Talk:Lierna

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Lierna lc.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The many recent additions to this article have introduced a mass of unreferenced and unencyclopaedic material, much of it barely comprehensible, written in an unacceptably promotional tone. Sections such as "Celebrities linked to Lierna" have absolutely no place in a serious encyclopaedia. Unless other editors object, I propose to revert the page to , prior to all those additions, as a basis for construction of a reliably-sourced and encyclopaedic article. I'll do so in a day or two unless there is consensus that this is not the best way forward here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , having read through what was removed, I think you made the right call. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, . It was not entirely an easy call, as I do recognise that editor  must have spent a great deal time on this article. Unfortunately that editor has not spent much time learning what does and what does not constitute an encyclopaedic article here. Nor does he have the necessary WP:COMPETENCE in English to edit this Wikipedia, as he has been told many times. For those reasons I waited much longer than I had said I would before removing the content. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopaedic material

message: Total opposition, All the content are true! all had reference!!! and a complete bibliography! you complete erase a long work of reserach without reason. All had reliably-sourced!!! 
I ask to the administrator to check all these page before and check that all the reference, and that with no reason you completly erase all the important and historical information!
--Alec Smithson (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you are trying to attract the attention of an administrator to changes at this page, you have several options; you can contact an administrator at his or her talk-page; you can place an  template here, with your request; or you can post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please be sure that what you want to say requires the attention specifically of an admin (please be aware that admins don't normally intervene in ordinary content disputes). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OPPOSITION 

message: Once again the publisher talk canceled a text arbitrarily with demonstrable known photo justifying and testify to the fact, and it has deleted without writing any reasons, in breach of the rules of wikipedia, it has continually reason for personal against me reiterating in every way this behavior every time . Please verify that the text still was deleted with its reliable source.
--Alec Smithson (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: stated he removed your addition because the statement made wasn't supported by the source given. I can't verify this as the source is in a language I can't read, but I can say that your addition doesn't make grammatical sense:  (emphasis mine). What is the bolded part supposed to mean? clpo13(talk) 17:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still Vandalism and Personal attack 

message: There's not enough to be said about Lierna Castle to merit a separate page. It would be preferable to have a section on it in here. If in the future that section is expanded so much as to become disporportionate to the article as a whole, it can always be split off again. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Lierna Castle]] 

message: nothing here that can't be covered in a couple of sentences in our page on the comune. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, for the same set of reasons given in the 2015 merge statements-in-opposition (which still hold). Klbrain (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose, for the same set of reasons given in the 2015 merge statements-in-opposition (which still hold). MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Lierna Castle]] into [[Lierna]]