User talk:2.36.99.140

Thanks for contributing to the article Disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DarkAudit (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Disappearance of Emanuela Orlandi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DarkAudit (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @DarkAudit. There was a misunderstading. You are not the first to delete my edits on Emanuela Orlandi's article. Your colleague editor @Revirvlkodlaku already removed my edits some days ago. When I explained to him in his Talk page that my additions were fundamental elements of the whole case and that I inserted them with reliable sources (major newspapers), he said that he deleted my edits mainly because I am a not registered user on wikipedia and since he was already biased againstan an unregistered user who insisted on reinserting content he had removed more than once. So, he deleted the edits before checking they were important and reliables.
 * Here what he said: "The diff you've provided is good enough, thank you. I think the reason I removed that content was because I didn't consider it sufficiently important and additionally, since I was already biased against an unregistered user who insisted on reinserting content I had removed more than once, my willingness to peruse it more closely was limited. It seems to me that one could write endlessly on this topic and include any number of details, but not all of them will be equally relevant, and surely, not all detail needs to be mentioned on a Wikipedia page, would you agree? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)"
 * You can check the whole conversation in his [Talk page] (Emanuela Orlandi section).
 * I then asked him if now I could re-insert the informations in the Emanuela Orlandi page and he agreed with me. I told him I would have write in the Edit summary "Reisert by Giovanni", so he would have been able to see it was me and not someone else. So, it was an agreement. I reiserted the informations with Revirvlkodlaku consent. So I did. But you deleted it. I believe that you deleted them for the very same reason Revirvlkodlaku did, because I am not registered.
 * Althought I have Revirvlkodlaku's autorization, I will not pass over you, so I will wait to have your autorization too before re-editing the infos. As I said to Revirvlkodlaku, the infos I added are not low-relevance, but very important key roles elements of the whole case.
 * Thank you very much and sorry for the misunderstanding. In the next few days I will register in Wikipedia in order to avoid this incovenience to ever happen again.
 * Best regards
 * Giovanni 2.36.99.140 (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had included the references in your edits, I would have passed them without a second thought. IP editors are absolutely welcome here. So if your valid edits are getting reverted for that reason, then that other user is the one at fault. DarkAudit (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @DarkAudit Yes, every sigle edit I did had a reference (all reliables sources like major newspapers, not random). I thought they are visible. Aren't they? Let me know. While thanking you, I feel like saying that anyway Revirvlkodlaku was very kind and he explained to me why he did that. I understood his point of view. He was very collaborative. So are you, thank you.
 * So, do I have your permission to re-insert the edits on Emanuela Orlandi's article? If it's ok, I will write on the Editor summary "Reinsert by Giovanni", like I agreed with Revirvlkodlaku, so you too will know it was me. Let me know
 * Thanks
 * Giovanni 2.36.99.140 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Rather than that "Reinsert by Giovanni", including the reference link in the edit summary would be a better idea. That would leave no doubt that it was a properly sourced edit. DarkAudit (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @DarkAudit sorry for late reply. I just now re-inserted the pharagraphs with the sources (even if I already did that the last time). As you told me, this time I mentioned the sources also in the Edit summary. Sure you will see it, but eventually I report also here what I wrote in the Edit summary:
 * Edit summary: "Re-editing by Giovanni. Sources: Giacomo Galeazzi, "De Pedis, ok di Poletti", La Stampa (in italian), 31 March 2012; "The Orlandi Code". Toronto Star. 22 October 2014 (already present); Rapimento Emanuela Orlandi, pubblicati audio inediti: "Una schifezza, per risolvere hanno chiesto a De Pedis", La Repubblica (in italian), 14 December 2022"
 * Let me know if it's now ok. And thanks again
 * Giovanni 2.36.99.140 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)