User talk:Nicola Renzi

Welcome!
Hi Nicola Renzi! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing! Kleuske (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Citing your own works
Please don't. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry, I thought that adding references could be useful for people that wanted to learn more about certain subjects. I am also adding other works apart from mine Nicola Renzi (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why deleting entire paragraphs tho? On the wiki page of Sámi drum there is no mention of "modern drumming "or the use of the drum as map. I did not cite only my work. And even if I cited my work, I cited peer-reviewed scientific articles derived from years of fieldwork in Sápmi. There are not many scientific sources about modern drumming, so if I did not put it myself, maybe someone else would have done it.
 * In the "joik" page I saw that my reference to the sentence «According to oral traditions, the fairies and elves of the arctic lands gave joiks to the Sámi People» was delete. I think that this kind of contents necessitates some minimal references. If it was for me, I would completely rephrase it since Sámi people does not believe in "elves" or "fairies". They don't call them like that. How is such a simplification allowed while citing a peer reviewed scientific paper quoting actual interviews with Sámi elders is not accepted?
 * I well understand the boundaries between spamming my own work and providing actual scientific foundations to certain paragraph. I hope that the revision process of my edits will also consider the importance of the work that academics do... Nicola Renzi (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am also adding other works apart from mine I am glad to hear it. So far, the examples of that have been sparse. Kleuske (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe because there's not much written about it. In any case, those other works were deleted together with the entire paragraph, so it does not really matter. As I said, even if there is just my own work, it does not mean that I am simply spamming it. You can see the source that I am citing and verify that it comes from scientific journals or edited works that are peer reviewed by other members of the ethnomusicological and anthropological academic community. And before that, part of it is knowledge that I have personally recorded as it was transmitted to me throughout years of specialized fieldwork. In my works that I am referencing there are quotes with the names of those interviewed, so in a way it is a link to their direct knowledge. I do not know if this means something and I am not trying to convince you to leave the reference. I just do not understand the criteria of rejection. As I said in my previous message, if you prefer, keep the text but without any reference. The references exist online anyways Nicola Renzi (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And I now see that removed was also the paragraph about self-joiking in the "joik" page. Just like the "modern drumming", these things are relevant: keep them without references to my own work if you prefer... Who's interested in those topics will google them finding the few existing sources themselves. But at least they can have a short introduction on wikipedia.
 * I do not really understand the point of these pages if they cannot be updated with new contents based on scientific methods and peer-reviewed sources. Nicola Renzi (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:Original research. As a matter of fact, I strongly urge you to read it. Do you think you are the first one with the bright idea of using your own work as the gold standard of The Scientific View on any given subject? If so, I must disappoint you. Kleuske (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At this moment I am simultaneously explaining to an (I suspect) young girl that she can't write articles on her favorite cartoon animal without citing sources and on the other hand I am explaining to an academic why Wikipedia prefers the communis opinio of the scientific community to his say-so (even if it's published). Somehow the former seems more rewarding. I have pointed out WP:OR, which is one of our core principles. If you cannot abide by that, maybe Wikipedia is not the place for you. Kleuske (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, after this reply I do not really care anymore. Just leave everything as it is. Leave it to the communis opinio. Leave it to incomplete or approximate descriptions. I over-cited myself – I understood that and I apologize for it because I did not know the regulation before. Now, however, I also apologize if I tried to add some relevant knowledge to pages which I did consult in the past and which I found incomplete. I apologize if there is no other research carried out apart the one that I cited. And I apologize if my research area is so niche (modern drumming and self-joiks) that I am the only one that at the current tiime has actually did some research about it. I am really sorry. I will just keep repeating my findings with the small academic community I am part of, without letting it out of it in any possible way. I apologize if my opinio is not coomunis.
 * Apparently Wikipedia is not the place for me. Nicola Renzi (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I repeat it here too. I do not care whether my work is cited or not. I simply felt that some references were needed and I added them. For me, it is completely fine to publish those paragraphs without any reference (people can look for those themes by themselves). But it is not fine to remove the paragraphs in toto, only because I cited my own work.
 * Self-joiking exists and was not mentioned at all.
 * Modern drumming exists and was not mentioned at all, so that from the wiki page seems that Sámi drums either disappeared completely or they are only used for the so-called "shamanism".
 * Sámi drums were used also as maps, but that was not mentioned before. There is a study by Keski-Säntti et al. that discuss it, and I quoted it along with my own article where I add also new contents from interviews.
 * If you feel like I am abusing of my own work, fine, leave the text with just external sources, where they exists.
 * One point, that you may have, is where I added my citations without actually intervening in the text (i.e., Mattis Hætta page, Saamid Ædnan page). I get it, in that case it may appear like I am spamming my own work and it is reasonable to oppose that. Another thing, instead, is deleting research that has been carried out and evaluated, and finally summarised as contribution to some wikipedia page. If the rule is that I cannot cite my own work, then please tell me: if I would have written those paragraphs without any citation what would have happened? How can I contribute to wikipedia if I cannot add anything from my perspective of researcher that specialized in that area? Nicola Renzi (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I quote:
 * «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»
 * Nicola Renzi (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR I have no clue what "self-joiking" is and I don't give a flying fuck. In stark contrast to you I am a volunteer and I'm not paid for this shit. Since I am now, well and truly, aggravated, I will leave you to contemplate my above messages. If you are so inclined, report me to WP:ANI for my gross dereliction of duty by not reading your walls of text. Kleuske (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Very mature response, thank you. The fact that modifications to wikipedia pages are reviewed by people who do not have any clue about what the pages are about makes me reflect, a lot. Especially if the same volunteer is reviewing youth cartoons' pages and Indigenous musical practices and ceremonial activities. Well, certainly I leave it to you. But next time, before deleting paragraphs for reasons not related to the contents, please, do some research as well... read sources. Then you decide if that content really has a place on the page or not. I acknowledged my mistake (spamming my own work) and apologized for it.
 * Sorry for wasting your precious time. I seem to also have wasted a little bit of mine (just some years of research, oh and yesterday when I also decided to contribute to wiki – without getting paid for it). Nicola Renzi (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)