TriangoloDiTartaglia

TriangoloDiTartaglia, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TriangoloDiTartaglia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChamithN, Yiyi, Favonian, and Vaselineeeeeeee: Important Issue of page: List of Italian inventions and discoveries

@ChamithN, Yiyi, Favonian, and Vaselineeeeeeee:

Hi Everyone and thank you for being here I have started this discussion in order to address a very important issue regarding the following page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries

As you can verify by looking at -for example- the following pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_inventions_and_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_South_African_inventions_and_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_discoveries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Dutch_inventions_and_discoveries

All these pages list in the beginning the fields in which the cultures (to which they are referenced to) gave the greatest contribution. Notable inventions are also listed in the introduction. Usually most of the text reported in the synthetic beginning lacks examples and references and yet none of these pages face the humiliation of being tagged as "disputed" or "using subjective wording". I wanted to give to the 'list of Italian inventions' the introduction it deserved.

I wrote an introduction for the list twice, and it got deleted twice by user Vaselineeeeeeee. Both times the page was tagged as "in use" by me; both times the tag was ignored. Proof from logs.

The first time, the introduction was deleted. The second time the introduction was dismembered and watered down in the whole list, leading to double entries [that now I have to fix] (voltaic pile, fission reactor, double entry bookkeeping come to mind) and scattered sources. The reason behind this action was my writing being, quote from logs, a mess.

I kindly ask to the moderators and editors invited here to evaluate my introduction in order to find the messy logic or improper exposition of which my writing is allegedly affected. The most recent version of the introduction can be found in my sandbox ^1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TriangoloDiTartaglia/sandbox while older versions are present in history logs of the page.

Secondly, I ask for my introduction to be restored and preserved from future cancellations, if the introduction is compatible with Wikipedia criteria.

If it is not compatible, I kindly ask for the precise explanation of the reasons, supported by comparations with, for example, the introductions found on the page about Chinese inventions (that I personally consider even more dispersive). This will help me in writing a better introduction.

^1 I have been writing a further enhanced version of the same introduction. I can copy the source code right here in this discussion if necessary or share it with other means. Please do not modify the sandbox.

Side note: treccani's reference links are not working because of the way Wikipedia edits urls in automatic mode. In the enhanced draft I am working on ^1, this problem should be fixed. Side note II: I wish to express my gratefulness to Vaselineeeeeeee for his effort in expanding the list. Side note III: this being my first experience of edit, I did not expect to face such difficulties in giving my contribution to an open and collaborative environment as Wikipedia should be.

Thank you for your help and collaboration. --TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi TriangoloDiTartaglia. Thank you for your edits. The reason I removed your addition to the lead was that it looked very cluttered and unnecessary, which is why I took the time to actually insert these additions into the list, as some were stated in the lead, but not in the body (which wouldn't make sense); see MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADCITE, which highlight a lead should be no more than four paragraphs, and usually do not cite material that is already cited in the body, unless it is very contentious info. I don't think listing inventions is the way to go in the lead (see WP:SEAOFBLUE), that's what the body is for—however, if some general inventions want to be highlighted similar to the South African or Japanese pages, that would be sufficient. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee:

Thank you for your reply :) . I will soon change the intro to be compatible with Wikipedia standards by removing the particular inventions and keeping just the main fields. But does that mean that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chinese_inventions is against Wikipedia standards? Pages about Dutch innovations are also very "cluttered" in the intro (although not showing the particular inventions). I was indeed rigorous in the introduction because it was initially flagged as "subjective". --151.95.141.59 (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are technically against some of these policies, something that should be fixed, but not something where it spreads misinformation or is against copyright, so it is not a pressing issue. I have more of an interest in Italian subjects, so that is why I was being harder on the Italian article. Thanks for your cooperation and understanding. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Calliopejen1 was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to List of Italian inventions and discoveries you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@ChamithN, Yiyi, and Vaselineeeeeeee: Ask for permission to delete "issue template"

@ChamithN, Yiyi, and Vaselineeeeeeee: Hi everyone! I would like to remove the template "multiple issues" from the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries for the following reasons: 1)it is outdated: debates are not continuing, since October many sources have been added. 2)the debate as seen in the talk page was clearly subjectively biased against the entries, with even some vandalic censorship of legit material instead of trying to research reliable sources. 3)sources so far went from 59 to 250 and counting, I plan to add other sources with time.

I ask you for advice since I am not an expert of Wikipedia policies. If there are still debated entries: 1-if they are sourced, either you debate the source (which would be an questionable stratagem) or... that's it. 2-if they are still not provided with reliable sources, I will promptly provide those or delete the challenged entry altogether: I prefer a trusted page with fewer entries than more entries but marked as unreliable.

TLDR: can I delete the template "multiple issues"?

Thank you, --TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This discussion should be at Talk:List of Italian inventions and discoveries. Anyway, I would say yes to remove the "accuracy disputed" tag if these have been addressed, but even though you have added a large amount of sourcing, obviously, there are still several entries unsourced, so the "additional sources" tag might have to stay a little longer. pinging @Fountains of Bryn Mawr: who might have had some concerns in the past that may or may not have been addressed. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course additional citation will be needed until all entries are properly sourced. But my focus was on the factual accuracy. "Additional citations needed" template will remain in every case.--TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Since Raffaele Megabyte is adding a lot of unsourced material to the page, it seems that this permission will have to wait.--TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Italian inventions

Every edit I make you revert it, with "vandalism" as your excuse. Also "WP:SNEAKY" is not a policy, but a personal attack, and if I were to notify administrators of that remark, it will most surely end in a block, if you disagree with my edits or my actions, just point it out on my talk page, or revert with a more sensible edit summary. SurpriseandConquer (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• You changed something (for the second time), marking it as minor when in fact it was not. This is a technique sometimes used by vandals to hide their change from being reviewed. I'm relieved to know this is not your case. Minor edits are changes that people are unlikely to contest: a correction of a spelling error for example.
• Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Italian_inventions_and_discoveries&diff=prev&oldid=938832772 your change was not an irrelevant spelling fix and in fact limited Machiavelli's political philosophy to a grossly simplified view from which it is wise thing to distance oneself. You deliberately ignored a reliable source with proper quotation, coming from the Treccani Encyclopedia. This is not what editors can do. You cannot decide whether a source is not reliable enough, unreliable sources are already blacklisted by Wikipedia. You can ask for a third party expert opinion on that though. Because Treccani summarizes knowledge, while individual scholars usually express their thesis, I would say it is more suited than other personal opinions by specific authors.
• Seems to me that WP:SNEAKY is a legit wikipedia policy, and a good faith revert because of vandalism or supposed vandalism does not constitute a violation of the policies of wikipedia. I am looking forward to a constructive debate mediated by an admin or experienced editor. So far only one of them ever replied to me on Wikipedia. On the contrary "if I were to notify administrators of that remark, it will 'most surely end in a block'" seems more a personal intimidation to me than it is to use a template.
• Every edit: plain and simple misinformation and calumny. I only undid your minor edit of the definition of Machiavellianism. Therefore this is a minor revert. You might want to take a look at the wikipedia page about Machiavellianism where it is written: Machiavellianism as a trope, or "popular discourse",[1] in political history is a pejorative term for the supposed political philosophy of the Italian Renaissance diplomat Niccolò Machiavelli, "a negative caricature of Machiavellian ideology as godless, scheming and self-interested

--TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 10:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

Do not accuse other editors of Vandalizing or Censoring content as you did here. Such claims are considered tendentious editing and can lead to editorial sanctions. thank you Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

removing sourced material is vandalism. No specific username was reported in the edit summary. Also, tendentious editing is both adding or removing. TriangoloDiTartaglia (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries

Hello, TriangoloDiTartaglia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Introduction to Italian inventions and discoveries".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)