Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:23, 2 November 2007

Welcome!

Hello, FrancescoMazzucotelli, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Khoikhoi 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sidon

I like the compromise. Happy editing. :) —Khoikhoi 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Istrian exodus

Thanks for adding tons of useful information to this page. Hopefully it can now be maintained as NPOV without vandalism occuring. --Zivan56 08:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

esodo

Stai facendo un grave errore su istrian exodus: ti comporti come quel vandalo di Zivan56! Io e PIO stiamo riportando la traduzione dalla versione italiana: guarda in cronologia dell'articolo italiano e renditi conto di quanto abbia collaborato Pio alias PIO! Non disturbare lo sviluppo del testo di utenti che hanno curato l'edizione italiana! Quel vandalo di Zivan se vuole collaborare perchè non traduce il testo nella sua lingua anzichè vandalizzare il nostro sviluppo dell'articolo? Zivan è solo ignorante e provocatore!--Jxy 08:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

English translation:
You're making a big mistake on Istrian exodus: you're behaving like that vandal Zivan56! PIO and I are reporting the translation of the Italian version: read in the "History" section of the Italian article and realize how much Pio alias PIO has contributed! Don't disturb the development of the text by users who edited the Italian version! That vandal Zivan56... If he wants to contribute, why doesn't he translate the text in his own language instead of vandalizing our development of the article? Zivan is only an ignorant and a flamer!

My answer:

I am not acting "like a vandal" and I am not "disturbing" any "development" of the discourse. The entry is not "yours": it is open to all contributions and edits in a spirit of mutual respect and constructive criticism. Please respect other users, including those who have different ideas. It is strange that you profess to be "libertarian and anti-totalitarian" and then behave in a slightly different manner.

I read the entry on the Italian-language version of Misplaced Pages and the whole discussion on the talk page, which included an exchange of different points of view and interpretations. You have any right to have your own opinion on the issue, but Misplaced Pages is just not the right place to express POVs. Please stick to the most neutral, fact-based version. It will enhance your credibility, by the way, much more than a version which seems hard-liner or stinks of propaganda.

P.S.: I write in English, because this is the English-language version of Misplaced Pages and English-speaking users have the right to know what we are talking about.

Thanks for translating his comments. Hopefully a mod will take the proper measures to teach this person how to behave on Misplaced Pages. --Zivan56 20:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalismo

Ciao, mi esprimo in lingua italiana perchè è la lingua che meglio conosco e mi rivolgo a te che sei di madrelingua italiana. In history di istrian exodus puoi leggere my rollback after vandalism e quell'utente sloveno così agendo mi rivolge attacchi personali. Il mio contributo come puoi leggere è semplice e si attiene a dati storici acquisiti! Quel vandalo dev'essere bloccato quindi ho avvisato un amministratore! Apprezzo il tuo contibuto. Ciao,--PIO 18:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

English translation:
Hi, I express myself in Italian because it is the language that I best master and I am talking to you who are a native Italian speaker. In 'history' of istrian exodus you can read 'my rollback after vandalism' and that Slovenian user, acting that way, is addressing personal attacks to me. As you can read, my contribution is simple and follows unquestionable historical data! That vandal must be stopped, so I alerted an administrator! I appreciate your contribution. So long,

Sidon again

I reverted because I realized that it's common practice on Misplaced Pages to have historical names at the top of the page. This is the same reason why we have the Greek names at the Istanbul and Izmir articles. Also, you deleted the section about Hezbollah without any explanation...could you please provide one? Khoikhoi 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The Greek name used to be at the Jerusalem article, actually, and if you feel like Damascus should have it as well, by all means add it. You will note that following the same policy, the Turkish names of Thessaloniki (Selânik), Thrace (Trakya), etc. are on the pages of Greek cities. It is useful for readers of Misplaced Pages to see these historical names at the top, as it's more convenient there. You will find similar policies in other areas which have been governed or populated by many different language groups over time. For example:

• Sibiu (IPA , German: Hermannstadt, Hungarian: Nagyszeben) — in Romania
• Lviv (Ukrainian: Львів, L’viv , German: Lemberg; Polish: Lwów; Russian: Львов, Lvov; see also other names) — in Ukraine

As for the section about Hezbollah, I guess it's fine to delete it. The sources don't appear to be reliable anyways. Ciao, Khoikhoi 22:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate it

Assume good faith and stop making insinuations on the reasons of my reverts beyond those given in the summary. Various edits have been made the last few days with significant changes without discussions, contrary to what is asked on the tag found in the talkpage. That I reverted back starting with your edit does not mean that I disagree with you, but that I have randomly selected starting with you, to request discussing the changes. This will be news as the discussions going on in the talkpage are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the content of the article. So you could make a good use of the talk page. I also believe that that that sentence you have modified was POV and should be reworked, but since this is a controversial article and that it will possibly spark a conroversy and edit warrings, your justifications and discussions are more than welcome. Fad (ix) 02:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My answer:

It is actually discomforting that a plea for fairness, balance and self-restraint addressed to all contributors is interpreted as a personal attack which deserves an apology. It is also discomforting that, in spite of the alleged "be bold - anyone can edit" principle that supposedly animates Misplaced Pages, a user has to explain on the talk page the reasons for removing a sentence that is not only POV, but also factually inaccurate (and expressed in a childish manner, by the way) and a quotation that is quite biased, to say the least.

However, I do understand your reasons. Since Misplaced Pages is populated by a significant share of users who apparently don't have anything better to do in their lives than staging endless (and quite useless) edit wars, and since my intention is to offer a positive contribution, I will follow your advice and post my proposals on the talkpage as soon as possible.

Your comments and suggestions will be more than welcome.

Thank you, and you are right, be bold is what is asked, but some articles request for their own sake some self-restraint. The requested appology asked may sound exagerated, and I admit having been too extrem, but your harshness was unwarranted. Also I will welcome your critic of the overal article and suggestions. Regards Fad (ix) 21:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it, I agree with your justifications and will be having no problem you introduce that change. You should have posted your justification at te bottom of the talkpage though, more accessible. Fad (ix) 22:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah foreign relations

Salam. I moved what you added in this section to Hezbollah foreign relations because we've agreed on moving all of the commentators and journalists' ideas to the sub-article:Talk:Hezbollah/Archive 9#Shortening the article--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer to your comment in Hezbollah talk page, because I want to know the idea of the other participants.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Conventions

Hi, it's appreciable that you want a neutral solution for the Province of Bolzano article, but consider that the most neutral solution is to apply the conventions. That is, to use in the body of the articles the names that correspond to the titles of the articles (so "Bolzano"), and to cite the names in other languages (so German and Ladin) in the first line of the respective articles. If you read the article about Bolzano, you'll find that the German name is present in the first line.--Supparluca 07:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi and thank you for contacting me. To put it plainly you seem to go about trawling relevant articles and replacing the term "Turkish invasion" (which is a term internationally used by news agencies (see Reuters , BBC , DW etc) with other terms you seem prefer. You seem to have a storng affiliation with the Turkish point of view, and as I do not agree with your choice of words I will continue revert your edits (and as i see others are doing the same). I suggest you try and make better choice of words as the ones you are currenlty using are not a NPOV. I hope you understand. Georgeg 14:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer:

Thank you for your reply. If the point of disagreement is the word "invasion", I don't understand why you keep reverting my whole edits, including references. You can just edit the word "military intervention" and explain the reasons of your choice on the relevant talk pages. The fact that "invasion" is used by media outlets might be a valid argument to support your stance.

On the other hand, reverting all of my edits is simply not constructive. That you disagree with my preferences about one word is not a sufficient reason for rejecting my contribution altogether.

I did not appreciate the argument ad hominem. I am not affiliated to anyone and I kindly ask you to avoid similar conjectures in any future conversation. Let me remind you to please assume good faith. FrancescoMazzucotelli 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to assume good faith with such a systematic editing sequence that you have followed. I would suggest you went back and changed your edits youself to follow a more NPOV. I am afraid as long as you are using polarised terms, I will continue to revert your edits. Invasion is not the only non NPOV, you seem to dislike valid references cited by others. Take a closer look at your edits on the UN buffer zone article. As such, I am not willing to go about correcting your edits, I will be simply reverting them as a whole until your contibution respects other POVs too.Georgeg 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer:

Can you specify what you are exactly talking about? What are the valid references that I seem to dislike? As far as I know, I added the text of a UNSC resolution, quoted from the website of the government of the Republic of Cyprus. Or maybe are you meaning that I highlighted that a passage was taken verbatim from here? It looks like that the person who is pushing a POV is not me. I am not willing to go about correcting your edits, I will be simply reverting them as a whole until your contibution respects other POVs too is a very unconstructive statement and clearly not in the spirit of this project. I have time and again invited you to discuss the points of disagreement on the talk pages. I am still waiting for your arguments. Again, I kindly ask to please not question my moral integrity and bona fide anymore, otherwise I may have to consider the option to report your behaviour to an administrator, which isn't exactly what I aspire to. I have more interesting ideas on how to spend my spare time. Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good faith can be assumed for edits to an article or two. I hate repeating myself, but you have altered several articles in a similar fashion. So bona fide cannot be assumed in your case. Sorry if you don’t like me being direct and in reply to your repeated threats, be my guest, go ahead and report me. Georgeg 00:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ditto from me.StephP 09:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My answer:

Can you please provide one example of repeated threats? I have been kindly asking you to refrain from statements that I find objectionable. If that is a "threat" to you, it is definitely a quite bizarre definition. Or a very lame spin attempt. Choose one.

Can you please explain why bona fide cannot be assumed in my case? Sorry to be harsh, but it is you who keeps reverting contributions without providing any rationale or any argument. Good faith has nothing to with the number of my edits, rather it is related to your personal attacks and unproven suggestion that I have a storng affiliation with the Turkish point of view. Best regards and enjoy your petty edit wars if you fancy that, FrancescoMazzucotelli 12:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen FrancescoMazzucotelli, your bona fide edits included changing the description of a man's fatal shooting as an accident (!). Just go back and read your edits. Better still, let me jog your memory . Yes FrancescoMazzucotelli, a man lost his life. And its there for you to see in pictures and videos. What in all that graphic detail looked like an accident to you? Please let the rest of the world know, as in my books people don't get shot at point blank by accident. Nor do i take loss of life as lightly as you seem to do. And remember we are not talking about a death in antiquity. This did not happen generations ago, this happened during your life.

So tell me, how would you feel if it were your relative? I'll tell you something, if I were the deceased’s family I would take your contributions as more than an insult. Certainly not bona fide. Nor would I consider the reversal of your edits a “petty war”.

As such I really have no time for you or your good faith edits. So I would suggest you take this as good faith advice: do your research in a more thorough fashion in the future. Georgeg 08:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol

Francesco - like a breath of fresh air, you come in and have what I believe would be the PERFECT solution for the entire "South Tyrol vs. Bolzano" debate. It is akin to what I have tried and tried to point to during this entire debate (and as history will show, I have been on BOTH sides of the debate over time). South Tyrol needs to be preserved and directed to an article that is proper and respectful for its place in historical context, not for the proper provincial naming. I support this action - and will assist however possible. Just be advised that you will have to convince the majority of Italo-extremists that have now ramrodded their POV into the articles. I am tired, and no longer wish to debate these lame arguments, but in this case, you have come up with an incredibly intelligent and well thought out approach that should be worthy of a solution. Let me know. Rarelibra 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Francesco, principally I agree with you and Rarelibra. The term "South Tyrol" has had various meanings in history, so the disambiguation would be a useful solution (I think though the Bolzano province article should be named "Autonomous province of South Tyrol", but that's another question). PhJ 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Autonomous province of South Tyrol"... HAHAH! You are classic. There is no interpretation except the German interpretation, eh? Who cares what people actually say in English! :) Gosh, I wonder why Europe had two horrible wars, plus a genocide... Icsunonove 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hi Francesco, thanks for the message. It is even more entertaining to see that you have visits from such wonderful people like Rarelibra and PhJ above. You should meet Gryffindor, Emes, and Matthead if you want to see the entire cast. :-) I see Rarelibra has a raging case of sour grapes, as you may find by reading above. "Italo-extremists"... nice! This guy represents such an anachronistic way of thinking. Anyway, I think the root of your idea is fine, but I do believe the information can be held more simply and concisely at the current Tyrol dab page. The problem with having a South Tyrol dab is it then becomes a mirror of the term Alto Adige. So we have to have a Alto Adige dab? Or we make it Alto Adige/South Tyrol dab? Do you see what I mean? Icsunonove 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note of history. PhJ above is one of the guys who got his panties in a bind when the page was moved from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen. Then he placed a POV tag and couldn't for the life of him explain to any of us why our solution was not neutral, and why South Tyrol was more neutral. But you know, I've seen many times in my life these type of people who can not make a good intelligent argument and just resort to.. well, acting like those two above. :-) Rarelibra likes to go around all sorts of ethnic debates on Misplaced Pages and make decisions for everyone else (hey, just like his US Army!). At one time he looked up English references and was like, "oh yeah, they do use Trentino-Alto Adige, etc. in English". Then he spoke with our super-best friend Gryffindor, who set him good'n'straight. It was hilarious getting messages from Rarelibra saying things like, "You don't understand, I've been e-mailing Gryffindor, he is incredibly intelligent, we have everything figured out". Really now?!? :-) It was nice when they left actually, and you are lucky to have missed most of that. Anyway, talk to you more later and hopefully with a focus on the region, something which these guys haven't the slightest understanding of. regards and good luck with your phd. Icsunonove 05:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• with regard to the naming order in Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We took the order that was used in the English reference Encyclopedia Brittanica. This made it more simple. Typically in English, simply Province of Bolzano is used. But as you mention, the multilingual nature of BZ makes it more neutral (and even important) to use Bolzano-Bozen. The page was once only South Tyrol, based soley on the German translation. You should of seen the fighting to maintain this one-sided point of view, which you can get a hint of from PhJ's message above. In fact at one point they used only South Tyrol , along with a biased history section straight out of a German textbook. Nice and neutral, right? :) Icsunonove 05:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)