Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri

Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Helpsome. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Helpsome. Sorry, I don't understand. What have you undone? I cannot find any intervention of yours. Thanks! EdoLV (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link you added to Zaharia Stancu. Either you are using multiple names or there is a team of you (like GIO.CARELLA) whose sole purpose here is to add links to rightpronunciation.com. Helpsome (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok,Helpsome understood. Please, be careful before blaming: as you probably know, accusing other people of non existent violations is a bullying behaviour which is by no means tolerated here.-) I am not GIO.CARELLA. He is a student who appreciates a website I am managing at Roma Tre University. My editing of Zaharia Stancu was an experiment made to help him in his intention to link Wiki Pages still lacking the right pronunciation of the entry to that website, which contains reliable audio pronunciations of internationally relevant names (each already with a link to Wikipedia). I think your undoing is unmotivated, though: the "sole purpose" you are mentioning (as if it was a bad one) seems to be a small but real improvement of Wikipedia, which shall be welcome (judging from some advice I got about it on Village Pump). No problem, anyway. All the best, EdoLV (talk) 05:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not bullying you and I don't appreciate multiple people using various venues to try and get their spam into wikipedia. Yes it is a bad thing to be a single purpose account that only adds external links. It is called spamming. Helpsome (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Most kind Helpsome, you may indeed be felt as bullying me because you uttered (and now you repeat) vacuous accusations where you presuppose what, instead, needs demonstration; namely, that I use multiple names (wrong), or that certain links are spam (wrong again). The problem is not whether one or more people do something, but what they do. Useful links are welcome on Wiki, this is what one can get from the most authoritative texts on external links, which I don't need to quote (but I can if necessary). So, they are not spam. No matter who inserts them. Now, right pronunciations are useful information, right or not? Please answer something to this, instead of repeating your mantra as if I had not written what I have. Thanks. EdoLV (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I made no accusation. I asked a question. Spam is spam. Helpsome (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and useful links are useful links: not the same as spam. May I ask you to rethink a bit, especially about the actual usefulness of pronunciations on Wiki? I would really appreciate. I think that sometimes one has immediate reactions (me too! and very often) that can be changed by deeper reflection. Best, EdoLV (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SPAMMER: Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you are here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody has heard of yet, you are in the wrong place.

You have been told that your links don't belong here but you keep arguing. Please drop the condescension about how everyone else needs to rethink your spamming. Helpsome (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I see you go on ignoring the issue. Useful links are welcome on Wikipedia. Unuseful links are not. So, do you maintain that pronunciations of names are not useful? Why don't you answer? At this point, it is not difficult to understand why,-D As for the appearance of the site, since it was misleading it has been fixed, what is wrong with this? EdoLV (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I realize that convincing you is not important to me. Not if it requires enduring such a non-discussion. Thanks for having given, though not motivated, your opinion. Bye. EdoLV (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What is a "useful link" is not something to be decided by the person running the website they are trying to add into wikipedia. You have a clear conflict of interest and the fact that you ignore this fact makes it obvious that you aren't here to work with others and benefit wikipedia but instead just want to promote your own website. Helpsome (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, conflict of interest means two interests conflicting. As it is explained in the Wikipedia page about external links, they must be considered against the interest of Wiki if they occupy space without giving useful info, and they must be considered as promoting the interest of Wiki if they contain useful information. Obviously, whether the source suffers or enjoys the fact of being linked does not matter at all. That would matter to evious children, it doesn't to an adult institution. EdoLV (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you understand how many times I have had this exact same conversation with people pushing to add their links to wikipedia? People with a clear conflict of interest always claim those rules don't apply to them. They always claim that this is somehow a different case. What is best for wikipedia is not to be inundated with spam. You want to add your spam. That is two interests conflicting. You can keep arguing with the same talking points but I have heard it all before. Helpsome (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I assume you are incapable to give reasons. You can only presuppose that something is spam, without explaining why. You may even be right, but you are not able to show it. All this has a precise name, and, as Goethe (among others) already noticed, it is something one should always stay away from; which I will do from now. EdoLV (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

So every reason I have given now didn't happen because you don't want to admit it? Helpsome (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)