Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:44, 2 December 2007

Stop accusing Giovanni Giove of sockpuppetry with me! Verify my IP with "wiki check up" before writing lies in perfect Tito-style!--Cherso (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

LISTEN

I'm sure there's a way w can work this out. Just tell me what you want and I'll ask him what he wants and I'll try to create a happy meeting place. Best, --Gp75motorsports 15:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I've set up a discussion at Arbcom. Go there and put your name under the involved parties list. --Gp75motorsports 19:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Giovanni, accept my honest appology. I lost my temper for the moment, I mean no insult to the people who left Dalmatia. In my oppinion they acted prematurely, but this very well may not have been so. Once again, I honestly appologize. DIREKTOR 19:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, non te la prendere così. I did not accuse you of anything- I simply mentioned the coincidence and left it at that. You must admit, to a casual observer it does look funny:) Mariokempes 22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

...what? DIREKTOR 22:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked (2)

• Fascist Italianization: (Aradic-en) revert 1 (Aradic-en) revert 2
• Marco Polo: (Direktor) revert 1 (Zenanarh) revert 2 (Zenanarh) revert 3

Giovanni, I honestly don't know what you're playing at. You've violated your ArbCom revert restriction on at least two pages within a matter of hours. What's really astonishing is that here you remove an alleged personal attack, yet in the very next edit you proceed to make attacks yourself. Given these actions and your lengthy block log, I have blocked you indefinitely. This may or may not be lifted pending an ANI discussion. – Steel 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. The second supposed "revert" is not a revert at all, read well: I've restored some typos errors, as recognized by Zen. , but NOT the disputed line (that was lightly changed, but this is not a revert).
2. About the first revert, it is about a really minor aspect, I was inattentive and I apologize, but it appears anyway a minor violation, between several edits, sourced and/or discussed.
   1. NOTE: I do not apologize anymore for the revert. I've reviewed what happened, and I claim to be innocent. Meanwhile 2 users were edit warring, I've tried for two times to make neutral a controversial chapter. In this two different attempts there were two "coincident edits", and they can not be considered as a "revert".
3. About my supposed attack: for month I've been heavy insulted, attacked, accused of sock puppetry: again again and again. Find me a SINGLE time, when I've attacked back. Now, for my very FIRST reaction (that I do NOT find insulting) you want to block me! You are no so strict with other users!!!
4. I've finally to complain about my first block (Roger Boscovich): you did an error because I acted in a total good faith. I've done 1 revert, it was reverted, I've discussed it in the talk page, THAN I've reverted back! It was reverted and I've let it be! The 3d was about a totally different problem: a massive reverts by DIREKTOR, and I did not see it as a violation of the revert rule. Even if I've broken the restriction, I was not awake of it, and actually I acted in GOOD FAITH. I've was sure that a revert done after a discussion shall be considerer an EDIT.

1. You must recognize that my last "rv" are light and about minor aspects, and they can not be assumed as a major violation. And that I the last months I've acted in good faith, avoiding personal attacks and sourcing my edits.
2. Furthermore is more and more evident that DIREKTOR acts like a meatball, with other user, trying to block me in any way. Last but not least, why you did nothing against Direktor and his massive unexplained revert in Boscovich (I mean this)? He reverted tens of my edits, with no discussion! I've reverted it, but I've discussed the rv in the talk page and I've immediately written to a moderator, to ask if I've acted bad (see here ). Why you do nothing against the heavy insults he recently posted in my talk page (see here )? Why you did nothing against the several insults I've received in the last weeks?!
3. My block logs is altered by some blocks I've never committed, as recognized by the moderators them self.
4. All the blocks were caused by sockpuppets of the multi banned user:Afrika_paprika, and they shall be deleted. 2 blocks were caused by DIREKTOR. You know about the last 2.
5. Furthermore, before to act in this way, even blocking me, you should listen my complains, before. I act in good faith, and I am under attack by a group of Croatian users whot do not act in the proper way.---- Giovanni Giove (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest most of what I've seen you remove as personal attacks haven't really been blockworthy personal attacks at all. Saying that you've discredited yourself is quite different to saying that you're shame for your country . As for Direktor, I've been keeping an eye on his contributions but haven't noticed him violate his own revert restriction; please link me with diffs if he has (recently). The ANI discussion is here. If you want to say anything there, post it here and I can copy it over. – Steel 17:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can not post there. Honestly there are tens of personal attacks against me, from several users: you need only to search, find me a SINGLE attack I did in the last months.---- Giovanni Giove (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You can make use of {{unblock}} if you want another admin to review this. – Steel 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, I only reverted a few times to counter your veritable ceaseless flood of poor-quality edits. I never violated the restriction, and I discussed as best as I could each time I reverted. You obviously blame me for your blocks, but maybe you ought to read your restriction rules once more and then look at your edits. A blind man can see you violated the ARBCOM ruling, not twice, but several times. DIREKTOR 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Under the circumstances I am reducing the block to 2 days. In the future, you will need to develop some dispute resolution skills that do not involve calling people meatballs and reverting their edits. All sides need to discuss controversial changes on the talk page before they are made, and certainly before they are reverted or reinstated. These sort of ethnic and nationalist disputes are unpleasant for everyone and continued aggressive behavior will eventually lead to longer blocks and/or bans. You can report violations by DIREKTOR at WP:AE. Thatcher131 02:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Unblock (for Thatcher131)

Giovanni Giove (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you Tathcher. Nevertheless I still need to point out that:

1. I've never violated my restriction. Steel has reported wrongly the facts, and I will tell about this. If (if!) I did violations, I did just minor violations, and I've acted in good faith. I can provide evidences in any moment.

2. "Meatball", if I remeber well, it is when a group of editors act in a coordinate way, even for reverts. I had no intention at all to be offensive: what I wished to say is that the Croatian users were acting as a group (and this is a matter of fact - IMHO).

3. When I did "controversial" changes, I've sourced them (thought I've not always "discussed" them). If an edit is sourced, I think is not a must to discuss them, everybody is free to re-edit them. When somebody has changed my edits, I've always opened a discussion. When I've reverted a massive revert of DIREKTOR, I've immediately contacted a moderator.

4. fell free to tell me if I've recently acted bad.

For the above reason I ask my unblock and the deletion of the block from my block-log. Steel's accuses are unbiased and I can show this, it's my idea that he should apologize for his behavior, and because he wrote that "I've discredited my self". Whether I did some errors, I've always acted in GOOD FAITH. Best regards. (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block log and ArbCom record indicates that you, like most editors involved in these silly nationalist disputes, are more likely than not a net detriment to the encyclopedia. I would have endorsed an indefinite block and find nothing in your above request that would call into question the blocking admin's judgment. Also, block log entries cannot be deleted. — Sandstein (talk) 11:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Giovanni Giove (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for a supposed violation that acutally I *NEVER* committed, not for a "silly dispute", that BTW is not so silly as you can suppose (just you do not know the problem). I repeat: I've NOT broken my restriction and I can provide evidences for this. I can not be judged according your own opinion about my "bad behaviors", but just for a specific violation. Actually I did no violations at all. Regards.

Decline reason:

It looks to me like you were edit warring and POV pushing, its disruptive, you should know better. — Mr.Z-man 20:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Gruppi di nazionalisti

Ciao ingegnere, hai ragione su tutti gli argomenti!!!! Il fatto che DIREKTOR e gli altri croati agiscano in gruppo è evidente e fu segnalato agli amministratori da diversi utenti italiani almeno cinque mesi addietro!!!! Poi DIREKTOR è recidivo poichè fu diffidato ma continua a modificare con assurdi punti di vista certi articoli come Istrian exodus: dev'esser bloccato e ho segnalato la situazione a Tathcher. Comunque caro Giovanni sappi che io e altri, italiani e non italiani, ci siamo accorti di questo gruppo di croati che agiscono solo nella versione in lingua inglese: ma certo è così poichè sanno che gli articoli in inglese sono letti dal maggior numero di persone! Per caso esiste una voce sui massacri delle foibe in croato, serbo e serbo-croato: non esiste poichè sanno che pur dichiarando falsità in tali articoli comunque sarebbero letti da un numero ridotto di persone. Io ti posso garantire che questa banda di croati non rappresenta il popolo croato: una mia cognata è croata di Dubrovnik e mi dice sempre che nei manuali, usati nelle scuole dell'obbligo, la storia era totalmente falsificata durante la dittatura dell'infoibatore comunista Tito ma continua a esser falsificata attualmente dagli ultranazionalisti che stanno al governo! La maggioranza dei croati sa che chi falsifica la storia ha sempre sporchi interessi! LEO, 17 nov 2007

Grazie Leo, mi hai tirato su il morale. Sarebbe il caso di tirare le fila. Nemmeno io ce l'ho con i croati (fra cui ho per altro parte delle mie origini) e trovo che certe persone siano una vergogna per il loro stesso paese. Sappi che per aver scritto questo un certo "acciaio" mi ha bloccato, trovandolo un feroce attacco personale (sic!), fatto dopo avere ricevuto decine e decine di insulti. Non contento si è inventato dei revert inesistenti. Butta un occhio a codesto "acciaio". Ciao.--Giovanni Giove (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Caro Giovanni, avevo buttato l'occhio su -acciao- prima di contattarti e posso commentare che certi amministratori si comportano in modo alquanto incomprensibile!!!! Riguardo i nazionalisti, so che Kubura provoca pure nella sezione italiana: ma questi tizi non hanno la minima credibilità!!!! Io non considero questo progetto importante quindi non m'impegno tanto ma se tu vuoi puoi segnalare questa situazione intervenendo in uno di quei convegni che gli amministratori italiani organizzano: questa banda di croati ancor più che nazionalista si dimostra anti-italiana! Un utente italiano ha dichiarato che si tratta di un gruppo organizzato e pagato da un partito politico croato: se fosse vero, ci sono gli estremi di una denuncia penale contro quel partito per incitamento all'odio razziale!!!! LEO

Riporta il seguente insulto al povero acciaio e magari a un amministratore piu' decente (ci vuole poco), per coerenza devono bloccare il 'direttore'. Come dovrebbero bloccare Zenamarth& C. per cio' che solo poche ore fa hanno scritto su di me (vedi:) Se ti aggrada scrivi anche questo e vediamo se la coerenza esiste. Kubura è un povero sc.... ehm!... un "vecchio utente" che solo di recente ha fatto comunella con gli altri. E' perfino infantile nella sua ottusità: nega l'evidenza assoluta accecato com'è dal suo fanatismo e dal suo odio per i serbi e gli italiani. Potremmo parlare del problema sugli appositi "bar" della wiki italiana. Ora stacco per il fine... sono basito dal comportamento del "materiale a base di ferro"...--Giovanni Giove (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Io ho segnalato ripetutamente tali loschi figuri croati agli amministratori della sezione in inglese e tra gli amministratori italiani certamente il più informato è Ilario. La proposta riguardo i bar della wiki italiana è da me approvata: farò una segnalazione. LEO

How I act

It's a common trend among us editors to act a vandal towards a vandal. I don't mean anything by blocking your socks, but I've got to do what I've got to do. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow...

...a fascist? That's usually a term saved just for admins. Thanks. Anyway, my sources are right here on this site. See Misplaced Pages:Guidelines for more. It's boring, I know, but it's full of stuff that helps both you and me be more productive instead of getting stuck in ridiculous bad-faith arguments as we are now.

As for info on Dalmatia, I'll bet the Encyclpaedia Brittannica or Encarta Online have some things supporting my claim. You must be aware, though, that I do not hold you in bad faith. I think that you're just a little misinformed (belive me, I'm not perfect either) and you just need to get your facts straight on a few things. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It probably will turn in a 404. I'll be back in a flash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 12:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Fixed. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 12:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see. As for evidence of sockpuppetry, see Category:Suspected sockpuppets of Giovanni Giove. The page was created by the system as a place to record your suspcted sockpuppets. Don't worry, you're not the only one with this type of page. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Reason being, as you can clearly see on LEO's page, someone has expressed concern that you are a puppetmaster. We have to verify that you aren't, because no matter how honest the puppetmaster may be, we will never know unless we check you. I know that chances are that this guy is probably just a standalone, but we still have to check just in case. Trust me, I hate reporting anybody, but as an up-and-coming arbitrator, it's still my job to resolve these things. Best, --Gp75motorsports (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The "Greater Croatia Assault Troupes?" Please provide me with links to their pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gp75motorsports (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal? Oh yeah, I actually did call you that. Apparently you're not though, just a little misinformed, as I said before. And please provide me with links to these guys. I'm trying to give you a fair trial, but unless you provide me evidence that Direktor is not the only one who's a member of the Troupes, I can't, so I'll be forced to assume that you're just bad-faith POV pushing. --Gp75motorsports (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This whole thing is getting a little tiring. Let's just forget about it for now. Truce? --Gp75motorsports (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Comunicare

Se vuoi comunicare con amministratori italiani riguardo la banda di croati anti-italiani penso che questa sia la pagina giusta. Ilario si riferisce a DIREKTOR. LEO, 24 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.86.203 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Esperimento

Ciao ingegnere, riguardo Istrian exodus concordo con te: quel testo è fazioso. Comunque proviamo a considerare la modifica di AlasdairGreen27 un esperimento: dobbiamo considerare che questo sloveno redige testi aggiungendo collegamenti e informazioni invece DIREKTOR ripristina solo sue versioni eliminando i nostri contributi; praticamente DIREKTOR è un troll ma lo sloveno no. T'invito a segnalare in discussione le tue proposte di modifica così potrei rendere quel testo almeno meno fazioso. Ti faccio notare che DIREKTOR pensa a noi due come fossimo una persona: perde tempo contattando alcuni amministratori per comunicare che noi siamo sockpuppet e si riferisce a noi siglandoci LEO/Giovanni. Tutto questo mi rafforza nel mio parere che DIREKTOR sia un troll o vandalo. LEO, 27 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.84.212 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First world war

Giovanni, in response to your claim that "Not a single battle was fought in the present day primoska", first of all the region is called 'Primorska', and secondly, your view of history does not quite match the facts, I'm afraid. http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/isonzo.htm

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No Giovanni, Primorska is one of the seven regions of Slovenia. http://www.kam.si/primorska.html

Perhaps you ought to check one or two things before you edit articles, especially where you obviously lack the necessary knowledge to edit accurately. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack to point out that "you obviously lack the necessary knowledge to edit accurately" where this is quite clearly true. You wrote that "Not a single battle was fought in the present day primoska" without having any knowledge about what Primorska is. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

ANI thread concerning you. Also, as you may not have seen my note on GP75's talkpage, I'm asking you both to disengage from this discussion as there is nothing fruitful coming of it and you are both using rhetoric that, if continued, is likely going to cross the line eventually. If you don't like what GP75 is saying, do the mature thing and remove or archive his comments rather than responding in a way that could lead to you being blocked.--Isotope23 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Already done, you have still to read my answer. Cheers!--Giovanni Giove (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I saw it after I posted this.--Isotope23 15:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

pazienza

Caro ingegnere, dobbiamo armarci di pazienza: in Istrian exodus ho integrato il tuo testo ma poi lo sloveno ha ripristinato quello precedente eliminando i nostri contributi. Ho quindi inserito gli avvisi riguardo neutralità e fonti. Poi user:Ko'oy ha ripristinato una versione simile alla tua. Suggerisco di attendere alcuni giorni discutendo nell'apposita pagina con lo sloveno per capire la sua intenzione. Consideriamo che le nostre versioni sono memorizzate e le possiamo ripristinare quando vogliamo ma per adesso è meglio cercare dialogo e comprensione. Puoi leggere questo messaggio e quello successivo per considerare che i troll o vandali purtroppo sono tanti!!!! LEO, 28 nov 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.67.85.5 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You should try writing in English here LEO; writing in Italian makes it look like you are trying to hide something (and no, I'm not asking for a translation... I know reasonably well what the above says).--Isotope23 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, I am a native speaker of Italian and my English is not good. LEO, 29 nov 2007

I understand, but my point is that there is often a perception that other languages are used to "hide" conversation from editors who don't speak that language. Nothing you've said above is sinister in any way, but the intent could easily be misperceived... or mistranslated to mean something you didn't intend. It's just a suggestion, supported by our talkpage guidelines here at Misplaced Pages (and apologies to Giovanni for using his talkpage to communicate with another editor).--Isotope23 13:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Leo, I have read your message to Giovanni. Thank you for your patience and forbearance. I agree that dialogue and understanding are the way forward. I am ready to discuss any aspect of this article with you and Giovanni. He, however, as you can see, made a total of 17 edits to it this afternoon, without consultation, which is why I have restored the previous version. I have also added some of the citations that Giovanni asked for. I think if you read the version as it is now, I hope you see it is neutral. Please let me know what changes you think are appropriate. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Slovenian friend, we can discuss in talk page of article. LEO, 29 nov 2007

I'll be happy to do so. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary block

As an aside, you are skirting the gray area of your revert parole, and have been warned repeatedly. I would strongly suggest you reexamine your behavior if you wish to contribute positively to the encyclopedia. — Coren  16:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That is simply false. You do not know the question and moderator Steel acted in a biased way. I DID several important contribution to this enciclpedia, but I am not protect against an organized group of users!--Giovanni Giove 16:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I have blocked you is simply that your have broken the three revert rule at the Talk:Birth Place of Marco Polo page. But I cannot help but notice this is the eight time you have been blocked, and by six different administrators. This hardly looks like the isolated actions of a single, biased admin. — Coren  16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki rules say that I can delete personal attacks: it is my right! and the users always insult me. This time he called me ridiculous, but I was discussing in a civil way. I was NOT blocked eight time, because the log is affected by recognised errors. $ block were caused by Steel! Furthermore all my real block are caused by just 2 users: one is user:Afrika_paprika, the second is user:DIREKTOR, they occurred under extreme circumstances, against extreme users. I am a CIVIL users, allow me to work in peace! It is MY RIGHT to be protected but I repeat that I was left ALONE against a dozen of fanatics, that try to prevent me from edits, with insults and edit wars. Why am I not protect from the insults I receive?! Why Steel never did an action against Zem., when he insults me and accuse me of sock puppetry. It IS MY RIGHT TO DELETE INSULTS from talk pages! and the 3RR is NOT valid in this case! Insults and personal attacks are nothing, and they can be deleted in each moment! Just read the wiky rules.Giovanni Giove 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kindly stop constantly accusing me of causing your blocks, not only do I revert only ONCE PER WEEK (because you were unable to keep our deal, see Resolution proposal section, here: ), but I also had absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of your 10 blocks, including this one. Also, there are NO mistakes (nor can there be any) in the block log. --DIREKTOR 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

the present block is the direct consequence of the bad faith of user Steel, who act in biased way. I was left ALONE against a dozen of users, who are again and again, insulting me, accusing me of sockpuppetry and other. The moderator Steel never spent a word against them. He protect the group against me, but he never try a moderation! In the group there are several fanatic nationalist and problematic users, and this is well know by Moderator Steel, that nevertheless is concerned only against me. I've started to discuss with him, but he didn't answered and he asked my block. He abuses of his role!

Decline reason:

I see several instances in which you removed comments as 'personal attacks' which were not clearly personal attacks, but simply another user disagreeing with you. If you find it difficult to cope with participating in the sometimes heated environment of articles like Istrian exodus and Birth Place of Marco Polo, when your block expires, you might choose to edit articles that need improvement but are less controversial, so you can avoid these strong disagreements. Toast and Puppy could use expansion. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Giovanni Giove (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

to remove a false accusation of sockuppetry for 2 time in Istrian exodus, it is not to romove a comments. In MP birthplace, I've removed the edits of an user calling "ridiculous" my edits and others. He can answer in a civil way. I dp not find difficult with partecipating if ALL the users act in a civil way. Anyway you do not the question at all.

Decline reason:

decline per FisherQueen's comments above and below. All these blocks from different admins are not coinicidence and you to learn to resist the urge to behave in the way you have been (incivility, revert wars, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please don't edit what I said. As you probably know, we don't edit other people's comments. This is an example of you removing something that isn't a personal attack, but just something you don't like. Doing it doesn't make your case stronger. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Page protected to prevent unblock abuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Following discussion at WP:ANI#Giovanni Giove (redux) (permanent link: , I have extended the block to indef again. Giovanni, you are now banned for exhausting the community's patience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged his user page and added him to WP:BANNED. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisione

Ciao ingegnere, sto cercando d'informarmi affinchè ci sia una revisione della decisione di messa al bando contro di te. Francamente non capisco perchè alcuni amministratori abbiano deciso così poichè nella sezione italiana la procedura è diversa ossia c'è un voto di tutti gli utenti registrati che vogliano partecipare per mettere al bando qualcuno. Tutta questa vicenda è proprio strana. LEO, 1 dic 2007

Caro ingegnere, la revisione è possibile: puoi leggere in fondo a questa sezione. LEO, 2 dic 2007

LEO, even though you may feel inclined to be biased towards him, I think you too can objectively see that he did repeatedly breach his ARBCOM restriction. --DIREKTOR 17:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Leo, Please look at the way he spoke to people. To him, every comment was a personal attack. You couldn't disagree with him at all - he'd just say "personal attack". It was terrible.
Wiki relies on achieving consensus, often from radically different people, with views that are diametrically opposed. Giovanni is just not a consensus person. That's his nature.
AlasdairGreen27 21:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

AlasdairGreen27 and DIREKTOR, I think so: friend Giovanni is in good faith!!!! LEO, 2 December 2007

Giove is in the house

We didn't have to wait too long. His ghost just goes on and on... Here comes Giove again:
1 December 2007
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenanarh (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
as IP 87.9.234.27
as IP 87.2.235.167.
and as IP 87.2.63.34.
as IP 87.9.234.210.Zenanarh 01:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not Giove, I'm not interested in his edit wars (I will never revert again the articles about Zadar, I simply believed that the most common name in English history books should be used in those articles, but it's not so important). 87.9.236.57 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Really? His argument in those edit wars was "historical name". He was relying on "historical name of the city" rule but then misinterpreting it by using the name from English history books from 18th and 19th century where the name of that time (Zara) was used, which was not historical, of course. In 13th century the name of the city was Jadera (phonetic: Zadera or precisely Zad'r' - which is modern Zadar), so it's the only name that mentioned rule can be applied to. You are coming from nowhere as anonymus(?) with completely the same misinterpretation and from word to word the same explanation for changing it? Zenanarh 11:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User Zenanarh stop your flamer lies and personal attacks against friend Giovanni!!!! Ghosts are not around!!!! LEO, 2 December 2007

I must admit, it seems a bit of a coincidence that within 48 hours of Giovanni finally getting his red card (after way too many yellows) that there's a new user with only an IP address wandering around various articles changing Zadar to Zara.
And that the anon. user then straight away, as if by magic, finds his way to Giovanni's talk page to defend himself. Now how is that possible??? Hmmm...
AlasdairGreen27 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)