User talk:Salvio giuliano/General archive

If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. (I will respond on my talk page unless you specify otherwise.) Thank you.

Trying to pick your brain again, please...

Hi Salvio, I've been trying to understand about the appeal filing by the prosecution in the MoMK case. In particular, I wondered if the act of filing an appeal bestows additional rights for the prosecution to present the case differently in the appeal court. For instance, does it allow them to introduce new evidence that they couldn't have introduced if they hadn't filed? Of course, they may simply feel that the sentence is actually too lenient (or they may think that by "bidding high" they might avoid the sentence being reduced). However, I wondered if there is also some procedural reason that means that an appeal filing is advantageous to them. Thanks! Bluewave (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, first, all verdicts consist of capi and punti. A capo refers to a charge (a Judge can convict a single defendant of various crimes with only one sentenza) and a punto refers to every single topic within a capo (for instance, one capo deals with the mens rea, another with the actus reus and so forth). The defendant and the Prosecutor must appeal specific punti, because the Appellate Court can of course retry the defendant, but its cognizance is limited to the appealed punti (if I appeal against the punto of the verdict that does not grant me an extenuating circumstance, the Judge cannot, for instance, acquit me or change the charges).

That said, within these boundaries, the Appellate Court can do everything: it can hear new witnesses, admit new evidence and re-evaluate the evidence admitted by the Court of first instance.

At the end of the trial, the Court can uphold the verdict of the Court of first instance, but it can also change it. It can convict on a different count, provided that this crime is within the cognizance of the Court of first instance (that is to say, that the Appellate Court can convict of aggravated battery one who was convicted of attempted murder or viceversa, but cannot convict of manslaughter one who was convicted of murder or viceversa; in these cases, the Court quashes the verdict and the correct Court of first instance must retry the defendant). It can increase or decrease the tariff, add or remove aggravating or extenuating circumstances. In rare cases, it can quash the verdict and a Court of first instance must try again.

If the Prosecutor does not appeal, the Appellate Court cannot increase the tariff, that's presumably why the Prosecutor did actually appeal. But it could also be because he thinks that the sentence was too lenient.

Glad to be of help; if you need clarifications, don't hesitate to ask! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the (as always) detailed and informative reply! Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. Sottolacqua (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

for future reference ...

{{User|Example}} gives Example (talk · contribs); less controversial than the 'vandal' template.   pablo_hablo. 11:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you: I've just replaced the templates! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Issue about the the page Cessation-continuation debate

I have removed the whole content of the page Cessation-continuation debate for following reasons:

1) The content was my contribution in another Wikipedia page Cessationism, but was moved without my consent to the new page Cessation-continuation debate. As such, the content is out of its original context. It should be in the original page because it is an account of the dispute between Cessationists and Continuationists from a Cessationist point of view. The account of the dispute, as it is represented in the new page, is therefore distorted

2) If we should have a new page dealing with the dispute, there should be both Continuationists and Cessationists present as contributors.

3) The title of the new page "Cessation-continuation debate" is wrong. It is not a dispute between "cessation" and "continuation," but about two views called "Cessationism" and "Continuationism."

I request that the new page Cessation-continuation debate is removed because it was created from my article without my consent. Please, see the discussion in Talk:Cessationism#Split article about this issue. Aleksandar Katanovic (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I now see that you were not vandalising — but blanking a page, without providing a reason in the edit summary or discussing it beforehand, prima facie appears to be vandalism —. I apologise for reverting your edit and suggest that you keep discussing the issue to get consensus. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

i am sorry

i am sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.120.152 (talk • contribs)

Oh, don't sweat. No damage was done.

Just please do not do it again. *_________^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ma che succede a en.wiki

Ciao Salvio, ho bisogno del tuo aiuto. Ho creato e tradotto delle pagine dall'italiano all'inglese come per esempio "House of Cerva". Ora c'è un problema, un paio di utenti, di nazionalità croata, hanno stravolto le pagine da me create tagliando via i nomi italiani (la famiglia Cerva attualmente fa parte della nobiltà croata) e mi accusano di essere un sockpuppet di chissà quale altro utente. Per favore, al di là dello scempio commesso sulle pagine, avrei bisogno del tuo aiuto per confutare gli attacchi che mi stanno muovendo. Grazie --Theirrulez (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)