- 1 Talkback
- 2 Italian GDP
- 3 A page you started has been reviewed!
- 4 Roman unification of Italy
- 5 disruptive edit
- 6 Riccardo Giacconi
- 7 News about Myanmar
- 8 Clarification request on Racism in Italy
- 9 Hagia Sophia
- 10 G7 and G8 in main presentation of Italy article
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for November 1
- 12 Zeyrek Mosque: Difference between revisions
- 13 Italian Empire Map
- 14 Seven Hills
- 15 Italians
- 16 Reply
- 17 Happy New Year Alessandro57!
- 18 Hagia Sophia
- 19 My new username
- 20 Hagia Sophia, again
- 21 Formal mediation has been requested
- 22 Ostia (Rome)
- 23 Request for mediation rejected
- 24 Rome
- 25 Talk:Languages of Europe
- 26 Okay
- 27 Mogadishu
- 28 Arap Mosque
- 29 Italian GDP
- 30 Venetian Republic (2014)
- 31 Uzbekistan
- 32 Fondiaria-Sai
- 33 Language issue in Italy
- 34 Kastellorizo
- 35 Removal Link from Hagia Sophia and Bosphorus Page
- 36 why?
- 37 Armenia discussion
- 38 Thanks.
- 39 Good day
- 40 Country map
- 41 Country map
- 42 Anonymous troublemaker at 184.108.40.206
- 43 So you're attracted to brown-haired women huh? :-P
- 44 You're supposed to assume good faith, Alex
- 45 You might want to take a look at this
- 46 I spotted another form of canvassing on your part, Alex
- 47 Speaking of "don't shoot yourself in the foot"...
- 48 DYK for Florestano Di Fausto
- 49 July 2014
- 50 Big mistake in Italy presentation
- 51 Early bird
- 52 About Central Asia
Link in UNESCO
Why did you remove the edition that I created in UNESCO page?
Please, don't misunderstand my question, I only want to know the reasons and learn about it.
You are using the old GDP.You must check [[ List of countries by past and future gdp (nominal). I posted it on the Talk of "Econmy of Italy".
A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, Alessandro57!
Wikipedia editor Modern.Jewelry.Historian just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
You need to make the references in line (ref number after the text they support). See Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners or this could get deleted by the bots.
To reply, leave a comment on Modern.Jewelry.Historian's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Roman unification of Italy
Hi, I have edit the page "Italy" adding Roman unification not because I am a fascist (fortunately I am not) but because I thought that it could be a right thing. I have seen that in the page "Egypt" it talked about the unification of Egypt done by pharaohs and they have inserted it in the same part where I wrote about the Roman unification of Italy. I know that Italy and Roman Italy are completely different, but I think that also modern Egypt and Ancient Egypt are different. I don't know why we shouldn't insert the Roman unification. Excuse me for my horrible English. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Ok thank you for your answers you have been clear and I agree with you 1300 years are too may to say that Roman Italy and Italian Republic are linked. I will not modified more until have discussed about it in the talk page. Thank you and ciao!! -- Nick.mon (talk) 9:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't make edits such as this which amount to falsification of ITN criteria. Given your political statements, further edits like this will be looked on poorly if reported to WP:ANI. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hallo Medeis,
I just read your message on mytalk page, and I am puzzled: what's the problem with my edit? And which are my "political statements"? Thanks a lot an advance for explaining it, Alex2006 (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- I just read the requirements for updating an article in the news, and I start to understand...one sentence is not enough. Sorry, it is the first time that I propose a blurb in the news, my sincere apologies. Now it remains only to understand which are my "political statements"... Alex2006 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
C'e' scritto nationality: Italian, American. Perche' quindi cambi quello che correggo?
I can't find it.
News about Myanmar
Clarification request on Racism in Italy
Why do you prefer to stick with December 25th from Janin(1953) in the lead paragraph? When Mango and Scott make an explicit note on pg 316 of their translation of The Chronicle of Theophenes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813" Clarendon Press, Oxford 1997: (AM 6030, AD 537/8) "2. Theophanes' precise date should be accepted....". Surely, Mango and Scott (1997) were just as aware of Janin (1953) and respectful of his opinions, and wanted to get the date right as a matter of historical accuracy based upon the written record? You yourself must have good reason to supersede Mango and Scott (1997). I just don't know what they are and how they pertain to the rules of wikipedia. So please explain. Thanks. Neubauer95476 (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex. I appreciate you looking into this, you'll save me a trip to the library to thumb though Janin again. Just to give you a heads up. There is also a good study of the etymology of the naming of the Hagia Sophia in this article by Granville Downey "The Name of the Church St. Sophia in Constantinople" Dumbarton Oaks Washington DC Harvard Theological Review, January 1959, Vol 52 Issue 01. "Logos" does not appear with the name apparently until about 813 and 916 in Theophones Continuatis. Procopious in both "Buildings" and "Wars" writing between the first and second dedications refers to The Great Church simply as "Sophia" without any modifiers. Neubauer95476 (talk) 06:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
So Alex, you are so right that I don't understand the Wikipedia rules :-(. But I am willing to learn. I do understand that you are the godfather of the Hagia Sophia page, and have an opinion regarding Janin. As a researcher, I am trained to look between the lines, and surely Mango and Scott were addressing an old issue when they added the note about the date in question. I gather from this that Janin probably argued the case for Justinian wanting Christmas Day, while the surviving fragment used in Theophenes and Malalas has a written date, and Mango and Scott emphasize the written over the conjecture. So my question for you is: why are you personally taking sides? Certainly Mango and Scott's remarks should be in the lead paragraph regarding the written record, while Janin's conjecture can be added in a section regarding a critical analysis? But then again, you are the godfather :-) Neubauer95476 (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
G7 and G8 in main presentation of Italy article
The presentation of Italy is ADEQUATE ,anyway G7 and G8 must be set like for all othe states in the presentation article at the beginning when are listed the institutions of which is member the state.There are the Symbols of Italy and the image of the Flag and of the Italian President.The ranking and the prestige of these MUST for honesty and correct behaviour be respected like in other states articles.Non si possono postare i Simboli del paese senza associarne un'adeguata e COMPLETA presentazione.Questo viene rispettato per altri stati come ad esempio United Kingdom e quindi questo va rispettato anche per l'Italia.Grazie-Thanks)Glc72 (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Egon Bretscher, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Engadine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Zeyrek Mosque: Difference between revisions
Hello Alessandro57, and thanks for your input. The link Conquest of Constantinople leads to Fall of Constantinople and is used in daily Turkish language. Thanks, Yozer1 (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Italian Empire Map
You are not worth me spending my time on. If you can't even understand what I am saying - and calling it vandalism to boot - then I am wasting my time. When I find the time I'll take it to the talk page and elsewhwere where necessary. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- I made an edit as is the nature of the WP, you reverted my edit and suggested I discuss it "if [I] don't like it". It is not a matter of liking - it is a question of logic, pure and simple. If there really are seven hills (at least 230 cities in the world claim to be built on seven hills), they they have been there for billions of years, it has nothing to do with them wanting to copy Rome.
- Can you please help me against the IP's disruptive edits? --Enok (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your invitation, I will join your discussion as soon as possible. The "Italians" article really need an update. I tried to do job but unfortunately some users seem blind towards reality for some reasons.--Francotti (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year Alessandro57!
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, CeeGee 10:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My new username
Hagia Sophia, again
In accordance with WP:BRD, as you have frequently cited in order to intimidate users from attempting to improve Wikipedia, I would kindly ask that you refrain from editing the Hagia Sophia article and adding elements which make it even worse than the original state without any consensus whatsoever. For any disagreements, I encourage you to pursue a civil dialogue in the talk page and respond to valid arguments and concerns rather than dismissing criticism. Thank you. --` (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello again, my remarks were directed towards your "museum" edit, which you have gracefully removed. I thank you. However, I would kindly mention that I had made no attempt to change the naming. That had been done by another user. Furthermore, your refusal to continue the discussion on the talk page and address my concerns effectively guarantees that no "consensus" will ever be reached. If you are truly willing to engage in a discussion, please do continue our discussion on the talk page - I welcome it. However, please do realize that as it is you who has, to date, failed to defend your stance against my concerns, it is up to you to either continue the discourse or call for third-party intervention, not me, and that my stance, rather than yours, will prevail by default should you continue to not respond to my concerns. Thank you for your understanding. --` (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hello for a third time, although the necessity of having to solicit a response to my main argument for the seventh time is distressing. So, one more time: all Byzantine buildings that may or may not have been mosques but are now museums have their names listed in a way so that Greek comes first, including the Hagia Sophia's names as listed in the parentheses within introductory paragraph of the same article. Thus, the different order in the listing of names within the infobox is both confusing and conflicting with the rest of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's editing process cannot occur if you stubbornly and arrogantly claim victory and block changes without ever even remotely adequately addressing or even acknowledging concerns the other party has raised, and certainly cannot occur when you proceed to send rude, threatening (never mind poorly spell-checked) communication to other Wikipedians. My request is simple: please address the concern I have been civilly directing at you for the past month, which I have included, as always, in my message despite your continued ignorance of it, or please stop accusing me of failing to seek consensus.--` (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Thank you for addressing my concern for the first time in half a month. Now we can actually have a legitimate conversation on friendly terms. I honestly don't see why the lead-in should be changed rather than the infobox, seeing that the lead-ins for other Orthodox churches turned mosques turned museums also have lead-ins that feature Greek first, which would make changing the lead-ins a much more disruptive thing to do. Moreover, while I understand there isn't a rule stating that lead-ins and infoboxes should correspond, they should to maximize Wikipedia's utility and clarity to the reader, no?
Formal mediation has been requested
Request for mediation rejected
Hi. Mogadishu and Rome are not sister cities. The link alludes to a novel/fiction, not reality. In actuality, Mogadishu's sister cities are Almaty and Istanbul. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Alessandro57! It's about your removal of the inscription's image. It is a fact that the inscription is attached next to the mosque's entrance. I would expect that the text points out to this misleading fact rather than ignoring it at all. Cheers. --CeeGee 06:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
All main articles similar to Italy like USA or France and many other main ones set already IMF 2014 data for GDP.the italian nominal GDP in 2014 is according to IMF 2,171 trillions $,the GDP ppp 1,808 trillions $,the nominal GDP per capita 36216 $ and the GDP ppp per capita is 30803 $.You can find all these data in the article List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) and related ones based on IMF Economic Database Outlook, april 2014.Italy it's ranked 8th and not 9th in fact Italy overtakes Russia.It's time to update in front of evidence.Thanks.220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
If you edit the page "Uzbekistan" without asking for the opinions of other users regarding your edit you will be blocked from the editing the article "Uzbekistan."
Language issue in Italy
Hi Alessandro. I used again the note a because Law number 482 of 15 December 1999 says that those languages are just protected by law (it's different from recognized). The same law states that Italian is the official language. The only languages recognized and co-official with Italian in particular regions and territories are French, German, Ladin and Slovene whose recognition is explained by Italian constitution and bilateral treaties (and this is already explained in the note a of the infobox).--EnStat (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
My name is Pantazis Houlis and I live in Kastellorizo. I am not sure of the purpose of deleting the link Kastellorizo.net. To me it seems you have not navigated yourself enough into it to appreciate its content.
1. It contains valuable information (especially the Greek version) regarding the origin of the name, including photos of the covers of extremely important books. 2. Direct links towards (extremely difficult to find for a normal user) to important old videos (1929 and 1943). 3. Direct communication with the seismic spot at the island (it was added recently). 4. Recent updates of the island's important phones for anyone to use (not just for "tourists"). 5. Many maps, including a huge old one (for archive purposes) which was directly donated by the Peiraius Kastellorizian Association and we have been given permission to put it online. More old maps to be added, as we have not scanned them yet.
Apart from this, it contains a lot more useful information, and I do not understand the scope of branding this site as "touristic", because it has absolutely no commercial gain in anyway (no paid advertisements).
Please explain to me this action. I believe you are using your status to have your way, and this is not fair for the island.
Removal Link from Hagia Sophia and Bosphorus Page
I have just received the notice of external link removal about Hagia Sophia and Bosphorus Pages with the reason of violation.
However seeking your kind review of pages that linked has pure content and has no commercial use.
Respecting your kind judgement related with rules of wikipedia.
- ho capito e grazie della risposta :) salutamu e bacemu li mani :D --SURDUS(VII) 17:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You undid my removal of the image
. I explained the reason in my original post. This image is the same as on Yerevan site (capital of Armenia) and on Erivan fortress site (the old Yerevan). Note that no other picture repetitively appears in all those sites. I think the administrators should watch for these instances and prevent such cases themselves.
Allow me to explain you a most simple concept: you (neither I, or anyone else, for that matter) can decide, establish and publish, which number is enough to come under the definition of many.
Perhaps you will fail to understand, so I'll use a most simple example: I may have eaten 20 candies, but you cannot decide they're many. At least, not on an encyclopedia! ( ;) ). How dare you judge on my indulgence in the joys of sugar?! 20 candies may not be many for my stomach. They may be few.
So I demand you at once to quit this disgusting hatemongering. State the number of these alleged camps, and source your statement. That many will disappear, till then. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I think the map reversal from wiki's administrators should have been done few days ago when the long-standing dark green/light green map was replaced with dark green only. Based on wiki experience, a country map shows in light green uncontrolled territories (e.g., Georgia, Pakistan, Ukraine). Why Azerbaijan is an exception? Thanks, 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, why did you revert the map of Azerbaijan with uncontrolled territories to the one without? All countries on wikipedia with uncontrolled territories are shown in dark-light greet palette. It was the case with this country too until few days ago. Do I miss something here? Cyber-Policeman (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Alessandro,
Please see additional information on the Azerbaijan talk page regarding the map issue. Note that the map of Azerbaijan was shown in light green/dark green colors for more than 95% of time since November 2012 already based on discussion on the talk page. It was reverted to a single color format without following a proper procedure.
Anonymous troublemaker at 126.96.36.199
Hello Alex- I see from the talk page of the above IP that you have also run into trouble with this person. Have you brought it to anyone else's attention? I'm considering putting something on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I'll watch here for your answer. Eric talk 23:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again- FYI, I reported the IP on ANI and at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism#User-reported. Eric talk 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo Eric, and thanks for writing! Yes, I agree, I was also going to report him. Anyway, I think that he is a typical case of disruptive Editor, so he belongs to ANI. We will see there :-) Alex2006 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input at the ANI, Alex. I think it might be helpful to change lager to camps so more anglophone readers will understand, and to change the South Tyrol link to the article's history. But I wanted to check with you first before editing your comment. What do you think? Eric talk 12:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo Eric, and thanks for writing! Yes, I agree, I was also going to report him. Anyway, I think that he is a typical case of disruptive Editor, so he belongs to ANI. We will see there :-) Alex2006 (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
So you're attracted to brown-haired women huh? :-P
- Brown-haired people are extremely rare in Kuwait, but I'm one of them. :-P Have you ever been to places like Kuwait, Dubai, etc? :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You're supposed to assume good faith, Alex
Hi Alex. I just read a comment you wrote in the talk page of user Kwamikagami:
Good morning, actually on Talk:Turkish language there is a discussion of the same time that you are having about Azeri language. I would be glad if you could bring there your opinion. The problem there does not seem to be big one at first glance, but this edit is part of an agenda, pursued on different articles, to "Europize" different languages and peoples. Alex2006 (talk) 09:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, you're supposed to assume good faith with regard to the contributions of all editors, not the least of whom are the well-established editors of Wikipedia. Your assumption that my edits are part of an agenda to "Europeanize" different languages and peoples is a false accusation on your part. Furthermore, all edits I have made to these articles are indisputably factual. I was rather disappointed to read that comment from you.
Last but not least, if you want to invite another editor for a third opinion, then by all means do so. But the fact you chose this specific editor -- who was involved in disruptive editing, deliberate removal of content and abuse of tags vandalism -- could only be seen as an attempt to gain consensus via canvassing. By all means, Wikipedia allows us to invite other editors to offer their views, but bringing this to the attention of user Kwamikagami, who was edit-warring and refusing to discuss his content dispute with me in another article talk page just recently, is unfortunately a form of canvassing.
sorry, I don`t agree: first of all, I think that you are doing your edits in perfect good faith: you are just trying to let pass your POV that some countries (Azerbaijan, Turkey) are a little bit more European than they are in reality, and you really believe it: there are several edits of you that points all in this direction. Now, at the moment there are three editors who all have the same problem with you, in three different article, about the same issue. This means that we have here a general problem, and I find just normal to discuss this problem all together. Canvassing, means to invite friendly, uninvolved users to support your views, but this is not the case: moreover, in that case I would have invited him to join this discussion with a mail, instead of writing a message just below a message of you, where you were waiting for an answer: this shows full transparency. Good morning :-) Alex2006 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry Alex, but you weren't assuming good faith regarding my edits, otherwise you wouldn't have falsely accused me of being part of an agenda to "Europeanize" certain languages and peoples. All of my edits on Wikipedia have attempted to make the articles more neutral, informative and encyclopedic. My edits have made articles more consistent. The inconsistency of including the likes of Azerbaijan and Turkey in some Europe-related articles (but not in others) had to be corrected. I've made articles more consistent and more neutral, and expanded the definitions of certain terms with reliable sources. Therefore, if there are people who have a problem with me stating the facts then that's their problem. All information, concerning countries at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, that I've added to Europe-related articles have been cited by reliable sources, therefore for you to suggest to another member that I have an agenda constitutes a personal attack. Good morning to you too. ;-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Last but not least, I'm not trying to push any POV. That also constitutes not assuming good faith on your part, unfortunately. If you must know, there are many things I disagree with, but it doesn't stop me from trying to make articles encyclopedic. For instance, there's a particular political party that I downright despise, but every time a disputable edit is made to its page, I have to remove it because it's denied by the party, even if I believe what the edit says. I'm not here to push a POV. I'm here to classify things correctly and neutrally. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You might want to take a look at this
User talk:188.8.131.52 - you reverted most of his edits, but see the link I added at the bottom and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2 - as you can see, besides the fact that he was clearly deliberately using misleading edit summaries, those edits were in violation of the ArbCom decision. I'm guessing it might be a blocked editor but I could be wrong. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I spotted another form of canvassing on your part, Alex
Before you deny it, here are the problems with your messages to these users:
1. With Kwamikagami, you have used a tactic known as "campaigning", by falsely suggesting to the user that I have an agenda to Europeanize certain languages and peoples.
2. With Psychonaut, you have used a tactic known as "vote-stacking", since you are already aware of the dispute I have with the said user in another topic, and therefore are fully aware of what opinions he may hold when it comes to disputes that I'm involved with.
This is the message you sent to Psychonaut:
Good morning, actually on Talk:Turkish language there is a discussion related to your discussion about Turkish in Languages of Europe. I would be glad if you could bring there your opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I will say it one last time, Alex. If you try to game the system by attracting consensus again, I'll have you reported to the admins. You have actually rendered your contribution in the Languages of Europe talk page irrelevant by resorting to these tactics. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Kutsuit, Alex's contacting me was probably not canvassing, because according to the guideline, contacting "editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" with a neutrally worded invitation to contribute is expressly permited as a form of appropriate notification. You and I were already engaging in a discussion of European vs. Asian Turkish speakers elsewhere. As long as Alex wasn't selective in contacting me (to the exclusion of other people involved in other discussions on the same topic), this was not problematic. It certainly wasn't votestacking as I never took him up on his offer to participate.
- This is the second or third time in just a few minutes where you've issued bogus warnings to users based on imagined rule violations. (In one recent example, you told me that I broke a rule about issuing user talk templates. However, the "rule" you linked to is merely an essay, and in any case I never issued any user talk template to you.) Please cool it with the accusations. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your post Psychonaut. As I explained to Kuitsuit, I invited you and another user to discuss this issue together since all three of us were involved in discussions on very similar subjects at the same time with her on three different articles. Moreover, if someone with some experience wants really to canvass, he/she uses the email, and not the talk page. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of "don't shoot yourself in the foot"...
Speaking of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot, I strongly advise you to take caution before escalating matters by bringing administrators into our disputes. The last thing you want to do is let the administrators know about your canvassing (i.e. campaigning and vote-stacking), edit-warring, deliberate removal of sourced content (i.e. blanking/illegitimate vandalism), stalking, false accusations (of me having an agenda and a POV to push), personal attacks, inability to assume good faith, etc. You've been involved in all of these things and perhaps more, therefore my advice to you is to settle the disputes you have with me in a civilized way. If you want to escalate the issue, it's your call, but trust me it wont end good for either of us. If, however, you want to settle your disputes properly -- and trust me, I've settled disputes with so many editors before you -- then I suggest you stop your personal attacks, false accusations, canvassing and removal of sourced content, and look for a compromise. That's my final suggestion. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
DYK for Florestano Di Fausto
|On 24 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Florestano Di Fausto, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Florestano Di Fausto was described as the "Architect of the Mediterranean" for his works in Italy, Albania, the Dodecanese (building in Rhodes pictured) and Libya? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Florestano Di Fausto. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.|
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Big mistake in Italy presentation
Italy in its presentation is ranked 9th as nominal GDP in 2012 according to IMF data and this wrong.In 2012 (see List of countries by past and future GDP (nominal) )Italy was ranked 8th after the last revision in April 2014.In 2014 April data Italy is ranked 8th too by the 2014 year.This shuould be updated please like for all countries .All countries are ranked by 2014 data by IMF.if you check Russia is ranked 9th so we can't be 9th neither in 2012 neither in 2014.In this page are the Symbols of the Italian State that must be respected for their prestige.Can you updated these data?If you don't understand me ask me ,i'm italian too.Thanks Alessandro.Gladio4772 (talk) 14:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo User:Gladio4772, you could do it too: is there any special reason why you are asking me to do it? Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 05:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I can't unlock Italy article.Non posso aprire la voce "Italia".Andrebbe scritto che l'Italia e' ottava e non nona come pil nominale secondo i dati di Aprile 2014 del FMI.Non solo e' vecchio il dato sul 2012 nella presentazione ma anche sbagliato.Non so come fare...andrebbe scritto nella presentazione e nella parte dell'economia della voce Italy che l'Italia ' ottava per pil nominale nel 014 secondo l'FMI.Ho fatto presente nel profilo che sono invalido bipolare con forti disturbi.I wrote you in italian to make all easier.Can ou help me to correct in the right way?Thanks a lot!Gladio4772 (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
You must be an "early to beeed and, early to risee, makes a man healthy and wealthy and wiiiiiiiise" case. What time is it in Italia? Last night you forgot to sign your last discussion. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's correct, Why should I have a User Name :-) . I go to sleep at 9, and wake up at 5 (aaaargh!). Now here it's 7:35, GMT+1. And what time is it where you live? BTW, Iyi Bayramlar! Alex2006 (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. 8:41. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
About Central Asia
Why do you delete "It is one of the six independent Turkic states." from Central Asia Turkic countries' pages. This is not wrong information. I live in there and you cannot do that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiserpnemonia (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)