User talk:IdaDactyl

This is IdaDactyl's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pitelli (June 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rambley was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pitelli and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rambley (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IdaDactyl! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rambley (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing my article, and it’s very considerate of you to invite me! While it’s a shame that it didn’t get approved, I hope I’ll be able to learn from your suggestions and publish an improved version in the future. Thanks again and have a nice day! IdaDactyl (talk) 21:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:King Edward VI School, Southampton logo currently in use.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:King Edward VI School, Southampton logo currently in use.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 01:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I uploaded this image only for use on the school’s article but I see that a new version of the image has been uploaded there. As I did not plan its use on any other Wikipedia pages, I am fine with the file’s deletion. Apologies for any inconveniences I may have caused. IdaDactyl (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pitelli has been accepted

Pitelli, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Rambley (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on this one. Haven't seen a draft make a comeback like this in a while. Some small issues mostly relating to sourcing specific claims still remain, but the village is obviously notable and those issues can be fixed quickly. Cheers. Rambley (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Republic of Pontecorvo has been accepted

Republic of Pontecorvo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about losses of Santa Lucia Battle

Hello IdaDactyl, are you or do you know someone who's familiar with Santa Lucia Battle of 1849? My friend and I've read a book on northern Italy campaigns between 1848-49 and have few questions about Santa Lucia Battle. What do you think about the section below regarding the losses of the battle? Is it common for the total losses of one side or both side to be higher, counted less and unincluded (missing and captured)? Thank you.

"Piedmontese losses (in Santa Lucia Battle 1848) are difficult to quantify. Certainly, the initial official figure of 98 dead and 659 wounded is far too low. Fabris provides the following estimate : Killed/Wounded 1st Division – 5 officers, 19 men / 6 officers, 219 men 2nd Division – 19 men / 4 officers, 131 men 3rd Division – 1 officer, 29 men / 10 officers, 269 men Reserve Division – 37 men / 10 officers, 116 men Total 6 officers, 104 men / 30 officers, 735 men (Total Austrian losses were 349, as listed in the "Loss" category.) Even these figures are far too low. The 11th Infantry Regiment (2nd Division), for example, suffered 117 killed and wounded (Casale Brigade, P. 54), which, using the term "usa," means that the rest of the division suffered only 37 casualties. Likewise, as already mentioned, the Savoia Brigade (Reserve Division) alone lost about 30 killed and 200 wounded. Pinelli states that the 16th Regiment lost 150 killed and wounded. 16 The number of prisoners and missing is also unclear, but the number was probably between 750 and 1000. 19 The Austrians took 200 prisoners , 20 and the rest missing, most of whom probably deserted. Overall losses were probably between 1500 and 2000, probably closer to the latter figure. The entire Sardinian army was demoralized by the defeat. General Rossi, commander of the army artillery, spoke bluntly of the "disaster of Santa Lucia." Nevertheless, the battle was of no strategic importance. "The victory of Santa Lucia, however glorious it was for the Austrians, had no decisive consequences." 21

Notes/Bibliography

16 Cauda himself, in his official report, refers to May 6 as an “unlucky day” for the regiment, Relazioni e Rapporti, Volume II, p. 267. Pinelli also states that the regiment had 200 missing, many of whom deserted on the night of the 6th.

18 Fabris, Volume II, pp.244-245.

19 Pinelli, Volume 3, p. 351, questions the official figures and concludes that the most likely total is around 1,500. Prince Ferdinando, in Relazioni e Rapporti, Volume I, p. 198, reports a figure of 2,000 dead, wounded, missing, and prisoners. Scalchi, p. 124, also speaks of 1,500 dead and wounded.

20 Hilleprandt, “1848”, p. 25. He believes that the missing Piedmontese numbered 1000 in total, which would bring the total close to that of Prince Ferdinand.

21 Rossi, Relations and Reports, Volume III, p.10 and Bruna, p.68"

2604:3D09:D07E:2410:C138:F1D2:A237:E7A5 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi IdaDactyl. Thank you for your work on Republic of Benevento. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Something of an exclave of an article, but will be of interest to readers. Just 3 references, but they supoprt the existence and notability. This could do with being integrated a little better with the Benevento page.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]