User talk:SecondoMontanarelli

Nomination of Francesco Perono Cacciafoco for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Francesco Perono Cacciafoco until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability
Please read WP:NOTABILITY. Also, this is not a vote, the decision as to whether the article is kept will depend on whether or not it meets our criteria at that page and associated pages. Asking people to come and !vote (not vote, simply state their opinion) will not help.

Did you write it on behalf of Dr Cacciafoco? Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have just asked Dr Perono Cacciafoco the authorization to write this page, but he didn't asked me at all, he is not interested in this. He was not agreed, in principle, and he told me to think a lot about this before. But I didn't think to be at the origin of all these problems just writing a harmless and 'clean' page. Dr Perono Cacciafoco just told me that, if I wanted to write the page, I would have had to be really concise, talking not about him or his career (of course), but about the achievements of his studies. I hope he is not reading all these discussions, because he will feel really embarrassed and he will complain with me because I have created this situation about him and his figure as a Scholar. Hope to have answered you exhaustively. Best, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What was really being asked of you is whether you have a conflict of interest in writing this article, so please read the linked policy carefully. If you are honestly not affiliated with the academic in question, nor have any vested interest in promoting his theory, I would suggest that you're just a fan of his 'theory' and believe it to be WP:ITSIMPORTANT / WP:ITSINTERESTING / WP:ILIKEIT. The heart of the matter lies in whether Dr Cacciafoco is notable. More to the point, you appear to be of the conviction that his theory is notable. If this were the case, the theory would have been picked up on by his peers in the global community, and there is absolutely no indication that it has been. Essentially, he is a very young academic whose research may, or may not, have any impact in the future. Per Wikipedia policy, assuming that it will is WP:CRYSTALBALL. The fact that you think it's significant is your WP:POV and has nothing to do with having encyclopaedic value. Please weigh up your motives for trying to include both Dr Cacciafoco and his theory honestly before you pursue arguments against deletion. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I am a Linguist, as Dr Perono Cacciafoco, I am his colleague, but I work in another University, and I am not eminently an Etymologist. But, as I have already written, I am not his "fan", because, even if I am not a 'pan-Indo-Europeanist', I have a 'stricter' (in the meaning of 'restricted') vision than him about Indo-European origins. I think Dr Perono Cacciafoco has accepted that I write the page, because he knows that our approaches to Indo-European Linguistics are different and, therefore, he supposed my 'work' would have been 'balanced', thing I was thinking to have done. I am not his 'big supporter', but I am a honest Linguist and I see that the NCT is really effective in the reconstruction of remote etymologies and that is able to solve epistemological problems so far ignored. So, I think his Theory is effective, also because it is all-embracing and all-inclusive and it is not 'against' other Theories, but tries a 'reconciliation' among them, on a case-by-case basis and according to a multidisciplinary approach. About his notability, just two notes, 1) as I have already written, the Theory has been developed starting from 2010 and the first complete academic and scientific publications have appeared in 2013, so it is impossible that the other Academics have already commented the Theory, but they will do this, I know that some papers about the NCT are already in preparation by German and Italian Scholars, for example; 2) the NCT is at the origins of two relevant Research Projects at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore (I work at the National University in Singapore, so I have been able to evaluate them) about endangered languages in the South-East Asian context, so the pattern of the NCT is useful also 'outside' the Indo-European Linguistics and I think it is indicative of the soundness of the Theory; moreover, the Theory has been presented at the XXV International Congress of Onomastics Sciences (ICOS 2014) in Glasgow, at the University of Glasgow, last August 25-29, 2014, the most important Conference about Onomastics (and Historical Onomastics) in the world, meeting the sharing of a lot of international Linguists from all over the world and it will be the main topic of the panel about Diachronic Toponymy at the XIII International Conference on Austronesian Linguistics by the Academia Sinica, in Taiwan (Taipei), on next July 18-23, 2015. All the academic and scientific Journals that have published papers about the NCT are the expression of important international Universities and Academies, they are all peer-reviewed and available online. The NCT, therefore, is quite 'solid', but, in order to read exhaustive academic comments and debates about it, I think we'll have to wait at least for 2015. This doesn't mean that Dr Perono Cacciafoco is not worthy to be already mentioned for his Theory. I am confused, I think the page is quite clear and 'clean', without 'sponsorship' or 'fan-behavior', just providing some biographical notes about Dr Perono Cacciafoco and a short description of his Theory. I hope I have been able to answer you exhaustively. Best, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * While I can empathise with your appreciation of the methodology, Dr Perono Cacciafoco's methodology is still in the ether in terms of original research. Please read this policy with care as it is essential that the significance of his theory can be verified by reliable sources (most specifically, secondary sources that attest to his work as being anything other than WP:FRINGE). Yes, I am aware of the upcoming conference, but until there are critiques and other sources that attest to his postulations as being of value, there simply isn't a policy-based case for promoting his theory. If/once there are recognised linguists acknowledging his work, then there may be an article meeting WP:GNG. Personally, I am an advocate of a yet to be recognised alternative (or, should I say, more comprehensive) theory of the complexity of the evolution of human communications incorporating cross-disciplinary understandings of anthropology, philosophy and linguistics... but I can't write an article on the subject or the academic who has developed it until or unless it gains genuine recognition. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Iryna, I understand and I have read carefully all the instructions, now. Thank you for your kind way to address to me. I just could answer you with an 'objection'. If we consider the aspects you have just highlighted, a lot of pages about Historical Linguistics (and not only about this field, of course) should be deleted from Wikipedia. If we want to talk about really controversial and not accepted by the Academicians Theories, it would be sufficient to mention the 'pan-Semitic' Theory by Dr Giovanni Semerano, refused in toto by all the Historical Linguists with the exception of his 'dogged' (I tell with respect) followers. Should we delete the page about Dr Giovanni Semerano from Wikipedia (the English Wikipedia, I mean?)? Again, the Italian Wikipedia has deleted without any debate the page about Dr Perono Cacciafoco, but in the Italian Wikipedia we have the page on Dr Giovanni Semerano. We have also, for example, the page about Dr Claudio Beretta, Author of a Theory on historical toponymic reconstruction that is really controversial (being based just on Semantics) and refused by all the Linguists (Dr Perono Cacciafoco has applied Historical Phonetics to that Theory, in order to make it effective). And what about Dr Merrit Ruhlen, with his Theory about the Mother Tongue (the highly hypothetical original language at the basis of all the world languages), who has brought at the 'extreme consequences' the Theories of Prof. J.H. Greenberg? His Theory is refused by all the Linguists. They (Semerano, Beretta, and Ruhlen, and many others) are not Academicians stricto sensu, they are Linguists 'refused' (I know, it is a terrible word) by the Linguists, but they are on Wikipedia. Again, Prof. Mario Alinei is a very important Linguist, personally I esteem him really much. But, if we want to talk about the 'notability', he is notable, of course, but his Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm - that I share and admire - is almost unanimously considered highly speculative and questionable and the most of the Indo-Europeanists denies it in toto. But, of course (and it has to be so, he his really a great Scholar), Prof. Mario Alinei is everywhere, on Wikipedia, as well as his Continuity Theory. Should we (not we, I am sorry, I mean You, telling "You" about the Editors) delete all of the mentioned Scholar because of that and a lot of others? I don't know. I understand that my message is a little bit 'paradoxical', but just think a moment about it. If we follow strictly this approach, at least Dr Giovanni Semerano, Dr Claudio Beretta, and Dr Merritt Ruhlen should be deleted from Wikipedia. I don't want to 'delete' them at all, of course, I studied all of them for a long time, even if I don't share their Theories, but, according to this argumentum / reductio ad absurdum, they also should be topic of a deletion debate. Thanks for your attention. All the best, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Paleolithic Continuity Theory, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please don't link an article up for deletion for not meeting WP:GNG standards. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Francesco Perono Cacciafoco (again)
Hello, I noticed you have been systematically adding references to works published by Francesco Perono Cacciafoco in many articles. While there is nothing wrong in principle, I hope you will agree that most of these references add nothing to the respective pages and by looking at your edit history they can be easily mistaken for self-promotion (by the way, the same applies for almost identical edits to the Italian Wikipedia). Given this is not the first time you have been warned about such contributions to Wikipedia, and in light of your position as a linguist at an academic institution, I also hope you will recognise how poor the practice of systematically citing one's work on Wikipedia can be, regardless of the actual value of Cacciafoco's work. Ciao, --Steko (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toponymy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Blair. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)