Gentile Thomas.W,
L'invito a contribuire in modo costruttivo alla stesura di Wikipedia è rivolto a tutti.
Visita la pagina Aiuto:Modifica se desideri saperne di più.
Tuttavia, modifiche distruttive o improprie, come quelle effettuate sulla pagina Longobardi, sono considerate vandalismi. Ulteriori azioni similari potrebbero portare al blocco in scrittura della tua utenza senza ulteriori avvertimenti.
Per favore, rispetta il lavoro altrui: segui le regole e usa il buon senso.--CastagNa 00:13, 19 giu 2016 (CEST)
- La rimozione ingiustificata di contenuto con motivazione falsa nel campo oggetto è vandalismo. Così come la rimozione dell'avviso che te lo segnala. Per cortesia, evita. Grazie, --CastagNa 00:01, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)
- [@ Castagna] If you check crosswiki contributions you'll find that I've had an account on the English language Wikipedia for ten years now, and have made ~37,000 edits there, as well as a considerable number of edits on other language versions of Wikipedia, so I'm not a new user. The content I removed from Longobardi was unsourced non-neutral personal commentary that would never have been allowed to remain on en-WP (see en:WP:NPOV), which is why I removed it, but you obviously have totally different rules here. And removing messages and warnings (and the warning you gave me was IMO totally unjustified...) is allowed on en-WP, and is just seen as a sign of having read it. I came here after a series of POV edits on en:Lombards by an Italian IP-hopper, edits that resulted in both that article and another article being protected, and I wanted to see if the same IP-hopper was active here, but the "welcome" you've given me gives me no desire to continue editing here, or even caring about what happens to articles here on it-WP. Thomas.W (msg) 00:34, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)
- I am sorry if you cannot understand Italian, but... maybe you should not edit articles you cannot understad. That content is not an «unsourced non-neutral personal commentary»: it is a well-referenced Paul the Deacon's phrase (Historia Langobardorum, I, 8) and there are no reasons to remove it. Bye, --CastagNa 00:43, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)
- From what I've seen (in non-Italian sources) Paul the Deacon doesn't ridicule the entire "founding myth", as the text I removed suggests, only small parts of it. Making the comment I removed fit in with what the Italian IP-hopper has repeatedly done on en-WP, that is remove any mention in any article of a Scandinavian origin of the Lombards... Thomas.W (msg) 01:00, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)
- I am afraid you don't understand what our article say: that Paul the Deacon's citation is referred to the Wotan myth and the legend of "long-beards", reported in the chapter "Mito". The Scandinavian origin of Lombards is sustained by our article («La coincidenza della Scandinavia meridionale con la patria originaria dei Longobardi è comunemente accettata dalla storiografia moderna»: "The coincidence of Southern Scandinavia and Lomabrds' urheimat is commonly accepted by modern historiography"). I am pretty sure of it: I wrote the main part of this article...--CastagNa 01:37, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)
- From what I've seen (in non-Italian sources) Paul the Deacon doesn't ridicule the entire "founding myth", as the text I removed suggests, only small parts of it. Making the comment I removed fit in with what the Italian IP-hopper has repeatedly done on en-WP, that is remove any mention in any article of a Scandinavian origin of the Lombards... Thomas.W (msg) 01:00, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)
- I am sorry if you cannot understand Italian, but... maybe you should not edit articles you cannot understad. That content is not an «unsourced non-neutral personal commentary»: it is a well-referenced Paul the Deacon's phrase (Historia Langobardorum, I, 8) and there are no reasons to remove it. Bye, --CastagNa 00:43, 22 giu 2016 (CEST)