User talk:Raguseo

Regarding your edits to Francesco Patrizi:

Your recent edit to Francesco Patrizi (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II 19:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edits to Benedetto Cotrugli:

Your recent edit to Benedetto Cotrugli (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. You have been identified as a new user editing a page that experiences malicious edits by banned users that continue to edit via shared IP ranges or open proxies. Since these ranges are too large (collateral damage) to be blocked and user's IP addresses are not visible, edits to this page by logged-out editors of server or shared IP ranges and new users are reverted. The changes can be reviewed and restored by established users. // VoABot II 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Please, stop with undiscussed edits on Dalmatia related articles. In the present moment the are even too many conflicts in this subject. So that, discuss your edits BEFORE, in the proper page. Tx.--Giovanni Giove 20:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

Stop to do edits without proper discussion. Tx.--Giovanni Giove 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Giovanni; continuing to make undiscussed, uncommented edits on Dalmatia related topics is disruptive given the current disputes surrounding these articles. Please stop and discuss your changes in good faith.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isotope all my edits can be proven with sources. Also i am not doing massive reverts neither did i change anything significant in the articles i have edited, save correcting few incorrect things, namely: the dates, correct historical or contemporary name or simply putting the categories in the correct alphabetical order. Raguseo 16:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is no true. You changed several names from Italian to Latin with no discussion, and other. Now I have not time to check your edits, but I will do. Finnaly it is not enough to have sources, you have to present them!--Giovanni Giove 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are in those articles, all names i changed are sourced and those people wrote eitehr entirely in latin or wrote their most important works in Latin. Search and you will find. And stop following me around, you do not have moratorium on those articles, everyone is free to edit them. And hold you horses amigo. Raguseo 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False, just an example:Francesco Patrizi. He wrote mostly Italian and there is no reason to use the Latin translation of his name. You do NOT discuss your edits.--Giovanni Giove 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricius wrote his two most important works in Latin, he signed himself in Latin. Also the Italian and Croatian names are also unappropriate because they are of modern origin. Raguseo 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wb

Could you please contribute to the Antun Fabris article? --PaxEquilibrium 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrvatinic

I replied. --PaxEquilibrium 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. --PaxEquilibrium 19:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, unfortunately I am not a mind reader. You will have to be a little more eloquent and specific. --Raguseo 19:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the table the country should be stated. The country itself was Hungary. No? Also, good to see you back. I've noticed that you've become a little angry in the meantime, is there a reason? ;) --PaxEquilibrium 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hungary should not be present, it was Croatia and until 1527 both kingdoms (Croatia and Hungary) were treated as completely separate entities. But if you persist I must warn you that you are reverting to a broken version, Hungary wikilink is inccorectly written! Also you noticed well, I am a bit frustrated right now but not because of Wikipedia. It's personal. Cheers. --Raguseo 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Croatia was a part of the Crown of St. Stephen? Croatia/Dalmatia wasn't a separate Hungarian entity any more than Slavonia or Macva.

I hope it's nothing serious! --PaxEquilibrium 23:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Croatia/Dalmatia, Transylvania and Hungary (core part) were three main parts of St.Stephen's crown, all of them were treated as separate entities. Slavonia or Macva were not really on that level. What about if we put to Croatia wikilink to lead to article about Kingdom of Croatia in personal union with Hungary? I am not really in this article right now, mostly I made a revert on your edit because it was inccorectly written. Have you tried to contact that other guy that you were having a dispute in first place? What says he?

It's nothing really, some minor problems at work so I am a bit cranky lately. --Raguseo 01:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks

If you will agin write offensive comment and personal attacks (the last in Roger Boscovich), you will be reported.--Giovanni Giove 08:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest to give proper reason for your edits in Roger Boscovich and Dalmatian Italians: they are against posted sources and established wikirules, on the contrary you will reverted in 7 days. If you will again impose such POVs you will be properly reported. I again worn you to stop with personal attacks. Regards.--Giovanni Giove 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have POVs. There are only sourced or unsorced statements, if I do not provide sources you have the right to revert me, but you do NOT have the right to revert logic and sourced evidences. As a matter of fact. 1) An established wikipedia rule ask to use proper historical names; in other words, "Ragusa" and not "Dubrovnik" (as hundreds and hundreds of time discussed in Republic of Ragusa). If you do not agree, you shall provide your reasons in the proper talk page. 2) Discuss in the proper page the difference between "Italic" and "Italian" (something I really do not understand, beeing Italic usually referred to the pre-Roman "Italians", which actually were not Italian in the modern sense). Finally (and a further time): stop to accuse me of POVs and so on: that a personal attacks. If you like, point where my edits are wrong or unsourced, that your right, not PERSONAL ATTACKS.--Giovanni Giove 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot: for the SECOND time I ask you why you have deleted the word "Italy", after "Milan (Italy)". Because Milan is acctually in Italy since 2000 years; I rember you that "Mediolanum" was included in Italy by the emperor Augustus (who fixed the border of that region, called by the Romans "Italia").--Giovanni Giove 21:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted Italy from the article because it points to the Republic of Italy, a political entity which exists since 1861, almost 100 years after Roger Boscovich. As I mentioned on your talk page if you wanted to put Italy as in geograpical region you should have done so but as I also mentioned it is not appropriate. You need to put political entity in which the person was born, lived and died. --Raguseo 21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought too, about the "geographical region", but, before to do what I thought to be a small restoring, I've cheked articles such us Galileo, Dante and Cristopher Columbus. They say "Italy" and they are all against your POV, I argue geographical names are OK, otherwise you should provide the rule for the naming (or contact a moderator for an opinion).
Dubrovnik was officially named Ragusa till 1921, and as Ragusa is still known in Anglo saxon historiography, as hundreds of times discussed (read wikirules for naming). I never (never!) said this city was Italian (I always talked of "mixed" ethnicity, that is quite different!)
For the SECOND time I ask the difference between Italic and Italian.
Finally I strongly suggest you to start to edit in good faith and to stop with bad faith, first of all cheasing wit personal attacks and unsourced accuses (such us that I want to "Italianize" Dubrovnik). Otherwise it could be destructive. Regards. Giovanni Giove 22:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Blocked: 48 hours for abusive use of sockpuppets and edit warring, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kubura. Thatcher131 01:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know...

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:Giovanni_Giove/personale

AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

I have just one question: why?

You have from the start seemed (like) a really intelligent person, and yet you turned into an internet troll... :( --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you are extremely rude person, why don't you look yourself into the mirror and see who is the real internet troll. Second when you explain to me what the hell Serbian language has with "Croatian soldiers" (clearly stated in that article) then I will not remove it. --Raguseo (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed it completely, absolutely no need for supposed version in Croatian when the article is already named like that. --Raguseo (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be changed to "Croatian and Serbian soldiers".

Second of all, you know very much what I'm talking about and I have an elephant's memory. I was always open to forgiveness, but the thing that really shocked me was why.

Also (unrelated to the up), why do you maintain several accounts? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be because there weren't any Serbian Uskok's. These were strictly related to Croatia and Croats. Serbia was 100's of miles away. It's no business of yours why I had another account, thats my problem, you worry about your problems and your various accounts and similar transgressions. --Raguseo (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except problem is - there were, and countless of them. Stojan Jankovic, who's got countless epic poems and a tower built to honor him's probably one of the most famous. And there were Uskoks in Herzegovina too - and Montenegro. In Vojvodina they were a rarity, though. It's most definitely not a thing strictly related to Croats and Croatia. Oh, and do you know how long's 100 miles? :)

I'm referring that you have currently and still use it. And of course it's definitely my problem to, if the sole purpose why you make them is WP:HARASS me.

Regarding your accusations, could you please shed some light on them? What similar accounts, what similar transgressions? I have made none that I can remember, at least. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uskoks in Herzegovina and Montnegro....LOL!

You don't really know much about the Uskoks...do you? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]