Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 10 November 2007

Archive

An inquiry

May I ask, Giovanni, why did you delete your entire talkpage? You did not archive it like you said... DIREKTOR 11:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Commento

Ciao Giovanni, sono PIO ma non mi posso registrare per un problema tecnico. Ho letto il tuo messaggio ma se lascerò un commento dovrò farlo senza registrarmi. Dalla cronologia di wikipedia:Requests for arbitration ho visto che è stato rimosso il commento di LEO ossia -20:31, 28 August 2007 151.33.88.36 (Talk) (75,698 bytes)-: francamente penso che certi amministratori facciano più danni di alcuni psicolabili croati!!!! Comunque non ho fiducia in questo progetto che ritengo fallimentare: puoi vedere che nella versione in italiano ho smesso di collaborare, pur essendo la mia sospensione di un anno scaduta. Penso che questo progetto abbia fatto arricchire il suo fondatore ma se io devo fare una ricerca mai verrei a consultare questa sedicente enciclopedia: enciclopedia sì ma di cazzate!!!! Sono disgustato dall'ignoranza di persone presuntuose con le quali dovrei discutere in italiano, inglese, francese: posso utilizzare meglio il mio tempo!!!! Persone come DIREKTOR, Kubura, No. 13 hanno evidenti problemi psicologici che li porta ad avversare tutto quel che è italiano: hanno bisogno di bravi psichiatri, io che posso fare con un commento? Ma davvero devo discutere con disturbati mentali croati segnalati molte volte agli amministratori che sembrano favorirli anzichè metterli al bando!!!! Non ho alcuna fiducia in Isotope e altri amministratori: addirittura Isotope bloccò un italiano non registrato, che giustamente rimuoveva le cazzate anti-italiane di tali croati in diversi articoli, poichè aveva lasciato un messaggio caricaturale a DIREKTOR nel quale si comunicava la morte del dittatore comunista Tito. In particolare, DIREKTOR solo per quel che ha fatto su foibe massacres scatenando una guerra editoriale contro almeno una decina di persone merita di esser messo al bando a infinito invece continua imperterrito e l'ultima modifica è ancora sua. Poi in passato sai che fece fronte comune con un altro fanatico slavo Ghepeu, al quale lasciai un messaggio che puoi ancora leggere: questi slavi insultano gli Italiani e Ghepeu si allea con uno di loro contro di me, ma allora qui non c'è proprio motivo di collaborazione!!!! Io non sto qui a litigare ma se qualcuno m'insulta, come Ghepeu, devo rispondere, poi certi croati provocano e fanno solo propaganda protetti da alcuni amministratori. Il mio schifo per questo progetto m'induce a smettere di collaborare. Apprezzo persone competenti come te e Brunodam ma io non posso discutere a lungo con amministratori che neanche sanno dove hanno il buco per pisciare!!!! Ciao, PIO 29 agosto 2007

There is no need for insults, PIO. How nice of you to admit who you are! :D I will translate and report you for personal attacks against several Wikipedians (including Admins, apparently). If you think you can hide behind your (beautiful) language, you will find that you are sorely mistaken. I fear you will have to speak in Arabic or something to achieve that. DIREKTOR 14:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, dato che capisci l'italiano, ti avverto di non azzardarti più a sporcare la pagina della mia discussione con messaggi farneticanti riguardo il dittatore Tito e la Iugoslavia con insulti al popolo italiano. Io con un ignorante e volgarissimo provocatore come te non ho tempo da perdere in discussioni: vai da un bravo psichiatra e fatti analizzare, idiota!!!! Hai riempito molti articoli di falsità e propaganda: ma davvero credi di convincere qualcuno con le tue assurde farneticazioni? Sei ridicolo nelle tua esaltazione di un dittatore comunista come Tito che organizzò la pulizia etnica contro gli italiani e massacrò milioni di italiani, croati, serbi, sloveni, montenegrini, bosniaci, macedoni, tedeschi, ungheresi, albanesi, tutti cittadini iugoslavi, compresi vecchi e bambini. Quella enorme testa di cazzo di Stipe Mesic ha polemizzato contro la denuncia di pulizia etnica di Giorgio Napolitano non capendo che quella era una denuncia anche dei crimini contro i croati nel Bleiburg massacre: Mesic anzichè unirsi a Napolitano nel denunciare i crimini del dittatore comunista Tito contro i croati ha ingaggiato una polemica con Napolitano dimostrando di esser anti-italiano e un grande coglione!!!! I croati devono capire che i turisti italiani sono una risorsa essenziale per l'economia croata: se gli italiani smettono di andare in Dalmazia, molti croati moriranno di fame e i croati devono solo ringraziare l'esercito italiano che li ha difesi recentemente contro i serbi!!!! Quel criminale schizoide di Tito non capì che gli italiani potevano esser solo una risorsa per la Iugoslavia invece li massacrò nelle foibe e tolse loro le case per indurli ad andarsene pianificando la pulizia etnica!!!! Quindi, DIREKTOR la tua propaganda titoista a me fa solo schifo: Tito fu molto più criminale di Pavelic e Mussolini insieme!!!! La salvezza della Iugoslavia poteva esser la democrazia ossia tutte le etnie potevano convivere pacificamente in Iugoslavia ma solo in libertà democratica invece Tito e i comunisti con le loro pulizie etniche contro italiani, tedeschi, albanesi, bosniaci e altri hanno dato solo morte e distruzione inoltre il nome dello Stato doveva esser FEDERAZIONE BALCANICA sul modello della FEDERAZIONE SVIZZERA con lingue ufficiali che comprendessero italiano, tedesco, ungherese, albanese e altre usate nei corrispondenti cantoni. PIO, 30 agosto 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.94.142 (talk) 10:35, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I did not at any time expect you to understand the comlex politics of our nations and nationalities. Tito is the one that created the closest thing to your FEDERAZIONE BALCANICA (Socialist FEDERATIVE Republic of Yugoslavia), that is why I support his policies, as for communism, he created the mildest, most prosperous (official GDP information), and the most liberal socialist state in the world.
Pavelic and Mussolini (the world's most comical dictator) slaughtered 1,200,000 (at least) men, women and children in the holocaust and otherwise in Yugoslavia. How many Italians died in the war? You will have permanent technical difficulties because of your attacks, I'm afraid. DIREKTOR 14:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

RfC

Thanks for giving it a try. Regards, --Asterion 20:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

intenzione

Leggendo questo messaggio dalla prima frase sai la ossessiva intenzione di DIREKTOR -We can always use support against radical Serb (četnik) and (especially) Italian theses in Misplaced Pages-: sto tizio agisce in gruppo contro supposte e immaginarie tesi italiane. Dunque DIREKTOR è un troll. PIO, 11 set 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.90.209 (talk) 06:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Riflessione

Ciao ingegnere, riguardo le tue modifiche in Istrian exodus voglio specificare che la sezione antecedent non è stata redatta da me ma da altro utente non registrato e io mi devo prendere una pausa di riflessione ossia non devo più modificare gli articoli coinvolti nella Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia. Infatti l'amministratrice Riana mi ha fatto notare che se continuo a redigere da non registrato faccio sospettare la mia intenzione di eludere il 3RR e rischio un blocco duraturo quindi ho risposto che mi astengo dal redigere sin quando risolverò i miei problemi tecnici. Ciao, PIO 15:24 25 set 2007

Resolution proposal

Giovanni (did I mention that's my name as well?), I propose we put an end to our conflict through discussion as two intelligent human beings. Here's what I suggest:

• We both stop editing Dalmatia-related articles and leave them exactly as they are.
• We make a list of articles wich are disputed between us.
• We tackle them two at a time by discussing for the purpose of reaching a consensus.
• We both do not edit until an agreement is reached, and invest our energies in using civilized arguments and relible sources.

I realise this looks tedious, but I doubt it can be more tedious than constant edit-warring. More importantly I would like to turn your attention towards the strong possibility that we will both be severely restricted by the Arbitration Committee (see Misplaced Pages: Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia/Proposed decision). DIREKTOR 11:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about my upholding the Agreement. I will not be the one to reinitiate hostilities. I just remembered one thing, can we please agree not to use (ex-)Yugoslav (including Croatian) and Italian sources in our discussions? DIREKTOR 14:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We shall distinguish case to case, for the sources. There are anyway several general rules that can be properly discussed and applied to all the disputed articles. Giovanni Giove 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. DIREKTOR 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Why did you merge the two texts on the controversy (Marco Polo)? The section does not make sense anymore and repeats itself. DIREKTOR 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To have a single disputed section and because the content was too large for a so small introduction. Futhermore in the present moment the intro do not mention the birth place, so it is neutral.Giovanni Giove 14:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but the section does not make sense this way... DIREKTOR 14:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course it can be properly shortened.--Giovanni Giove 14:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll get to it then, shall I? DIREKTOR 14:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

yes...Giovanni Giove 14:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There. I deleted the first text while making sure no info was ommited. DIREKTOR 14:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you too should make an effort to show the Arbitrators we have come to terms... DIREKTOR 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Why did you change the Ethnicity and Birthplace Controversy section? Didn't we agree we would not touch it without consensus? You rewrote it completly (no offense, but also with bad grammar) to make the Korčula theory seem less likely. I know you probably find this difficult and probably won't want to, but please return it to the original version, we can discuss any changes you deem necessary . DIREKTOR 09:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Due to lack of response I have returned the Ethnicity and Birthplace Controversy subsection to the state it was in at the time of the Agreement. Please do not revert just yet, and diccuss in the new section at the Discussion page.
Please remeber that this was the Agreement, I have not infringed upon it, will you please try your best to do the same. DIREKTOR 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Ragusa

Why are you editing Ragusa without discussion? Do you even realize we will be severly restricted, and here you are starting TWO edit-wars. Please restore the articles to their previous form, the one you agreed in the Agreement not to touch,. We can discuss changes sanely. DIREKTOR 11:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ragusa

I am willing to swallow the Polo thing, but as for Ragusa correct or not, you clearly violated our Agreement. I must ask you to return the article to the prior state, I'm sure we can come to an agreement. DIREKTOR 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You must tell me, I'm curious: is there a particular reason you refuse to answer my plea, or did you simply overlook it? Do we have an agreement or not? DIREKTOR 17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest devealopments

Hi, Giovanni. Since you seem to be indisposed for the time being, I thought it would be decent to bring you up to speed on the situatiuon in the Marco Polo and Republic of Ragusa articles.

Concerning Marco Polo. After a lack of response to several of my enquiries, I took the liberty of returning the old "Agreement version" of the Ethnicity and Birthplace controversy section (please allow that you took the same liberty, let this be the last of them). Ghepeu joined in and we sort of managed to scrape together an agreeable wording and organisation.
I pointed out the current issues concerning the section (as per your request) in the new discussion section I created (here ).

Concerning the Republic of Ragusa business, I hope you see that it is irrlevant at this point what I believe (trust), we agreed not to touch the article, did we not? In any case, I removed all reference to an official language from the article, pending verifiable confirmation of the Italian official language thesis. There should be some way to verify matters of such importance before they are included, don't you think? I created a discussion section for this problem as well (here ).

In any event, I honestly reccomend, that when you rejoin Wiki, you give discussion a chance before reverting. Please remember our Agreement and the restriction we will face if we do not give cooperation a chance. DIREKTOR 18:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Dalmatian Italians

Even though I'm aware you ignore all my posts, I'll try to talk once more. While I'm willing to swallow your removal of most of my hard work from nearly three days, I must protest about your inclusion of the "Roman = Italian" thesis. In English historiography, Romance peoples are not "Latins", nor are they considered "Latin". The adjective "Romance" or "Romanic" can be used. Also, the fact that the ancient Dalmatians were Romans does not make them Italian. Even Brunodam accepted this as true.

I also MUST protest that you NEVER EVER discuss your edits! What gives?, why can't you discuss like the rest of us? DIREKTOR 19:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dalmatia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Giovanni Giove and DIREKTOR are each subject to an editing restriction for one year. Each is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Please note that you may be blocked by an administrator if you violate these requirements. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Marco Polo (again)

Despite the fact you do not answer any posts, I feel I have to say that you really need to get objective, here's an example:

"Polo was not in Korčula to visit his ancestral roots..."

You say it like its a 100% certain fact. How do you know this? Did you ask the guy? One does not make this sort of matter-of-fact statements, one presents merely the evidence and bare facs. You cannot make conclusions for the reader in controversial matters. Since I really do believe old Marco was from Venice, I ain't gonna get involved with your edits, but please try to improve your spelling.

You cannot say "Marco Polo was declaring himself a Venetian citizen", say "Marco Polo stated he was a Venetian citizen". (this is, of course, just an example too) DIREKTOR 18:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Done.--Giovanni Giove 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.Gunnerdevil4 23:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC) This warning is an accident on accout that I accidently warned the wrong user. Gunnerdevil4 00:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The above claim appear to be a misunderstanding.--Giovanni Giove 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, I have reviewed the article and I have gotten the wrong user.Gunnerdevil4 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The game I'm playing

Believe it or not, my objective opinion on the birthplace of Marco Polo is that he was born in Venice. However, due to the lack of any conclusive evidence I think that the people of Korčula also deserve to have that theory represented fully. the theories are indeed equally strong in their claim (because we simply do not know where Marco was born) so an encyclopedia should also follow the objective facts and evidence, not "probability" or personal opinion. DIREKTOR 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your threats

Giovanni this is again another occasion where I noticed you are trying to insert your personal subjective opinion in the article, namely in Roger Boscovich article. I have read your talk page and found that you are strickly forbidden to edit war on articles related to Dalmatia and historical people from Dalmatia because of your constant edit wars and inherent subjectivity enforcement, in this case article about Roger Boscovich perfectly fits that criteria. So it is me warning you rather than you warning me. I hope you will take this seriously. Regards. --Raguseo 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni you are not the only person editing on Misplaced Pages, there are others if you noticed. There was a certain version of Roger Boscovich article for a very long time, that is until you started editing recently, importing your POV and hiding it behind trivial edits. I am not a fool you know. --Raguseo 21:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni please show me sources which say there was Italy in 1760 when Roger Boscovich lived, or even better sources which will confirm there was a independent political entity called Dalmatia anywhere in that time period. We both know you can't. When you are mentioning a person's place of birth and death only political entities apply, geographical regions are irrelevant. Regarding Dubrovnik's historical name in Latin/Dalmatian (and Italian) is also mentioned already in the very Roger Boscovich article. Misplaced Pages rules also say historical names are applicable only in articles which are about certain time period, in all other cases the current names are to be used for people to know what the article is talking about. In this case we have a parody where you revert to Ragusa and leave Milan. The name used in English language is Dubrovnik. Why don't you revert to Milano? I will tell you, because you want to imply Dubrovnik was in that time Italian town, that is why you also change Italic to Italian despite the fact people of Dubrovnik didn't consider themselves Italians at that time or ever. Now you can accuse me of POV or even more ridiculusly of personal attacks but in the end it is you who is trying to change the article not me. For that you better have good reasons. For now you have none. But please continue, I am sure the admins who handled your case and forbid you to edit war on Dalmatia-related articles will be thrilled with your recent activity. Regards again. --Raguseo 21:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Answers: 1. Galileo's place of residence says "Grand Duchy of Tuscany", Dante's birth place is only Florence. Only Columbus article mentions Italy in such a sense as you did in Boscovich article. A mistake obviously. In any case none of those articles are my concern as I am not interested in them. My interest is Boscovich article and preserving already achieved level of quality. 2. I never disputed that. Ragusa is a historical name and it is used and should be used only in articles regarding history of Dubrovnik. When we are writing down the place of birth of some historical person we need to write down the current name and official name and also the name used in English language. All these for Boscovic's birth place have only one answer - Dubrovnik. 3. Italic is a cultural term, a designations for something of Italic/Romanic origin. Italian is much more modern and is applied to Italy (Republic of Italy). People of Dubrovnik in that time were not in Italy and they certainly weren't Italian (citizens of Italian Republic founded in 1861 50 years after the fall of Ragusan Republic). 4. Giovanni you should apply this advice to yourself first. I am not blind you know, I know POV when I see one. --Raguseo 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Italy

I agree with Raguseo. Your corrections looked very POV. You put Italy as place of Boscovich death as "geographical and political place" ? Geographical place is Milan, and political Duchy of Milan. There is no "political" Italy in 18th century and first larger geographical place is valley of river Po. And putting Dalmatia in birth place seams that you are using names of the provinces from roman times (more that thousand years before Boskovich). Isn't that little bit unneceseary?:) Ceha 22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to repeat what I've already written in Raguseo's talk page. Grts.--Giovanni Giove 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are mixing things. 1)Why? What is the point of putting Italy in Boskovich page? Conotation on Italy are primarely conected with a state of that name, and not on the geographical region on the Appenine peninsula. On the pages of the city of Milan there is it's geographical location. No need, and as Raguseo says, it isn't even correct. 2)Historical name of the town. Not currently official in english language. See Bejing 3)Same as above. 4)Please read your own posts and try to see the difference. There is no need putting Italy in every page on wikipedia.Ceha 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read what I've written?:) I don't see the need for puting Italy (which is also name of the state which was created firstly 150 years after dissalution of Ragusan Republic) on that page.

My commentars are in good faith (would I've been talking to you if they where not?). Please do the same. And also please, don't have double standards (for example name of Milano and Dubrovnik). Put your suggestion about putting Italy(word with other meanings) on Boscovich Talk page, and you'll hear what others have to say. Ceha 10:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Roger Boshkovich

I am shocked to read your edits on Boshkovich! This is an outrage Giovanni! Will you ever get normal with your views?!, you edit with a very strong POV DIREKTOR 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for violation of your ArbCom revert parole. This restricted you to one revert per page per week; you appear to have made at least three reverts in less than two days. Taking into account previous blocks, the duration of this block is six days. – Steel 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Diffs for reference: (Raguseo) revert 1 (Ceha) revert 2 (Direktor) revert 3

Ti con nu, nu con Ti

Ricevi tutta la solidarietá di noi esuli Dalmati.--Cherso 16:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)