Talk:Leonardo Domenici
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | On March 1, 2008, Leonardo Domenici was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
google translation of the news article
editFor non italian speaking people [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Error
edit{{editprotected}}
There is an error in the article, that is actually protected. The Corriere della Sera article does not say that Domenici and Cioni have sued the Wikimedia Foundation but that they intend to sue Wikipedia. I know that they cannot sue Wikipedia: that's the reason why I put the sic. Obviously it is ok to reword. I also have no objections in removing the reason of the possible legal action (but I admit that I don't see the point in reporting just half the fact). The problem is that what the article actually say is simply wrong. Thank you for your time. --Jaqen (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- The courts can sort it out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- So? Are we going to have a wrong article while they decide? But I should say if they decide: according to Corriere della Sera (or La Stampa) Domenici and his assessor haven't sued anyone yet, they just intend to ("hanno dato mandato"). --Jaqen (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it to say that they plan on suing, that that they have sued. As for WP/WM, I'm not sure what to do, so I left it as is. (I'm the one who put Wikimedia in the first place, since I knew that WP can't be sued per se, but as such it's perhaps OR.) Staecker (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, the article says Domenici gave mandate to his lawyers to sue Wikipedia (sic). --Tooby (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK- switched it to Wikipedia. The fact that Wikipedia can't be sued is irrelevant to the stated fact that he announced intentions to sue Wikipedia, which he did. Staecker (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Protection
editI have unprotected the article. It can be semi-protected if there is significant anon vandalism. Superm401 - Talk 06:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I was going to knock the protection down to semi anyways, but given this is an BLP article under threat of lawsuit, we still need to play it safe. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- It looks as if the lawsuit evaporated. [2] I'd like to suggest unprotecting this now, after 18 months. --TS 10:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)