User talk:Enok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is my talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).


Re: Singolare o plurale?[edit]

In risposta alla tua domanda, nel caso dei Rangers Football Club hai perfettamente ragione e suggerirei il singolare, visto che "Club" è il sostantivo. Però nel caso in cui venga usato solo "Rangers" invece che dell'intero nome (cioè senza "FC"), allora il plurale è corretto. Spesso questa confusione è basata sulle differenze tra British English e American English, infatti, le squadre sportive negli Stati Uniti vengono sempre chiamate per il plurale. Spero di essere stato utile! Do U(knome)? yes...or no 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


Good stuff on the merging, needed to be done. Geoff B (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, first in the Expansions section of HOI2, Iron Cross has been announced to be a expansion to HOI2. . Also, Arsenal of Democracy and Darkest Hour, are related games using the same engine, timeperiod. Should at least be mentioned. All these games, (Arsenal of Democracy, Darkest Hour, Iron Cross are under the Hearts of Iron banner. Iron Cross is a direct expansion however. --Will 01:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancykiller65 (talkcontribs)

May i put back what you edited out? --Fancykiller65 (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Please provide an edit summary when editing articles. This helps other editors. It can be very short, like "roman num" or "no src". Please read Always provide an edit summary. --Lexein (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Italian Navy[edit]

Sorry to talk in English but I do in this way in order to be understood, Work in progress template is present, there are many oters world navy pages with rank structures.

Scusami, ma ci sono pagine come quella sulla US Navy e molte altre che nonostante la pagina sui soli gradi hanno anche una sezione apposita, non vedo cosa ci sia di male, il template WIP è presente, stasera quando torno dal lavoro finisco le modifiche che già per la sola sezione degli ufficiali mi sono costate 2 ore di fatica. Ciao e grazie --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Chi dice che la pagina della Royal Navy è da prendere come modello? la pagina sulla US Navy è già lunga, che mi dice sulle altre? Who here is saying that the Royal Navy page should be taken as a model? The US Navy page is too long, what about the oters navy pages? --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Ho già chiesto io il parere di 1 admin, sei pregato di attendere, ripristino per l'ennesima volta. --Nicola Romani (talk) 06:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Countries list[edit]

Can you provide me a DIRECT link to your source, because those numbers that you are providing are very strange and doesn't match indivisual wikipedia military pages. Sopher99 (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but those soilders are out of military age, so 2,400,000 is the current amount ready, but I understand your reasoning. The USA and Russia stats are going to be kept the way they are, as their websites tell differentSopher99 (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I am keeping USA and russia military where they are, I won't change the others you made. Sopher99 (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I found the solution to part of our problem. those 20,000,000 in russia are POTENTIAL reservits. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopher99 (talkcontribs)
Not only is it reliable, it is MORE Reliable, it is the Russian intelligence agency themselves. You book is from a think tank that is non russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopher99 (talkcontribs)
Did you even read it? It is published by the strategic services institute. The article is an excerpt. It is reliable. Sopher99 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Read it. "This is an extraction of a no-copyrighted work, The reserve policies of nations: a comparative analysis, by Richard Weitz and published by the Strategic Studies Institute. You can read the full text in" Sopher99 (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I seem antagonistic or anything, I don't mean the conflict personally. Sopher99 (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't even add the footnote the way i wanted as it wouldn't let me place it next to the reserve, so now is next to the name, and it is small, there are 19 other countries with notes just like russia so its fair game. Sopher99 (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani Armed Forces[edit]

You are undoing my edits on Pakistani Armed Forces and List of countries by number of troops again and again. I have provided reference for my contribution which are not unreliable sources. If you see the last line of this page, you will find Sources: US Library of Congress; Central Intelligence Agency. More ever Daily Times also mentioned about reserve troops of Pakistani Military, though figures are not mentioned. Please be careful while reverting sourced material. --TalhaDiscuss © 10:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have that seen the source. It does not say that Paramilitary forces are reserve forces. Paramilitary force is something else and reserve force is some thing else. What is the issue with you? Off course The Military Balance 2010 has not mentioned about reserve forces of Pakistan but it doesn't means that there no reserve force of Pakistan. This reserve force is mentioned at other reliable sources like 1 and 2.
If you look at The Military Balance 2010 again, you will find that Kosovo is not mentioned in it. It doesn't means that there is no force of Kosovo. For this purpose other reliable sources are provided in List of countries by number of troops. Similar is the case with reserve force of Pakistani Armed Forces. So now please stop undoing this again and again. thanks --TalhaDiscuss © 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible violation at List of countries by number of troops[edit]

This sort of thing [2] [3] is going to get you really seriously blocked, Enok. You are not permitted to make any edits for the duration of your block, from any IP or user account. I highly recommend that you do not persist. I look forward to hearing from you when your block expires later today. (If you did not in fact make those edits from IP, please kindly disregard this message). WikiDao(talk) 17:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And that goes for, too. WikiDao(talk) 17:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm Enok. I just canceled some vandalism (which you have restored). I never expected to break the rules.--Enok (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I revert your edits? --Enok (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I'm still blocked.--Enok (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
"Editors are barred from editing their talk pages while blocked only if they engage in disruptive behavior during the block (repeatedly posting repetitive {unblock} requests, posting personal attacks or other egregiously incivil material, continuing the same policy violations or conduct issues that led to the original block, etc.). Blocked editors may also (again, subject to the caveats noted) still communicate with other editors by email, including the blocking administrator." per TenOfAllTrades, on the basis of applicable wikilaws and wikiquette I'm sure ;)
I would leave my comments above up at least until your block expires. I would also wait before commenting further on the dispute at List of countries by number of troops; and I certainly would not recommend that you make any more edits to that article until that conflict is resolved. WikiDao(talk) 19:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao is exactly right. The block means you are barred from from editing any pages except for your account's talk page. Editing other pages via another account or an IP address is the sort of conduct that can result in lengthy blocks or even indefinite bans. I accept your comments above, your ready admission, and the fact that you have ceased editing the page as proof that you were honestly unaware of this issue. I also note that you did tone down your comments after committing to do so, and I trust that you won't edit outside of the block again.--Kubigula (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"List of countries by number of troops" dispute[edit]

Enok, now that your block for edit-warring has expired and you are permitted to edit freely again, let me caution you again about continuing to edit-war on that page editing the article in any way right now that might be interpreted as disruptive or belligerent. You will could easily get blocked again for that if you persist. We will sort it all out in the article once we have discussed the issue thoroughly and arrived at a consensus on the talk page. Please do not make any further changes to that page, no matter what changes are made for now or who makes them. It will all work out in the end, trust me. And I would prefer to have your involvement in that process for the sake of the quality of that article, which I know you have put quite a lot of work into already. Okay? Easy does it. :) WikiDao(talk) 04:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you did not understand. This has nothing to do with the dispute about Pakistan, but I restored a vandalism that had escaped in the confusion. Please, do not be prejudiced against me. Thanks. --Enok (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Still, Enok, I recommend you do nothing that looks in any way contentious or as if you may be continuing to edit war. Others may judge you more summarily than I right now, given your recent edit history. You don't want that. Nor do I. Please just do not edit the article at all until we have given consensus-reaching a fair try. I ask you this for the sake of the quality that you have provided and I know you are still trying to provide to WP. Let's just calmly, civilly, dispassionately proceed, okay? :) WikiDao(talk) 05:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I understand now, and I understood yesterday too. But this is not edit-war and has nothing to do with our dispute, right?--Enok (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
No, right, that edit in itself does not seem too problematic. Just be careful. I'm glad we understand each other. :) WikiDao(talk) 06:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent contributions to the "number of troops" talk page, Enok. Some of them though seemed deliberate alterations of some of my own signed contributions to that talk page. Now, I have not reverted those changes yet because I'm not sure if they might not actually improve the structure of that page and the setting of that discussion. Still, I wanted to call your attention to this line from WP:EQ: "Editing another editor's signed talk page comments is generally frowned upon, even if the edit merely corrects spelling or grammar." So please keep in mind that it can come across as a bit rude for you to make such changes without a civil explanation given, even if they do happen to improve in some way upon someone else's signed comments on talk pages. Thanks. WikiDao(talk) 21:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the second time I come blamed by you for things that I not did. These are not your comments, but are simple modifications to sections (Help:Section). Do you have any problem with me? --Enok (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I put those sections in yesterday as part of the comments I made to that talk page while you were on your block. I tried to structure the sections to best facilitate discussion about the points I made in those comments, and for ease-of-editing and reading the content of those section. They were my contributions. You may have improved upon them on that talk page, I haven't really considered it yet, but it was nevertheless an action on your part that is frowned upon by WP:EQ. (I do not know why you directed me to Help:Section).
I do not have a problem with you, Enok. I know you care a lot about the quality of this article. I am trying to help you resolve a dispute that has severely disrupted constructive editing of that article. All that I am asking is that you try to remain as WP:CIVIL as possible as we work on resolving that dispute. Okay? WikiDao(talk) 22:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I directed you on that page because you obviously do not know the difference between "another editor's signed talk page comments" and sections. I simply included the subsection "Third opinion etc" in the section "Pakistani armed forces" being part of it. Okay? (I do not know why you directed me to Wikipedia:CIVIL) --Enok (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I restored the original structure to the talk page because on consideration your changes did not seem to improve upon the purpose I intended for that structure (ie., clarity and ease of further discussion). I hope you are not going to WP:WIKILAWYER or WP:EDITWAR with me about this, Enok. There's no need. Please leave the sections I started as-is; you are of course welcome to structure your own different set of sections on that page if you want. WikiDao(talk) 22:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand why you want to separate the two discussions. --Enok (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Your latest slight alteration works for me, Enok. :) WikiDao(talk) 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi whats the origin of the text added in this edit?©Geni 18:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Arctic convoys[edit]

Thanks for replying to this. The problem with your edit was that the US/German hostilities before December 1941 were not an issue in the Arctic convoys, which ran between Britain and the Soviet Union, and with which the US took no part prior to their entry into the war. It was an issue in the North Atlantic, but is covered already in the article there. I haven't seen the source you quoted; did it say it was an issue in the Arctic? Xyl 54 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It talks about the Lend Lease program and the convoys to the USSR which clashed with the Germans (probably in the Norwegian Sea). In my opinion, however, even if they had fought in the Pacific or in the Mediterranean, would not be a bad idea to mention it in that article.--Enok (talk) 07:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You also appear to be involved in what is referred to as a "slow edit war" on a template - even though the reverts are not within the same 24 hr period, it can still lead to a block. Read WP:BRD closely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm reverting dirsuptive edits by blocked user and its sockpuppets. What is the problem? --Enok (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Note that when you report someone on ANI, you inadvertently created an atmosphere where people from all walks of life would come in to scrutinise you and the party you have reported. What I can see is you two edit warring on that article page and for which the two of you could have been blocked for violating the 3RR policy. Don't shoot yourself in the feet while you two are discussing, it doesn't make it easier for the discussion to move in the right direction as you've also created a kind of bad faith towards the other person despite your best effort at communicating with the other person. Who is to say that he isn't trying his best to talk to you? Try to understand that. FWIW, I've asked Bill to walk away to cool off (you should probably do the same too!) and he has promised me not to meddle in that article page again until he has done so. In this time, he won't be interacting with you anymore and I urge you not to poke anymore (per this observation → WP:BEAR) or you will be reported to ANI for tendentious editing behaviour, which is related to WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Take heed. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

My English is not the best, I know, (in fact my contribution to Wikipedia is limited to the insertion of data and sources), but in what circumstances I would have poked him or I would have given way to understand this? I've always been more than courteous, even in the face of his... little good-faith. Are you sure you have read that discussion, or you're limited to reading this talk page? Yes, I am now a bit ironic. --Enok (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Brunodam's content[edit]

I noticed you resurrected several of the articles I recently deleted, with much of the old content. I wonder where are you finding it, and could you use any help? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's documented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#MASS-scale ban evasion. Look up old content and if you think the bulk of it is usable but not properly readable from an external cache, let us know, myself and any other admin can fish it back out of the deleted revision storage. However, you should not copy and paste it verbatim, because they would now appear under your name, so that would be claiming authorship over something you didn't actually write yourself (the old text license allows for copying, but not without basic attribution). You should also avoid paraphrasing the same factoids from the old text without your own verification, because the banned user has had a tendency to write articles that weren't policy-compliant (this seems to have particularly applied to irredentism-related articles), which was obviously a contributing factor to them becoming a banned user. It's best if you try to verify the same references and then reconstruct the articles from that - that way you're sure there are both no copyright issues and no referencing issues. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There you go. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Here's what happens when you re-create Brunodam's article - he anonymously reposts it again :) Please verify. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Uniting for Consensus[edit]

Should really mention the fact that it largely consists of "third-tier" powers who are opposed to permanent SC membership for "second-tier" powers in their region -- i.e. Argentina with respect to Brazil, South Korea with respect to Japan, Italy with respect to Germany, Pakistan with respect to India (to mention some of the more obvious cases...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


I answered on Talk:Carbonara. Alex2006 (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Landtag of South Tyrol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Provincial council (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Italians collage[edit]

There was a discussion on the new "selection" of Italians? The previous one was balanced. For example, the last line was about islands, with a Sicilian and two Sardinian, in order to represent whole Italy. Feel free to add more, but not to remove any of them if already present, as Gramsci and Deledda. --Felisopus (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Should not be "based" on regionalism, but must remain representative. Sorry but Gramsci has a huge reputation in the world, just look at the page. Ok for one, but it would be best to remove biographies of living people as Valentino Rossi or Umberto Eco, rather than Calvino. --Felisopus (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And then put in the Deledda. I repeat that it is much more serious if you remove biographies of living people (they are only three): you can put in Maria Montessori, Michelangelo Buonarroti, Andrea Palladio, at least a king of Italy (Victor Emmanuel II of Italy?) and a pope (at least one pope!) there were dozens, hundreds of Italian popes! --Felisopus (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Roman Italy"[edit]

Hallo Enok,
I restored for the 3rd time the caption on the so called "Roman Italy" map on the Italians article. This map does not describe the Roman conquests in Italy, but the extension with time of the territory covered by the word "Italia". with this term was meant at the beginning today's Calabria, and then the "covered" territory moved north, until including the whole peninsula under Augustus. The problem is that also the name on the picture is wrong, and should be corrected. I hope that now the matter is clear. Alex2006 (talk) 09:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Enok, I don't know where do you come from, but I can advice only one thing: go and read a secondary school book about History. There you will find WHEN the Romans conquered Calabria, and when, for example, Etruria. Maybe then you will have clearer ideas about the map. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Bravo Enok, thanks! No problem, everyone (me too :-)) makes mistakes. Sorry for what I wrote, but when I attended school for such a mistake there was the death penalty. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISTAT (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISTAT (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa[edit]

The kind of mass censorship of referenced material you just did is simply unacceptable; I thought you've been here long enough to know that... I remember you from an interaction regarding Brunodam; please don't turn into him.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please don't edit-war. [4] I've rolled back your changes exactly because they're unexplained - "Ragusa was a Latin republic" is not an explanation for that action. If you want to argue this, use the fine talk page - WP:BRD. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Mapping the Global Economy[edit]

Hi Enok, I am looking for volunteers to re-create the link below for all 196 countries.

The goal of this project is to map out the global economy.

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, Sengoku (2011 video game), has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Sengoku (2011 video game)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


Please read my post on the AnsaldoBreda talk page. I partially agree the section can be reduced; but the rolling stock and history sections should be reduced much much much more urgently. Arnoutf (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I reinserted the technical and historical data that have been deleted. This information is known internationally as well as being present in the books of university mechanical engineering and magazines. This information is documented by authoritative sources. Furthermore, this information is present in the Italian wiki. I understand the criticism for the mistakes, I do not understand the desire to highlight errors only and do not insert positive information.--FAM1885 (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Principe chapter title[edit]

Hello. Concerning the chapter title you want to change, I have stated my thoughts in more detail on the article talkpage. Can you have a look please and respond?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. I have responded to your response. I am not sure you had fully understood that I did really think about your concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fiat Automobili Srbija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italic peoples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veneti (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Italic peoples[edit]

Why are you deleting all my edits ? explain..--Xoil (talk) 11:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you are deleting my edits. --Enok (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Read the bibliography , the informations that you are deleting are well explained in the book of Devoto-Gli antichi Italici...they are not my inventions .ps I have not deleted nothing , I've just added some improvements and sources--Xoil (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I have not removed any information, but I just corrected some sentences. Please, don't delete all my edits. --Enok (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
(I write in Italian , other users: please advise me if this constitute a problem) Scrivo in italiano cosi facciamo prima e ci capiamo problema è che tu hai rimosso delle parti importanti che sarebbe più utile tenere 1) gli Opici appartenevano al gruppo dei Latino-Falisci come dice la stessa fonte (Devoto) indicata nella bibliografia , non capisco perchè tu rimuova sempre questo passo 2) La teoria che collega i primi Romani con le Terramare è piuttosto "vetusta" e il fatto che nessun insediamento delle Terramare sia stato rinveuto al di sotto della Pianura Padana è un dato di fatto , tu hai rimosso anche questo (perche?) 3) Perchè cancelli le fonti che inserisco ? ad esempio quella in lingua tedesca (è valida, le fonti non devono essere necessariamente in inglese) nel quale vengono citati i più importanti siti protovillanoviani tra cui Tropea, Timmari-Matera, Milazzo etc.. che avevo elencato nella voce . Visto il numero ridotto direi che non è proprio il caso di cancellare le poche fonti presenti. Ciao--Xoil (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
1) Gli Opici appartenevano al gruppo dei Latino-Falisci, ma nella stessa frase ci sono anche gli Enotri che non lo sono, ergo si può tralasciare di specificarlo; 2) sarà anche un'opinione "vetusta", ma devi riportare una fonte per fare un'affermazione simile (per ora c'è solo la versione di Pigorini); 3) Ho semplicemente ripristinato la mia versione, dato che tu hai annullato completamente le mie modifiche (non ho nemmeno visto se avevi fatto nuove aggiunte). Invece di annullare tutte le mie modifiche, sistema solo quello che reputi opportuno. Io mica ho annullato di netto tutti i tuoi contributi.--Enok (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinacria (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Ouvrage Cap Martin[edit]

I've semi-protected Ouvrage Cap Martin and warned the IP, but you are also warned about edit-warring, even if it's slow. I want to force the IP to discuss their edits on the talkpage, please do the same. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Southern Italy[edit]

I beg you not to start a useless edit war, please. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. As I've already said (repetita iuvant), if you're willing to remove what's been written because of its copy-and-past nature (which, at the present moment, is not even wreaking any trouble), then write a new piece of article which is capable to express equal meaning to the other staff that you want to handle with. You can't just revert to the previous state of the page, which is quite flawed and problematic as well. --Dk1919 (talk) 09:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Noodles vs pasta[edit]

You have edited Template:Noodle several times with comments like "none of those are noodles", "Please, check what is a noodles. Not all pasta is like spaghetti". There has been a lot of discussion about noodles vs pasta and there has not yet been a clear consensus established (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_11#Template:Noodle & Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:Pasta). Could I ask you to revert your edits to the noodle template and rather go to the discussion page to express your concerns? Thank you! jmcw (talk) 09:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, I beg you to inform yourself about the topics you intend to deal with. The difference between pasta and noodles is obvious to anyone who has some experience of cooking. We can continue the discussion here.--Enok (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I ask you to give courtesy to the other editors and read the discussions above. Please also look again at WP:GOODFAITH - "I beg you to inform yourself about the topics you intend to deal with" is not good manners. I respect your view on these matters but there are many editors here whose views we must also respect. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you, but there are facts and there are opinions. I respect the latter. I also read the discussions above and I noticed how almost all of participants were completely ignorant on the subject (there is nothing wrong with not knowing every subject of human knowledge). Anyway, the final verdict of that discussion was: "I recommend keeping the {{Pasta}} template & use it for all the pasta products & related subjects and merging the {{Noodle}} template with the {{Chinese noodles}} template and use that one for all the noodle products & related subjects." Why you have included pasta in the template of the noodles? --Enok 10:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please read more carefully: "The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)" jmcw (talk) 10:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus about the merging of the templates "pasta" and "noodless", and there is no consensus about the deleting of the template "noodles". My question is still valid: why have you included pasta in the template of the noodles?--Enok (talk) 11:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_29#Template:Pasta:

"The Oxford dictionary clearly states that noodles includes pasta and other similar dough/flour paste products, while also stating that pasta is of Italian origin alone (meaning that noodle is the all-encompassing group)."

What dictionary are you using for your definition of noodle? jmcw (talk) 16:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica, for example: "noodle, a cooked egg-and-flour paste prominent in European and Asian cuisine, generally distinguished from pasta by its elongated, ribbonlike form." For instance, do you think lasagna, ravioli, tortellini or farfalle are noodles? --Enok (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


"I based my categorization of noodle on other dependable sources written by experts on the subject, such as Principles of Cereal Science and Technology by R. Carl Hoseney which states on page 327 that "Noodles are a type of pasta".

So now, here on your talk page with these three quotes, we have shown that there is no consensus. I ask you again to undo your edits to the noodle template. jmcw (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Noodles are a type of pasta (like spaghetti, for example). Pasta is not a type of noodles (see lasagna, for example). It is now clearly that you don't know what are you talking about. --Enok (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been staying out of this conversation as much as possible, but your edits regarding this subject has become disruptive. Additionally, you have been violating several policies and standards of Wikipedia for several days now (WP:Civil, WP:BRD and WP:3R are just a few). Could you please step back and look how you have been acting towards others with whom you are having disagreements with? You have been presented with facts that bolster counter arguments to your claims, and you have been resorting to name calling and insults instead of actively discussing the issues. This is not a very good way to interact with others, and I would ask that you work with other editors to work out any disagreements over content.
Please be forewarned that if you continue with these sort of actions, you will be reported to the appropriate message board(s). --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, editorial comments such as restoring removed articles - seems like I'm the only one who cares about the content of the edits fall into the category of uncivil behavior as well. Try to keep your commentaries about the article and not other editors. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 20:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your cat deletions for Italian cuisine restaurants[edit]

Why are you deleting from their appropriate categories Italian cuisine restaurants?

And are you unaware that an Italian cuisine restaurant located in American is referred to as an Italian restaurant -- that it reflects not its location or place of incorporation, but rather its cuisine? As in the very name of Gargiulo's Italian Restaurant.

This is a (limited) example of your deletions that I am referring to ...

[list removed by Enok for readability]

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Enok, you should really answer this question. None of those edits were explained in the slightest, and I don't see how they're productive. I reverted a few myself and will probably do a few more. I see plenty of problems on your talk page, and we can't have so many of these edits with no word of explanation. Please don't make any such edits until this has been handled satisfactorily, or you might be blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
What is the question? --Enok (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you mocking Drmies? Or playing dumb? Read the first sentence, above, at the beginning of the string. For that matter, read the question in the second sentence, as well. I'm not sure how you could miss them.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Piada Italian Street Food, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is one example of your mass removals of cats, that appear appropriate, from many, many articles. Without any explanation. Even after one has been requested -- despite the fact that you returned to editing after the question was posed as to why you are engaging in this behavior. Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

How an Ohio restaurant can be Italian? At best, it is an American restaurant specialized in Italo-American cuisine. The category name is a misnomer.--Enok (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Your English is letting you down. Look at the text of a few of the articles, and at the sources. "Italian restaurant" refers to the cuisine, in English usage. Some of the articles even helpfully link to Italian cuisine. (And that would be "specializing in" in idiomatic English, if it weren't for the fact that that's what the term means. I've reverted the rest of your category removals and wording changes. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
What Yngvadottir said. I don't understand your exclamation of confusion. Is it faux? I already above pointed to Gargiulo's Italian Restaurant as a stark example. I already wrote to you "are you unaware that an Italian cuisine restaurant located in American is referred to as an Italian restaurant -- that it reflects not its location or place of incorporation, but rather its cuisine?" I already listed many of your (dozens?) of deletions -- which list you have now removed. I already also pointed to Piada Italian Street Food -- where you did the same thing. You have three editors here questioning your activity. In dozens? of articles. Kindly revert.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, "Gargiulo's" and similar restaurants are American restaurants, not Italian at all, but I accept your inaccurate decisions.--Enok (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The cat describes what is within it. It states it is "Category for restaurants serving Italian cuisine." Similarly, see "Da Silvano Cookbook: Simple Secrets from New York's Favorite Italian Restaurant", "The Mozza Cookbook: Recipes from Los Angeles's Favorite Italian Restaurant and Pizzeria", "A New Italian Restaurant, With Perks", The New York Times, "New Italian Restaurant Makes a Splash in London: Richard Vines", Bloomberg, "Italian Restaurant in Bonsall Is a Sophisticated Addition", Los Angeles Times. It's as I said above. Next time you have an "as far as I am concerned, I am right and the world is wrong" moment -- please don't follow it up by deleting entries in dozens of articles that accord with the view of the world (but not your view).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
American restaurateurs who call their restaurants as "Italian". What a surprise. Next time you tell me that Fettuccine Alfredo is an Italian dish.--Enok (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If you want to take issue with the general definition of "Italian cuisine" as used in the category description, you can do so on the category talk page, I suppose. I'm not going to pick bones over what is "genuinely" Italian and what isn't; that's silly. At any rate, your position is parochial but, more importantly, your removals were first of all unexplained, second of all occurred in huge numbers, third are opposed by other editors. So you can call their "decisions" inaccurate, but the fact remains that the edits are disruptive. As for Fettuccine Alfredo--well, if I am to believe this here book it originates from Rome, which would make it an Italian dish, yes. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
(That book was written by an American, printed in Japan, and published in New York.--Enok (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC))
By that logic, every Mexican restaurant or Chinese restaurant that is located in the U.S. is an "American restaurant". And 313 million Americans would disagree with you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I don't agree with this American mentality, but I accept the decision.--Enok (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This behavior has to stop. Period. Based upon this and many, many, many other warnings you have received, I am going to take this to the WP:ANI so your behavior can be discussed. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 08:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:Italian cuisine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)[edit]

Regarding the title coloring, I created the current version of the template and when I did, I did it wrong. I am basically fixing my mistake. Please do not revert this. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 07:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Nastro d'Argento for Best Screenplay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Kaos, Gomorra, Ex, Angela, This Must Be the Place, Happy Family, Una storia semplice and Antonio Capuano

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trento-Bondone Hill Climb[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Trento-Bondone Hill Climb has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:


While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KeithbobTalk 20:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Trento-Bondone Hill Climb for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trento-Bondone Hill Climb is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trento-Bondone Hill Climb until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. KeithbobTalk 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Interventions[edit]

Hello, I noticed you keep changing the shape of the "Italians" article bringing it back to an obsolete version of it. I beg you to stop these interventions and leave it in its current and updated form, of which I am the original author. If you have any good reason of why you prefer an old version please post it in the talk section of the article so that we can discuss of which is better for the readers, thank you. --Francotti (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your disruptive edits. According to sources provided, there are 119 million Italians (including ancestry). I remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on the sources; if you want to say that Italians are 140 million, you have to bring a reliable source to support your statements.--Enok (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of something false, it's childish. The sources provided are obsolete as I told you and as you probably already knew. The article has been updated and it's far more informative now. I beg you for the last time to avoid any kind of vandalism toward the article or I will report this.. behaviour. Italians ancestry counts up to 140 millions and I remind you that I am not your personal teacher, just google it yourself and you will hopefully put and end to your ignorance. Send your answer to my talk page so that I am aware of your reply. if not I won't answer you anymore. --Francotti (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources become obsolete when they are replaced by newer sources. I suggest you to read this page to learn how Wikipedia works: Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Enok (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Italians[edit]

Ciao Enok, I am not happy with that number either, but the problem is another. Please read what I wrote in the talk page. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 07:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Fc[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Fc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Italians[edit]

Hello, Enok. You and seem to be engaging in an edit war. I would like for you to open up a discussion regarding what ever it is you two are disagreeing about (I'll add my opinion) so we can improve the article and end all the reverting. Kind regards, Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Bianca Balti. Stop vandalism![edit]

Stop arbitrarily delete 8 sources! What you need sources ??? No one had come up with her mother Azerbaijani origin!!! She gave an interview!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to use realible sources; Blogspot, for example, is not a reliable source. Please, read this page: Identifying reliable sources. --Enok (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Veneti (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


Scusami tanto, ma davvero, con L'INTERA lista tutta da RIFARE, perdi tempo a rollbackare (senza alcun criterio, a mio personalissimo avviso) i MIEI edit, le modifiche che ho fatto io, l'impostazione a quella "pagina" (?), da me datale?! Scusami, ma se hai tanta ANSIA di contribuire a Wikipedia, perché non finisci l'opera DA ME iniziata e prosegui (intendo, anche modificando tutto come vuoi tu, ovviamente) secondo il tuo gusto ANCHE le sezioni successive, quelle che io non ho toccato?! Cioè, io ho cambiato profondamente la struttura di una pagina (di cui conosciamo entrambi lo stato originario) per una porzione, tu ti limiti a modificare secondo il tuo gusto la suddetta porzione, e allora, cioè, dai... Perché non finisci il resto, se sei tanto ansioso di darci la tua visione delle cose? Perché lavorare solo su quanto altri hanno faticato molto a fare? DAI, FINISCI LA PAGINA! Ci sono tantissimi edit da fare, vuoi proprio dedicarti a quell'articolo, a quella singola sezione di cui ci si era già occupati? Non so se ho ben reso il concetto. Ma credo di sì. -- (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahhh, se per una volta ci mettessimo d'accordo, noialtri, al posto di stare sempre a scannarci tra di noi mentre fuori sghignazzano! Okay, dunque. Ti va di dirmi cosa c'è di così sbagliato nella mia versione?! E' modellata sulle suddivisioni dei template Antichi Stati italiani di, la quale è non solo assai prestigiosa (ancor più su Italy-related topics, verrebbe fatto di dire...), ma che nel campo della storia è un'eccellenza. Inoltre avevo rimosso la struttura a paragrafi perché davvero troppo pesante (sì, se stessi continuando a modificare l'intera pagina, non solo distruggere quanto scritto da me, te ne accorgeresti). Se poi non ti va di dirmelo e credi che la tua versione è migliore e che io non sono figlio di Maria e non sono figlio di Gesù, be', buon divertimento, davvero. Vatti ad azzuffare con quegli altri che ho mandato affanculo poco fa, magari fate amicizia. -- (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

List of historic states of Italy[edit]

It is always difficult to keep these list articles sensible and encyclopedic. Mostly they attract randomness and bad judgement. I tried to salvage it, but I would also be ready to agree to just submit it for deletion as unsalvageable.

I do not understand your apodictic "This article only includes States after the dissolution of the Roman Empire". Normally the scope of an article is suggested by its title, and by the scope of the references used, and not private knowledge of selected editors who then are forced to convey that information via edit summaries? I find this a rather novel approach to managing content divisions on Wikipedia.

I do think that a title of List of historic states of Italy after the dissolution of the Roman Empire doesn't make for a very plausible title. List of historic states entirely or partially in Umbria between the conquest of the Lombard kingdom and the Italian Wars? Surely such a list could in principle be compiled. The question is, should it? --dab (𒁳) 04:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iron Crown (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kinder Chocolate logo.png[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Kinder Chocolate logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Italian Social Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pola. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)