYI: Your actions are being discussed on AN/I. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Conflictive behavior. The editor who initiated the thread failed to notify you. Horologium (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear consensus

Clear consensus between 3 o 4 italian guys?. Please, be serious and see the references. --GiovBag (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has been blocked previously what does it matter? Are you threatening me? --GiovBag (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you've won again, you have blocked an "adversary"... fortunately, is not enough to eliminate a category in WP for "hide" the nature of the Lega. If you are right, the Lega Nord is not a right-wing populist party, but integrate a right-wing populist parliamentary group. Could you explain that? Bye. GiovBag.--95.251.8.176 (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVAND

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Lega Nord, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Content disputes should be considered as such and not as vandalism. Thank you. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tia solzago. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tia solzago. 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

Hello, Tia solzago. 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]