User talk:Vincenzo Lanzaro

Welcome!

Hello, Vincenzo Lanzaro, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as User:Vincenzo Lanzaro, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — fortunavelut luna 19:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Springfield (The Simpsons)

Please don't add your theory of Springfield's location again. It is original research, something we can't accept. HiLo48 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have actually followed what Wikipedia page Wikipedia:No_original_research state:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

and also state:

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed...The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

The proof of the theory is actually published and available online, as request at following link, and I added a corrected reference to it!

July 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Springfield (The Simpsons). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have actually followed what Wikipedia page Wikipedia:No_original_research state:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist

and also state:

To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed...The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged.

The proof of the theory is actually published and available online, as request at following link, and I added a corrected reference to it!

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Springfield (The Simpsons). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Alexf^(talk) 10:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Alexf you are wrong! I haven't use any External Link in an inappropriate way, I know well the rules here. It was pointed out that my content was WK:OR because without a "published source directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material being presented" (using wikipedia rule words from Wikipedia:No_original_research). So all that I did is to REFERENCE the published source!

Thanks

Vincenzo - A blog post you have created yourself is not a satisfactory source. It is still original research by you. Have a read of WP:RS. I also recommend you read WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN. Learning to use those tools will make your conversations more readable. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HiLo48 thanks to address me on the thousandth article that should make things clear, but as you are demonstrating, just it places more confusion! I just followed the simple instructions reported in Wikipedia:No_original_research

You need to properly follow that link. It will take you via WP:SOURCE to WP:INDEPENDENT. It's about independent sourcing. Your own research is NOT independent. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Really explanatory, I presume that you should be a master in your job. By the way, mine IT'S AN INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DONE JUST IN AN AMATEUR WAY, without any other interest behind it. You guys should be ashamed to just think something like that about my research! Mine intention was to give just a little contribute, nothing in plus! In my little opinion, Wikipedia is become too strict and too referenced from the establishment to still be called "the Free Enciclopedia"! That name after my experience appears just a joke! Moreover, you guys instead to keep pointing your finger on everything that is wrong, you should be helpful and actually give solutions NOT OTHER PROBLEMS sending comments rich of thousand of links that refers to others links. Thanks for everything, and please avoid to answer if your answer will actually not be able to give me any kind of suggestion and advice that can be helpful for me!

I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for you if you think like that. You made some edits, and they were reverted. The reasons for the reversions were clearly stated, and links were provided to help you understand how things work around here, and how you could avoid making the same mistakes.

You don't seem to be willing to read the info in the links, despite them explaining everything you are asking about. For example, in the WP:OR link it clearly and unambiguously states "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source." in the Nutshell, and the first section in the same article is "Using sources", which explains what can and can't be used as a source:

In general, the most reliable sources are:

Peer-reviewed journals

Books published by university presses

University-level textbooks

Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

Mainstream newspapers

As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Self-published material, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable, but see self-published sources for exceptions.

I've highlighted a particularly pertinent section above.

In short - if you're not prepared to learn how things work, you won't last long. You'll either get blocked for a constant disregard of process, or will get frustrated because your edits are being reverted and you don't know why (because you're not willing to learn why), and you'll give up and go away.

You seem to have put in quite a bit of effort with your Simpsons edits - learn and become a useful editor. Or don't and don't. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]