User talk:Gianfranco/archive

This is the archive of my talk page, that has been cleaned after a few months.

Then welcome to userland. One more registered Wikipedian is one more good news for the rest of us szopen

Thank you, I hope my bad english is not instead a bad news, with the help it will require... :-))) Gianfranco

Allora ... so i am not the only in here :-)) Zisa Baci ... 'eaiu dount sacciu nenti megghiu l'inglish' ;-O

Ahò, damoje sotto pero', che so' na cifra!! Ben trovato :-))) - Gianfranco

'ngiorno, sono Piero, grazie per le correzioni, io conosco solo l'inglese tecnico (ed anche malaccio :) ) ik1tzo

Danny, I regret for the inconvenients I create, but sometimes it's difficult for me to consider which is the most used form of a name or, better, to suspect that there is a local form and that this one is even prevalent. This prevalence, honestly, I would not have imagined for Valentino, while for The Stranger I had copied the link in the Camus' page, where The Stranger is defined as a literal translation and the other seemed preferred (now I realise I should have followed the link...).

I'll try to better check names.

In our mentality we use foreign words possibly as precisely as we can, also because we had "a certain time", for enough time, in which we were forced to absolutely avoid them and we had to substitute them with italian equivalents, i.e., we had to use "Albione" for "England". Let's say that it is as if we were translating all the english names as "Alfredo" Hitchcock, "Enrico" Ford, "Giorgio" Washington (we would have had some problems with Ezra Pound, indeed). "Riccardo" Burton and "Elisabetta" Taylor are widely popular actors here, but we use their proper names. I dare suppose you will find funny these forms, out of your common habit, strange in a word.

The problem comes when we are talking about "our" names, given that it's natural to us to istinctively think at them the way we have them in our memory and in our culture.

Therefore, this trouble is not wanted, nor it's meant to be unrespectful, but perhaps only one of the points in which different mentalities cross themselves.

Sometimes I have indeed an overwhelming difficulty when my vocabulary doesn't report some names or when google can't help. In such cases I add the names I know, hoping that someone can recognise them and translate them. This is not made obviously to increase others' work, but perhaps to humbly add something more to this project.

Thank you for your help, sincerely. :-) - Gianfranco

No problems. I didn't mean what I said in a disrespectful tone. Basically, I wanted to explain why I had made the changes to the titles. :-) Danny

I've already commented on some of these details at User talk:Danny. In this electronic age that must become more cosmopolitain, the need to be sensitive to forms of other languages is more important than ever. It is also important to show some sympathy those who in the practice of good faith do obscene things to your language. Although Rudolph Valentino has become the standard english usage for that individual, anglophones are very inconsistent in their usage. Pavarotti is not yet called Luke, and referring to the great Italian composer Joe Green is usually only done as a joke. Eclecticology

24, if you can spend just a little amount of minutes to look at the history of the Mediation page, you will see that the personal point of view I was referring to regards the user who deleted all the previous content about forms of mediation other than legal dispute resolution, which implied that (in his/her point of view) no other form of mediation was possible.

As for what I would have deleted, I just left what regards mediation (that is something more concrete than a simple way of saying) and adjusted when possible what refers to other activities. But I'll better answer you on the talk:Mediation page. - G

If you could perhaps provide some sources for the Copernicus debate, I would appreciate it. This particular article has been a longstanding problem, as have many other articles that deal with the 'Polish or German?' question. Part of the problem is that there are contributors who have very little understanding of how historians interpret sources, and have no training to weigh the comparative values of these sources. When added to a very large personal bias, this can be catastrophic. By the way, what do you do in Roma? (since you live there, I guess that you aren't the famous Gianfranco living in London!) JHK

J, I had seen in the article's history (and often in recent "RecentChanges") that the point had been... well discussed. My real intention was obviously only to stop the saga, hopefully being ideally far from the whole and looking at it from even farther, if possible. So, when I read that we were going into a troll-alimented flame war (that you can see in the page, has already produced another sweety fruit), I hoped that we could go back to "the essencial Copernicus" and made a call for... measure (?).

My note was merely a "don't feed the trolls", nothing else. :-)

You know, to be honest I would be instinctively tempted to clean that talk page (even if would obviously result in a censorship), because the one who comes to read it as one of the first articles he reads in Wikipedia, and goes to the talk page, could get a wrong idea of what all the project is about (and, if I may _thankfully_ tell you, the value of your own work here), because the history page is not immediately read by newcomers. Trying to figure how the article and the talk page could be read by a "first-timer", I guess he would resume: " Ah, so Copernicus was a scientist, Germany, Poland and Wikipedians debate about his nationality ". It's not like for other stubs, an encyclopedia cannot be (this I personally believe) insufficient or... on detour about a fundamental matter like Copernicus, solar system and the immense meaning of his work; we could write rivers of words about what Cop. represented for the history of human knowledge. We have instead a long nervous talk page and a short article.

I hope I can say this without becoming a steril criticist myself (a role that I don't like, indeed), because I would not be able to expand the article, if not after an eventual specific study that, frankly, doesn't seduce me so much, also given that many other Wikipedians could immediately do it with serious results. I'm slow in writing in english, so maybe I could more usefully direct my efforts to something I know better. But I can read more easily :-)

About the sources, I read an abstract by Prof. Francesco Zagar (famous italian astronomer), citing Stephen Mizwa (Nicholas Copernicus, 1943), Hermann Kesten (Copernicus and His World, 1945), Angus Armitage (The life and work of Copernicus the astronomer, 1947 - Copernicus: The Founder of Modern Astronomy, 1957). So I only know them de relato.

I believe I'm not the famous Gianfranco of London (also, I unfortunately have a little notoriety here, but I don't think to be famous abroad :), I'm perhaps more often seen in France.

I'm a Roman by birth, a circumstance that here we are somehow proud of for never cleared reasons indeed, so I ordinarily do enjoy the particular soul, the special spirit, the unrespectful unique humour of this town, and I believe that I was lucky to grow and live here. Yet, I don't properly endorse the typical roman mentality, even if I watch at it respectfully (one of these days I should post the tale of the street-sweeper and the Pope, it might be interesting).

Yes, being a Roman also means that you daily may have to deal with many matters that truly sometimes are better known by foreigners ( :-), like politics, religion, history, architecture, art, music and, of course, latin language (but we don't speak it in the streets). But it's not so heavy, one soon gets used to it.

My principal educational knowledge is in jurisprudence, civil law in particular, that helped me to work in consultancy for business (now, with more salt than pepper in my hair, I'm not retiring, but I relevantly decreased it) and in running my own minor business, shared into several different fields (Web too).

Luckily, my professional activities could mostly be oriented toward research on one side, while on the other side I have worked a lot in historical or artistic related business, therefore I often enjoyed the advantage of the many opportunities my country could give me, and the thrill of letting passions enrich the profession.

As for passions, I'm now studying about ancient and medieval Sardinia, a field that I recently found of great interest due to the uncommon evolution of local society, laws, language, habits, after so little contacts with the mainland. --G

By the way, did I ever say Benvenuto? Is that what I should have said? Although I think Italian is one of the most lovely languages, I've never had a chance to learn any properly ;-) I do agree with you wholeheartedly, and appreciate your help in clarifying the debate properly. I look forward to seeing what you have come up with. Oh -- and it's also nice to know that you're so well-rounded. My background is in history, and I teach for a living, but I've also worked in the telecom industry, real estate, and software (online transaction management). That's not counting the years spent working in restaurants, pubs, etc. Ciao (or as we say in this part of the world, Hasta) for now -- JHK

Yes, Benvenuto is perfect, might I tell you Ben trovata (well found) :-) (but Hasta, isn't it spanish?) --G

It is, indeed -- but I live on the US west coast, so it's norml idiom here :-) Oddly enough, when I lived in Germany, "Ciao" was used as frequently as "Tschüss" or "Servus"! JHK

Is there some reason are you redirecting years BC to years AD? (55 BC, 54 BC) --Brion VIBBER, Monday, May 20, 2002

ooooops!!

ehmmm... a silly mistake... pardon!!! --G (I hope at least I fixed it correctly)

it seems like you have a bit knowledge and material on Copernicus. Do you have the book by Hermann Kesten available ? I have borrowed it in German language, translated and added a phrase on the wiki site. I have been trying for some time to correct the main mistake on the wiki site, which falsely itentifies him as Polish. It is nearly impossible, because people just don't seem to grasp this or worse, they do'nt want to. After much reading I finally found a direct reference by Copernicus himself.

What is your interest in Copernicus ?

Helga H. Jonat

No Helga, I don't have a particular knowledge on his figure, nor I have a special interest in it, I just made a quick search on indirect sources in order to expand a part of the article that I consider is what we essentially need to have about Copernicus. And this is part of a general knowledge, which is not limited by personal fields or interests. We all own his cultural contribution as a part of our respective development.

Copernicus, as I already tried to express, belongs to the whole mankind, so in my opinion it is completely irrelevant whether he was a German or a Polish. In both cases, his eventual cultural belonging to either of these nations (that in case would eventually be a really little distinction) makes no difference in his theory, in his importance, in our personal life. We will not be better or worse people in case Copernicus is precisely discovered having been something rather than something else.

And even on an eventual chauvinist point of view, I'm personally not eaten up by envy because on the Moon there's a "Stars&Stripes" flag rather than my "Tricolore": I am glad that a man was there. I am proud a man was there, a man just like me (yes, Armstrong was more athletic). I don't even imagine the possibility of thinking that Americans consider that they now own the Moon, or that they are not men just like we are, or that we are putting hands on a property of their own if we commonly say that Man reached the Moon and not Americans. In 1969 Man made just a "little step" (more). In 16th century Man had better identified his target and how it works. And even in case we eventually ought to call it "Welt" rather than "Mundus", it still is my World, your World, John's World as well as Piotr's World, that we now know is revolving around its axis.

Poland and Germany are great countries like any other country in the World. It would mean nothing to me if they eventually "own" Copernicus: the revolutionary thought of this guy is well above the sum of both those cultural systems, and if they fight for a supremacy of respective cultural systems, our Cop still keeps miles and miles above them. Orbital to them and to all of us. Cop demolished a cultural system greater and more complex than theirs. Such a contraposision of cultures "now" would even be, merely and cruelly, ridiculous in a time like ours in which we have an unprecedented opportunity of studying any culture, any religion, any philosophy, any tradition, any language we wish. We are estinguishing Babel's taboo in this era. Are we going to keep on following this local dispute?

Or should I add (I won't) that without his studies in Italy he wouldn't have been the great innovator we now know?

So, when I say that I consider irrelevant Copernicus' nationality, it is because in front of something of such importance for Man (all being equal the rest, as it seems it would have been) it is merely swerving to investigate with such depth which was his merit in being one thing or the other. He was born (with no evident intention) in a factually not well distinguished cultural reality in the middle of both German and Polish cultures. Politicians make borders, Copernicus taught us that scientists don't.

Let's keep on important subjects. Einstein had a violin. I prudently bought a guitar, me too.

I hope we are not going to talk about our repertoires. :-) --G

It seems that you also put in the word, astrologer.

I didn't - I added he was a jurist

The text that you added is great and sectioning off the debates on nationality makes sence. H. Jonat

I'm glad you liked my additions. :-)

I believe that before re-adding anything about nationality, a solid consensus should be achieved in the Copernicus' nationality talk page first. At the moment I feel it could be better to built the main article little by little: as said, it is an important topic for an encyclopedia, it wouldn't be wise to introduce controversial or innovative points if not after at least a consensus among Wikipedians. And the main article is very likely to enter the MostPopular chart soon, or to keep there around (see number of hits), it certainly would be seen by those who really want to seriously evaluate our work here.

This has nothing to do, obviously, with the value of the sources that are added. Simply, I'm not a "Copernicanist", nor I have a specific knowledge, so I cannot scientifically evaluate anything on that field. I perhaps personally could try to say something about his value as a jurist (but I don't remember I ever met anything by him or citing him, I wonder if there is any document about this activity - I strongly doubt he made anything valuable in this field, but...), however it would somehow be an irrelevant theme, as well.

I hope instead someone can help to expand the main article, in order to give it a proper depth, in some points like for instance:

• difference with the geocentric theory, Cop's objections
• previous heliocentric theories, more details and sources
• errors in Cop's theory (and reasons for mistakes)
• influence on philosophers: what was the effect on Galileo, Bruno and others, modern philosophers
• final recognition by catholic scientists (and removal from list of prohibited books) and general reception of the theory (times, cultures)
• practical effects on common life (is there anything merely practical that changed - i.e. for sailors, or for don't know who - in consequence of his discovery?)

I do trust you can help, there's still much to do on it and, I believe, the sooner the better.

Thank you in advance :-) --G

I am going to be gone for a while, but am trying to add more info. Some of it does not stay very long. It is always good to check the behind the scene history to find out what was actually added. I do not know anything about the system or theory of his, so I will not touch any of that. I do know a lot about the land and the people and will input on that when get back. Milai ginnis kails Helga H. Jonat

Helga, if it was you who added about the Prussian Tables, I do guess instead you know more about potentially interesting topics. Are you going to add them little by little? :-)

This could be really important if enlarged, as a practical consequence of the theory, truly what we mainly (and, I personally think, urgently) miss.

An explanation on the practical facts of his administration (and my consequent synthesis): if we can collect enough material about this activity, it would certainly be interesting to have it aside, let's say on a Copernicus' administrative career[?], or something like that. Not only for Cop (this would not be what anyone would look for in Cop's main page), but also to know how things were going at that time there. Also, we know so little about ancient cadasters, yet sometimes they are very precious documents, as I believe your sources are. This would eventually be VERY interesting, so I hope we can sort out something of really uncommon with your help, either with reference to a minor activity of Cop, or directly regarding the matter of cadasters and civil administration in ancient Ages. So, please, keep on investigating and let us know.

I also have a question on the point of cadasters: being bordering areas, do you have any evidence of special, particular or otherwise notable special systems or practices? I.e.: in the italian areas that once were Austrian ruled, we still now have a special system, a sort of compromise between several systems, causing that not all the nation goes the same way. Is there anything similar there - or was there?

But I also have a general interest on what you might add on land and people, where are you planning to put it - or how will you entitle new pages?

Me too, I'll be far from work and machines next week, possibly all week long.

Ciao, by now :-) --G

I did input about the Prutenian Tables etc. I "discovered" Erasmus Reinhold on internet at a site from his home region.

I will be gone shortly for weeks. So I better catch you on the cadaster. look up altavista.com or google.com: type in cadaster, cataster and Kataster, the German way of spelling. You will find , that every city or town in Germany has a 'Kataster Amt or Kataster und Vermessungsamt (Kataster and Land Measuring government agency). One site in Austria says Kataster is the Land -property, while cadaster is the Tax on the land ,the "property tax books". I live in California for many years , I do not have access to much info. Occasionally I find old books here. I know most of the info from relatives and from reading regional books of Prussia and I do find much on internet now. I have been there and I am going again.

Kataster, cadaster ,land ownership, property rights record keeping books (these are the names that come to mind in USA) were not only kept in border areas. Seems to me that anywhere German (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation) rulers once governed, that there you find this system. It was private property of nobility, which was bought and sold, inherited and traded, not contries, that Europe had for many centuries. The Prince-Bishops of Ermland owned part of the land, just as many other princes of the empire owned lands in scattered territories.

I need to get going.

Will get back to this in a while

H. Jonat ====

Hello Gianfranco. You're a bit off base about mens rea, The thing to remember is that reus, rea, reum is really an adjective, and not a noun. When the word stands alone, your interpretation is indeed correct. In the expression mens rea "mens" is a feminine noun. Thus the expression translates as "guilty mind". It is an important principle in countries that use the common law system. Eclecticology, Monday, May 27, 2002

Sorry for my mistake, Eclecticology, and thank you for your note.:-)

Effectively we don't use that expression, so I thought the topic was referring to the nearest expression we do use, that is "mens rei" (or reae - the accused's mind). We don't have a concept regarding "the mind" in itself, but we directly talk of the "voluntas necandi" (will of committing a crime - for the precise criminal intention of the precise conduct we are examining) or of the "animus necandi" (for a more general disposition of the person that, eventually, would not abstain from committing a crime - especially used for habitual criminals or for "by nature" criminals, and in doctrine). In this sense we too of course have attention to the intellectual determination of the author of a crime, and it is fundamental here too, or (properly) it is absolutely necessary to identify a precise criminal intention in order to consent the punishment of the evaluated conduct.

So "our" mens rei (as a noun) is investigated to verify this intention, and usually this expression is used when in front of a "minus habens" or, generally, an accused with mental diseases.

Your expression was indeed new to me, but is certainly expressive. :-)

Besides, we use reus for he accused, rather than for the one who is effectively found guilty, even if in common language the distinction is quite disappearing. I don't remember now which was the proper meaning in Latin. A reus will remain innocent, in our system, until definitive condemnation, after the last admitted degree of Appeal. I hope this is in common, instead :-) --G

I believe that very little work has been done on Wikipedia about law. It's certainly a topic where there's a lot of opinion, and very little understanding. The philosophical underpinings that distinguish common law countries from Napoleonic Code countries seem very alien to a citizen in the other system. I expect some very interesting debates as Wikipedians try to discuss law. --Eclecticology

Yes, law is another field in which we ought to share more knowledge. Like many in my area, I unfortunately know very little indeed about common law. I'd like to know more (and certainly I wish I can add something regarding Latin systems - or mine, at least - if interesting). To better describe and compare, I imagine there could perhaps be a space for the differences between the systems, maybe in the form of service pages in which some topics are listed and contributors can say "in common law we do this way" and "in latin systems we do that other way". Listing the respective principles separately could perhaps lead to "internal" debates on each side --G

"Becco", meaning the front extension of the mouth of a bird. According to my vocabulary it should have been what I had put... but reflecting on it, I have now seen that the vocabulary made a (con)fusion of two meanings of the same word: becco means the bird's mouth as well as the male of the goat, and it evidently reported only the latter, as comprehensive of both. Thank you for your note, I have been too quick in picking up this result. Now, I still miss the english word for the bird's mouth :-) --G

The word is "beak". "Bill" is also used for that, and I thought you got the bill confused with the billy-goat. "Beak" is "bec" in French; the other "becco" is I think "bouc", but I'm not so sure it's the same word. -phma

Prego Ed, it was a pleasure for me to have an edit conflict with your text on this topic, I personally believe Cousteau deserves a deep consideration, even if I'm not so fond in his works. :-)

I know nothing indeed about relationships with National Geographic, but I added something about his "no-nuke" attitude.

Please, don't forget checking my "would-be-english" (grazie a te) :-))) --G

Thank you, mav, for following what I do here, as I hope you always do :-)

I believe that somewhere in these redirected or renamed pages, a link could be included pointing to pages that link to the short/simpler name, like this one for Rome (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/special:whatlinkshere&target=Rome) (like now in Rome (disambiguation)).

Do you think it could be appropriated to do the same for similar redirects, like for Naples - obviously, in case effectively many pages link to the short name (see this (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/special:whatlinkshere&target=Naples))? --G

I'll convert them soon (I have to install graphical software on the machine I'm using now which is quite... essential). I'll give you a note on your page when done, so to delete and replace current ones. --G

No, no, that won't work at all. Never convert from JPG to PNG, the results will be (just as Stemma-savoia.png is) a larger file and worse quality than the JPG. What we want ideally is PNG originals; if you can't find that, then go ahead an use the JPG if it's all you've got--converting will just make it worse. Sorry I didn't make that clear the first time. --LDC

No problem, it's a misunderstanding of mine (I had some doubts indeed, but... -); I'm currently far from home so I have no originals to scan. I'll look for something lighter and brighter.

Thank you for your help in restoring jpgs. Now, whom should I ask to delete the unnecessary pngs? --G

My vocabulary doesn't tell me, but since Arcimboldo is an elder form of Arcibaldo (which is Archibald in English), I believe you can use this, unless in English too there is a (probably) early medieval form. Arcimboldo was little used, it is mainly known because of the painter (http://www.illumin.co.uk/svank/biog/arcim/arcidx)'s surname. Please, let me know in case you find it :-)--G

Thank you for your help, Bth, I regret that you had a lot to do with it, but I'm sincerely glad you did it :-)

Just a point about the movie: apart from its quality (it's one of the best films I saw in the last decade), really I had mentioned it because the situation of research it described (in the 1960s, if I well remember) hasn't really changed so much after that, in the sense that no relevant scientific progresses have been achieved after that moment (also, the sad message of the film was that you can have a good peak after some therapy, but you'll go down again). Now, I wanted to mention it as a reference to the state of research, but I didn't want to give emphasis to a sad message, so I badly expressed it.

But I agree that it is perhaps better to leave it apart given that, as a term of comparison, a film (even a well-done one, like that was) is obviously little scientific. --G

No problem. Glad to help. I've not seen the film myself, so perhaps I was being a little too harsh on it ... Does Williams play Oliver Sacks, or have I invented that completely? I've added a bit at the bottom to try and restore some of the sense you were trying to get across. --Bth

Formally, Robin Williams plays Malcom Sayer, a young doctor experimenting Levodopa on patients with catatonic letargic symptoms. Oliver Sacks (http://www.oliversacks.com/)' book "Awakenings", based on personal experiences and work, inspired the film, but he said that Sayer was only "a kind of relative" to him, no more. But it is Sacks' story, really. I have found a webpage in which Sacks comments the film (http://www.prometheo.it/newsletter/newsletter17.htm) (scroll page down a bit), but unfortunately it is in Italian and I wasn't able to find an original version.

I'll try to draft out something about Sacks too and about the specific disease the movie is about, I believe he deserves an article. --G

Opps! I just noticed you were fixing redirects and not moving articles. --mav

Yes, just working on Wikipedia:Defective redirects - :-) --G

In English it's "Francis," and it's Wikipedia's policy to use the English version, and the "ç" creates problems with a search and doesn't find all of them, because it can be coded more than one way, and the search finds only the ones coded the same as the search entry. -- isis

Is it the policy of Wikipedia to use English names or the English spelling. In the French Wikipedia or any publication in France, the President of the United States is George Bush. Not Georges.