User talk:Massimiliano Carli

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Massimiliano Carli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! YE  Tropical   Cyclone  03:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

deliarnt spam removed?? are following actions correct for wikipedia policy? (with no user login?) real-time web:
 * 1) (cur | prev)  10:54, 9 December 2010 79.51.242.165 (talk) (3,472 bytes) (Blatant historical revisionism removed) (undo)
 * 2) (cur | prev) 10:53, 9 December 2010 79.51.242.165 (talk) (3,904 bytes) (Delirant spam removed) (undo)

Massimiliano Carli (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the user was not logged in is irrelevant: a user does not have to have an account in order to edit. Neither of the passages removed was properly sourced (one was not referenced at all, and the other was referenced to a page which did not, as far as I could see, support the statement to which the reference was attached). If that was the only problem then perhaps asking for citations might have been better than removal, but clearly the editor thought there were other problems. I don't know enough about the subject to assess whether the charge of historical revisionism was justified, but since there is an editor who thinks it is, the onus is on anyone wishing to include the text to provide reliable sources, and in their absence it is perfectly correct to remove it. The other removed passage is not obviously spam to me, but it may be that it is promoting a particular view, and that that fact is obvious to anyone with enough background knowledge of the subject. I had never before come across the word "delirant", but I have now looked it up and found it is a rare word meaning "delirious", which makes no sense at all in the context, and that reduces my faith in the editor's judgement. (Is "delirante" more common in Italian? If it is then maybe the editor is Italian.) If you have followed all that, you may have picked up that there is nothing in the edits that is specifically against any policy or guideline, but they are questionable. In a case like this the best thing to do is to raise your questions on the article's talk page. Sometimes it can also help to post to the user's talk page, but in this case the IP has only these two edits, so the likelihood of their seeing any talk page message may be very low. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you James. yes the editor was from italy. the article is about an hot tech topic and he maybe is a misinformed colleague. I have open a thread in the 'discussion' tab. maxc 20:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)