User talk:Francesco75

Welcome to the Order, Francesco75!

Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki! We hope you enjoy your stay, and we look forward to working with you!

Have you something to say?

You can always ask our beloved administrators! Our local staff members can always lend a hand! You can also visit the wiki's community portal! We also have the Discord if you're ever in the mood for a chat! You can also check out the blogs, where you and other contributors can voice out your opinion.

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? You can always help out by sharing what you know on some of our stubs. Got some useful pictures? Share them with us on these articles. Got a useful concept for an article? Why not help out in some articles in need of a revamp? Always remember to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid any confusion between users. You can also refer to the wiki's help pages if you're ever in doubt. Please remember to read our wiki policies to avoid gaining any unnecessary attention.

We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing!

Feel free to contact me on my talkpage if you need anything. -- Vatsa1708 (Talk) 13:36, 2012 October 21

Warning

	"Have some respect for death, my friend."
	Safety and peace. We have observed that some of your recent activities on the wiki were of ill fate. While your help is just as good as any, please try to refrain from negatively affecting the wiki and its community. Should you require any assistance or have any concerns, please refer to us if need be. This is your first warning. Arrivederci.

Stop badgehunting. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 19:39, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Why I have a warning? Francesco75 (talk) 07:27, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry :P

Hey

Well, it was my mistake for not contemplating that possibility, keep up those awesome edits.  DipsonDP (talk) 00:54, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Images

Please note that you need to source any and all images you upload to the wiki in accordance to our image policy. For more information on how to source images, check this page. Also check the information about naming images appropriately. Badly named or unsourced images will be deleted. Feel free to reupload your deleted image with proper sourcing. Thank you. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 14:12, August 27, 2016 (UTC) 

I have reupload all images with the source but I have one to delete because it already exist Moving Mirabeau 2. How I delete it.Francesco75 (talk) 16:48, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Regular editors cannot delete images, but I can do it for you :) Thank you for the quick response and sourcing all your images! Crook ^{The Constantine District} 18:18, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :) Francesco75 (talk) 05:18, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

RE:Damascus reverted

Hey Francesco, I apologize for not explaining it; when undoing multiple edits, I have to use the rollback function which does not allow an edit summary, and I'm beginning to realize that in such scenarios, I should really leave a direct message to the user clarifying the revert.

The reason why I reverted it is because some staff disapprove of the addition of these kinds of information on infobox because it draws too much from real-life sources (especially the dates), are therefore never cited, and also creates a huge mess. Listing regimes in such a manner always seem to rely heavily on original research. Moreover, there isn't an adequate distinction between the "Sovereign state" parameter and the "Ruling body" parameter. The latter has conventionally been used to simply list the preceding sovereign governments rather than the actual ruling body (i.e. administration) of the location. Hence, the infobox really must be revised, and in the meantime, we should probably refrain from continuing to use the parameter or at least not in this way.

I thank you so much for contacting me about this because I realize that it was my mistake that I didn't bother taking the initiative to explain it to you. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:18, June 27, 2018 (UTC)

Formatting style for unknown death dates

Hey Francesco, I set up a thread for editors to vote on the notation style to be used for individuals with unknown death dates. I think I recall that earlier you had edited an article—forgot the exact one—where you tried to conform to the style of using floruit as specified in the Manual of Style, then it got reverted because someone else was confused if it should be used like that. So, I think we should bring this up to a vote and reach a consensus about it, and I would really like to hear your input! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 07:58, July 17, 2018 (UTC)

Category reversions

Hey Francesco, can you explain your reasoning behind your reversions of the categories Lacross and Sadel were adding to pages? I think I can surmise, but I need to make sure. Thanks! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:44, September 29, 2018 (UTC)

I assume it’s having articles in nested categories. I’m not actually sure what our stance is on this, so it’s possible I am in the wrong here. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 00:08, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Francesco, that's not necessarily true, and we don't have a clear policy on whether pages in a subcategory should not also be included in the broader category that subcategory falls under. According to Darkfeather, we do have a convention to treat one broad category as a main tier category, such as "Swords" which serves as a pool for pages to fall under even if they are already listed under a subcategory under that "main tier category".

However, this is actually aside from the point as the categories British Army, French Army, etc. are categories of organizations whereas "soldiers" is a category on individuals' occupations or professions, and while it may seem intuitive for "British Army", "French Army", etc. categories to be subcategories of "Soldiers" since army personnel should all be soldiers (but then again, not necessarily right, because there are medics, engineers, etc.), I don't think this makes too much sense upon subjecting it to scrutiny. For specific armies to fall under the category "soldiers", this would suggest that Soldiers is an organization of which the British Army and French Armies are subbranches. The "Soldiers" category is about individuals, and armies are not individual combatants. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:01, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Hence, I didn't really notice this at all before, but when I saw pages having "soldiers" as a category being removed in favor of "British Army", "French Army", etc. I immediately found this quite awkward though I couldn't immediately explain why. I think in my mind, I don't really think that they're in the same class of categories (occupations vs. organizations/affiliations). But we don't really have any specific policy laid out about this, and I don't think it's a big deal. Our categories are a mess anyways, inconsistent, and need to be entirely reorganized, so we can think more about how best to set standards for categorization later. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:08, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Technically, every medics who are a part of an army his a soldier, as for the engineers.Francesco75 (talk) 18:08, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? o.O I thought the term soldier only refers to those trained and enlisted to serve as armed combatants. Combat medics and engineers are classified as military personnel who are non-combatants by the Geneva Conventions which afford them rights and protections that soldiers do not have. Regardless, I forgot to say that I thank you for your response, and you're definitely always welcome to provide input regarding how categories should be organized in the future when we set about revamping them. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:47, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

     Thank you. I don't know in other countries, but in France the military medics have their own regiments and military ranks.Francesco75 (talk) 21:41, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

It looks like our problem is that we don’t have a good definition for soldier. Let’s take me for example as I am actually ex-military, 5 years in the USMC. Whether I deployed or not, whether I saw combat or not, I would never be considered a soldier, at least in American colloquialism; I am a marine. In the US, a soldier technically refers anyone who has served in the Army, not the Marines, Navy, or Airforce, and regardless if they’ve seen combat. So maybe a better category would have been 'Service members' but that can be vague. If we wanna talk specifically about service members whose occupational specialty is combat both Army and Marines have infantrymen while the Navy and Airforce don’t really have combat roles outside of fighter pilot, gunner, and special forces operators which the previous two branches also have. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:46, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

Then we can created a military category including soldiersor infantryman, seaman, pilots and marines .Francesco75 (talk) 20:03, October 1, 2018 (UTC)

RE:entrepreneur

Hey Francesco, sorry for the late reply. I've always been quite unsure about the definition of entrepreneur myself, but popularly, an entrepreneur in English is a businessman who deals with high financial risk rather than just anyone who leads an enterprise. Usually, this financial risk arises from the individual independently starting a new business, and so entrepreneur in English bears the connotation of young, adventurous men (often late 20s to early 30s) who rely on their ingenuity and street smarts to establish a new start-up in an unfamiliar environment in protest at the notion of having anyone but themselves as he boss. Because of this we tend to think of entrepreneurs as savvy businessmen who independently climbed to great wealth or those who fell into bankruptcy from their recklessness. If you check the Wikipedia entry or the English dictionary entries, they do seem to suggest that in English, financial risk and/or starting a new business are criteria of the definition. I think in this way, it is more specific in its usage than the original French term. Hope this helps! I know that most of our categories on professions need to be reorganized, renamed, or deleted. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:22, December 15, 2018 (UTC)

Modern times

Hey Francesco, I just noticed the question you posed in Talk:Modern times approximately two years back, and I have added my thoughts to it since I just had the same question as well. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 15:01, January 5, 2019 (UTC)

Plural headings

Hi Francesco, just a quick one. Can you please ensure that you always pluralise the Appearances and References section headings? Even when there is only a single entry, these two sections should be written in the plural. Thanks. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:53, February 13, 2019 (UTC)