User talk:NONIS STEFANO

Hello, NONIS STEFANO, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to

Hello, I'm DVdm. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Galileo Galilei, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NONIS STEFANO. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't check the source, and your edit was wrong, which does look like

For reference, it is this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Lipstadt&diff=837870633&oldid=820549028 PJTraill (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 15:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not doing this; please cooperate! PJTraill (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NONIS STEFANO. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a past contributor, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mental event, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Davidson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Isaac Mizrahi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fame.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Ernst Oppenheim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Narcissus and Goldmund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unconscious.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Martin Luther into Diet of Augsburg. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again at the Fritz Bauer article, where you've copied text from the Adolf Eichmann article. Please be sure to provide the required attribution as explained above when you re-use text within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nonis Stefano

I have changed your edit to this article because neither of the sources you cite state that "The latter was probably written before 1936 and the author's anti-Semitic delusions, since in it the figure of the Jewish doctor Yugenbitz is exalted, considering him a master in his profession." This is your conclusion drawn from information in the articles: see

Hello,

I have just rewritten my previous edit. However, it is significant that my analogous edit on Wiki-François has so far not been modified, except for a small detail: the substitution of an expression not considered "neutral". NONIS STEFANO (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errata corrige.

Wiki-Français. NONIS STEFANO (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you appear to be pushing a POV: that the novel must have been written before 1936 because it includes a key character who is a Jewish doctor. This conclusion is naive and is not in either of the articles you cite. The articles state that this novel was "probably" written in 1934. It DOES NOT state the reasons for this conclusion. For all I know there might have been a number of textual and biographical clues which suggest the date 1934. It is indeed interesting that a key character in the novel is a Jewish doctor who treats the poor for little payment. Does that mean that Céline wasn't an anti-Semite when he wrote the novel? Of course not. Céline kept his novels and his polemical essays separate. Guignol's Band was published in 1944 and has little or no anti-Semitism in it. The Ëglise was written in 1927 and does have anti-semitic features. None of his novels are overtly anti-Semitic. Perhaps Céline saw the idea of a Jewish doctor who inspires the narrator to become a doctor as a great in joke. Who knows. All we need to say is that the novel was probably written in 1934 and includes a key character who is a Jewish doctor. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nonis Stefano

I have removed your added comments about who is or isn't a sympathetic character because these are editorial opinions rather than an objective summary of the plot. "The novel ends with Robinson's demise" is a wordy and pretentious way of saying "Robinson dies" and doesn't improve the article. There's also no need to talk about minor characters in a brief summary like this if it doesn't advance the plot. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edit to Archaeology has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. The added text was almost identical to the Guardian article. See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/23/lidar-technology-archeology-radical-thinking Haploidavey (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi NONIS STEFANO. Thanks for introducing some differences in your text at the above article. Unfortunately, it's not enough. Whole sentences and phrases are still the same as the source. Editors not familiar with the problems of copyright tend to do exactly what you've done, just omitting or substituting words here and there, or deleting whole sentences; but the similarity remains too close. It can really help to thoroughly understand and digest the source material, then put it aside and give an imaginary audience a small lecture, using your own words, on what you've discovered through reading the source. Then write it all down and check that it's still an accurate representation of the source - a representation. Not a copy. It takes longer, but it's usually an effective strategy. I do hope this helps. Haploidavey (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lady with a Fan (Klimt), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lady with a Fan (pictured) by Gustav Klimt set a record for the highest price achieved at auction for a work of art in Europe? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lady with a Fan (Klimt). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Lady with a Fan (Klimt)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

—Kusma (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello. There is no need for me to repeat here the reasons why I restored my edit, although I see that you are repeating the same reasons for the first deletion. However, I would like to point out that yesterday, before your new deletion, I corrected and delved a little into Ernst Jünger's page regarding his meetings with Céline. The problem is that on Céline's page the Céline-Jünger relationship was barely mentioned and completely decontextualized. In my opinion it was necessary to add something to clarify the issue better. If you check the Céline pages in French, German and Italian, you will see that the issue is covered in more depth than I have done in the English one. It's true that I made additions there, but there was already more than that in English before I intervened. It seemed unfair to me that English-language readers were deprived of information present in the English-language WP. I hope we agree that WP should have no "national borders" and that it is a global project, with rules that apply globally.

I sincerely appreciate the work you have been doing for years on the pages dealing with Céline, even though I have often had discussions with you.

Although I think there is little to discuss further on this topic, I welcome your request to open a new discussion section on the Céline page. It is clear that, if there are no valid objections or convincing alternative proposals, in a few days I will restore my original modification, hoping it will not lead to a “conflict” with consequent appeal to

third opinion (3O). NONIS STEFANO (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply

]