User talk:NottNott/Archives/2016/October


italian language

hello. i am Pangaglia. i have read your message on my page. i want you to know that i cited some sources and i have already discussed the change in the discussion page. you are thoose ones who did not cite any source. --Pangaglia (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

hi. i am pangaglia. i want to say that i cited raliable sources and i had already discussed in the talk page. you , instead , are thoose ones who did not cite any source. best regards.--Pangaglia (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Pangaglia. I reverted your edit because it seems to remove well written content and replaces it with what seems to be of a lower quality language-wise. Two of the sources are people which aren't easily found or searched for while one is on a law which isn't necessarily about the Italian Language itself unlike the previously sourced article which seems more relevant. Looking at the talk page discussion there appears to be no consensus as well as disregard for WP:NOR, a policy. Given the quality of English in your edit as well as how hard the writing is to understand, I recommend you stop restoring your edit and stop your long term edit-warring over the page. Thank you. -NottNott|talk 23:02, 24 September 2016

hi. i am pangaglia. my edit is not of low quality and it is not hard to understand. if there are grammar mistakes , it is sufficient to correct them , instead of changing the whole article. what does it mean that two sources are not easily found or searched for? you can easily find them in internet. maybe they are not well known to thoose dialects fans but they are reliable sources. gian battista pellegrini , graziadio isaia ascoli are good sources , as well as other sources like saggio sui dialetti gallo italici. what does it mean that the article is more rilevant than law 482/99? law 482/99 states that most of the idioms you call languages ar not. that law was made thanks to the contribution of the most important italian linguists. i will revert your changes. you say that there is no consensus. so , if you do not agree with my edits , why don't you discuss in the discussion page? i am the only one who has discussed and has explained why i made the edit and why i don't agree. you , instead , keep on reverting my edit without discussing about the topic , without telling me why according to you , italian dialects are languages. you just say you are right and i am wrong and you find useless excuses in orther to revert my changes , excuses like "you have not cited sources" (when i have) or even "your sources are not easily found". this claim that it is not easy to find them is nonsense. so , if you don't agree and you think that italian dialects are languages and they should be treated in the same way as linguistic minorities , why don't you discuss it? maybe because you do not know whay to say. if you don't agree with my view , discuss it in the discussion page. p.s firs it is "ndar" , not "nare". and annà and ndar are not regional varieties of standard italian. they are dialects. this is a proof that the article is not as well written as you said.--Pangaglia (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC) if you have thought it was not well written you could restore one of MY previous versions , wich where longer and explained things better.--Pangaglia (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Pangaglia: With respect, your English really isn't of the highest quality from what I and other editors (Denisarona, RunnyAmiga) can tell. Furthermore the sources you have cited seem to be people and not actual documents which make it hard for someone to see where you have got the information from. A talk page message accusing seasoned editors of vandalism (i.e clear malicious intent to disrupt the wiki) doesn't inspire confidence. Looking past this, it's hard to understand what you're saying - maybe some other editor on the talk page who understands the topic more would be willing to make the corrections you suggest but it seems highly unlikely at this point.
While you may have put a lot of time into your revision, I'd recommend just letting it go. -NottNott|talk 20:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)