User talk:Theirrulez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: Let's talk about it ;)[edit]

The pleasure is bilaterally, but your changes are flippant. Dubrovnik was originally not one place, but two, divided by what's now the main street called Stradun. One on the seaward side was called Ragusa, populated by people of Roman origin. On the landward side it was Dubrovnik, populated by Slavs. So, from the beginig of the city the name of Dubrovnik was used, although officiall name was Ragusa, derived from it's historical Greek name. The treaty with Bosnian Ban Kulin in 12th century is the first official document where the city is referred to as Dubrovnik (on paper).

Here are some references for you to see (note that I didn't put any Croatian sources):
  • Francis W. Carter: Dubrovnik (Ragusa): a classic city-state, p.45
  • Peter F. Sugar: Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule: 1354 - 1804, p.171
  • Piers Letcher,Robin McKelvie,Jenny McKelvie: Dubrovnik, 2nd: The Bradt City Guide, p.3
But all this is not an isue here. The consensus on wikipedia is that the city itself is called Dubrovnik, and the republic is called Republic of Ragusa. If you don't think this is correct, you can ask on the article talk page for moving the name from Dubrovnik to Ragusa. Until than I must ask you to stick to this consensus, and not to change Dubrovnik to Ragusa.
If this explanation is not sufficient, please chose where you want to continue the discussion. It is silly to write the same message on six different places on wiki. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 09:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: keep on talking[edit]

You're welcome! Maritime Republics Template has town in the first place, followed by it's republic on the second place...Amalfi (Republic) • Ancona (Republic) • Dubrovnik (Republic) • Gaeta (Republic)... For example, when you click on Amfali (Republic), you go to Amalfi, and when you click on Amalfi (Republic), you go to Duchy of Amalfi. Same thing goes for Dubrovnik. When you click on Dubrovnik (Republic), you go to Republic of Ragusa. I didn't make this way.

But if you wan't you can make it like...Amalfi (Duchy of Amalfi) • Ancona (Republic of Ancona) • Dubrovnik (Republic of Ragusa)...I don't know for others, but that would be o.k. with me. What do you think? Kebeta (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re FkpCascais[edit]

Don´t warry, I allways check the edit history of my talk page... I did this: [1] regarding that problem. I hope it will help. Thanx for all, and regards :) FkpCascais (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consiglio[edit]

Non per fare paternali o il rompiscatole, ma il mio consiglio amichevole è di modificare un po' il tuo commento; così com'è adesso, rischia di violare la regola sugli attacchi personali e passare così dalla parte del torto. Capisco bene lo scazzo, ma non vorrei che ti blocchino per qualche ora per disruption o uncivility. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

itWiki[edit]

Hi um... you must really hate me by now :P but could you help me get to the bottom of this mess on User talk:Salvio giuliano. [2] (I hope the poor fellow doesn't mind :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely do not mind. ^____________^
Seriously, feel free to use my talk page, if you wish. I hope an uninvolved user can help you sort this mess out. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*knock, knock* Theirrulez, you there? Can I come in? :) If this is all a mistake you will have my most abject apologies, I assure you. I just want to make sure you understand the amazing (checkuser confirmed) fact that nobody edits those articles and does the edits you dis without being a sock. There are at least two or three new socks per week and reverting them is a standard chore. It seems you were right, I may have committed a big mistake. Either way my actions were in good faith and were at worst an honest mistake. I dare say if that was the case that they may be an understandable error considering the extraordinary circumstances?

P.S. Studio davvero la medicina, come lei ha saputo ciò? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

(in Italian) Per evitare sceneggiate ed accuse di WP:SOCK e WP:MEAT, per quello che attiene ai vari articoli legati al Progetto: Croazia, ci staresti a provare con un processo di mediazioneTieni presente che non è l'arbitrato? Credo che migliorerebbe sensibilmente l'atmosfera...
(in English) To try and avoid much drama and WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT accusations, regarding the various Croatia-related articles, would you be willing to consider WP:MEDCAB? I think that this would go to great lenghts towards improving the atmosphere... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'M SORRY!! :))[edit]

Theirrulez, I AM SORRY I reverted your edits out of hand. It was an honest mistake, I thought you were a sock - I was wrong. I hope you will agree that my mistake might be regarded as an understandable one. Why did I think you were a sock?

  • You restored sock edits all over the place. Among other situations also in avoidance of a semi-protection placed to keep them out.
  • You pushed the exact same edits the banned sockpuppeteers and their socks do.
  • For years now, the articles you edited were under the attack of a group of banned sockpuppeteers who have thus far created dozens and dozens of sockpuppets that pushed the edits you added. Every single account that did what you did on those obscure articles turned out to be a sock of banned users. There are so many socks they are continuously banned out of hand per WP:DUCK (User:Butler.banana was blocked just yesterday :). In fact, those articles are so obscure nobody edits them - nearly all edits are sock edits (and their removal).

I'm posting this in the hope that my mistake has not destroyed the possibility of dialogue between us. Again, my sincerest and most abject apologies. :) Regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference[edit]

  • "House of Cerva"
  • "House of Crijević"
    • Google hits: 10 ("infinitely" more, as it were, 10/0 :)

Please research the most common name in the English language before naming new articles on enWiki. Per WP:COMMONAME. Regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google it's not enough in this case. Simply --Theirrulez (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it most certainly is, unfortunately. Either way, its not you who decides what is "enough", its policy (WP:N, WP:COMMONNAME & such). The Google test determines notability and English language usage. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to not agree sir, google is strongly influenced by lot of factor, and often it's reasonable to follow more high considerable sources. Anyway Gogle test it's not a global rule, especially in this minor case.
Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When there is not a single solitary hit on any Google search engine whatsoever, then that fails WP:N requirements completely and indisputably. Why do you think that article wasn't created alongside others similar to it in the first place? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The House of Cerva[edit]

I dont' know who you are, so it's not polite if you write on another user's talk page without introduce youself.
Anyways, I saw the source you link and I consider it very interesting. I just want to let you know, my dear, that I'm not leading any battle against anything: I just belive that some information are historically important, and I try to offer them to the community. I try to transfer my knowledge (even if modest I suppose), moved only by the love for this Project and for the truth. Then the community will accept my offers or not, or in part I don't know.. but there's no war to fight, my friend.
Best regards, sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Reverting sock posts, Theirruluez. Restoring them does not help you and will get you reported. Esp. since they are offensive towards editors. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Direktor, I already thanked you for your support aginst sock post, but since I will not have the evidence that someone is a sock no problem for me: I'm adult and sockpuppet don't scare me! ;)
About you sir I want to let you know that I'm glad to meet you so often because, I'm serious now, if you will put apart your actual approach to me (you revert more than 10 times my talk page in few minutes) I believe a really interesting dialogue coul born between us.
I wish you a good night.
sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Theirrulez, let me say here and now (in spite of the hint of irony in your words) that I do respect you as an editor. I've been rash and may have created a confrontation where none is warranted. I am truly sorry, believe me, you won't catch me doing anything like that again. Is there a chance for a truly amiable dialogue? It will help us both in the coming days, of that I am certain.
(As for the sock... well to be frank my reverting him has nothing to do with you. I think I may actually enjoy reverting him, he's made it "personal". Plus its a service to the Wikipedia community to revert a menace such as that guy - a "win-win" as it were. :) I'm sorry if it bothers you but I will not stop reverting him wherever he posts on enWiki. Please stop restoring his posts - it is against policy, WP:SOCK) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to assure I was serious when I wrote to belive in a dialogue with you Direktor. I saw, and you did the same, that our position are not always the same, but this must never be -I believe- a problem. This is the taste to partecipate creating a project. I will trust in your good faith, but you now have to demonstrate me step by step if you are ready to dialogue as a gentlemen.
And remember my friend, please no more puppet claims.. Puppet are for children, and we are too old to have time for them.
Very tired now, have a good night. --Theirrulez (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I see the user posting the comments, User:Kancetha, has not been yet confirmed as sock, so it is really User:DIREKTOR who is (again) in fault here by removing another users comments. When the user is proclaimed sock, then it would be adequate to remove the posts, but until then, it is just assumption (a bad faith one), and User:Theirrulez has full right of having the comments on his page, and he can perectly mantain a dialogue with that user. From what I see, direktor has just broke the WP:3-RR again. He should had waited to the sock to be confirmed, even if that is probable... FkpCascais (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, and by the way, you (Theirrulez) had already kindly asked direktor not to interfere with your talk page, and he is not respecting that! FkpCascais (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, dialogue is excellent, I have dialogues with many users constantly, but however, giving up on reporting such behavior is against the good health of WP, you will be "helping" the infractors by not reporting it. You should report it despite all oposition you face, reporting wrongdoing can only help WP turning a better place. But don´t warry, I was just telling you theory, I understand you, giving a second chance to that kind of users is allways a noble gesture. Lets see how long it will last... I could start betting... Buona notte amico! FkpCascais (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBMAC[edit]

Dear Theirrulez, this is a note to formally draw to your attention the ARBMAC ruling. It is especially clear that you ought to read points (1) and (4). Painful experience over several years has led enwiki to be particularly severe in its management of those who edit Balkans-related articles with nationalistic POV rather than the neutrality of the encyclopedia in mind. If you have any questions, you may of course ask. Best wishes, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sir for showing me what happened in the past. I read carefully all the page, how the case was opened and which were the opponent position.

I want to reassure you, sir, regarding my different positon and my different way to act. I'm not interested in silly nationalistic disputes, cause I'm not moved by any kind of nationalistic feeling. I'm just an editor, sir, grow up reading and learning lots of nformation about history and geography of Adriatic Sea and all States, regions or population (since prehistorical periods until modern days) conceirning this wonderful multiethnical corner of Europe: that's why you can meet me often on these articles.

I want also to underline sir, that, due to my neutral education, IMHO my edits shouldn't appear POV to anyone. If they did appear POV to you, please let me know how and why, let's talk about it and let's try to find a point of convergence.. or something like that. You also know better than me, that history of Dallmatia, for example is hardly disputed by slavic point of view and romance one. I saw very few people editing on this matters and I'm sorry about that.
At the end, sir, please note how my edits are almost always supported by reliable sources and accompanied by long and exhaustive edit in talk pages.

Thanks anyways for informations you gave me.

Sincerely --Theirrulez (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your edits appear to be POV because you are making large numbers of edits based on your personal belief as to the ethnicity or identity of the subject. You are editing that one view is correct, and the other incorrect. This is a good example of what to avoid. In some of your edits you are using sources; in the majority, however, you are not. You are editing articles in the knowledge that your edits are controversial without going to talk first. So, in summary, remember to always use sources, remember to go to talk first if you think there may be other ideas, and above all remember that none of us here are "right" or "wrong"; we are just amateurs who have to reflect what the reliable sources say. Best wishes, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am making large numbers of edits based on tons of reliable sources, and above all on my deep and endless knowledge. I'm not just an amateur. Sorry for your misunderstanding, regards -- Theirrulez (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consiglio[edit]

(in Italian) Per piacere, non fare di questi commenti, perché possono essere visti come WP:NPA e non aiutano affatto la causa... ;)
(in English) Please refrain from these comments, in that they violate WP:NPA. I understand that you felt mocked, but they do not help; actually, they make things worse... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will not do any more (but I was astonished, really!!)... =) --Theirrulez (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. It's not the astonished part, it's the "of those who don't have arguments" or something to that effect. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 20:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, ok, received.. but you know how is important for users to accept to dialogue openly with other users, I only wanted to underline this needing. --Theirrulez (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's perfect!

Ciao![edit]

I graduated at University of Rome Tor Vergata. See you soon! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zig Heil Irredenta[edit]

An IP above has asked you before does your nickname meand 'irredenta rules' and you answered negatively. But what you are doing here in english wikipedia is exactly irredenta. Precisely you are doing nothing else at all. You are probably very sick and frustrated person bearing in mind how systematically you are trying to italianize the names of the non-Italians. Maybe you should go to some kind of sanatorium and find some cure for your flat brain. My advice: ask for a few series of electro-schocks. And don't make children. Our human civilization doesn't need more idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.1.21.89 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, thanks for having showed your toughts, everybody is alway welcomed.
Let me underline, sir, the evident differences between Italian language or Italian names, and Venetian or Dalmatian languages or Romance names. It's important too to remind the huge difference between Dalmatian language and Croatian language: Neo-Latin or Neo-Romance the first, clearly Slavic the second.
I saw from your IP you're a Croat sir, but I saw you didn't understand yet how lucky your nation is with a so mixed and multicultural history it can claim. The same luck of many European nations, Italy included.
Sir, just one thing: next time you will like to waste your time writing non-sense comment like the one above, or just next time you want to insult me with racist slurs, please why don't you do that using you User account? Don't be coward.. I don't bite. --Theirrulez (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Theirrulez. You have new messages at Talk:Jakov Mikalja#Cancelling_reliable_sources_without_any_discussion.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to WikiProject Former Countries![edit]

Welcome, Theirrulez, to the Former countries WikiProject! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on a former territory, please tag their talk page with our project template {{WPFC}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing techniques[edit]

Hi Theirrulez. I apologize for any confusion you have about Template:Fishing techniques and Template:Fishing tackle. Originally these were two separate templates. I combined them into one template, the current Template:Fishing tackle. This was because there is a lot of overlap between fishing techniques and fishing tackle. Tackle is the equipment you use, and technique is the way you use the tackle. An article like drift net covers both tackle and technique, because the tackle, in this case the drift net, largely defines the technique, the way it is used. The same applies really to trabucco, since the techniques used in trabucco are largely defined by the way equipment used in trabucco is constructed (the tackle). Having separate templates for tackle and techniques was ambiguous, since many articles covered aspects of both. This is why I combined them.

When I combined them, I used Template:Fishing tackle and deprecated Template:Fishing techniques, that is, blanked it so it would be deleted. Ideally I should have changed the name of "Template:Fishing tackle" to "Template:Fishing techniques and tackle", but I didn't beacause changing the name of a template is such a big deal and rigmarole on Wikipedia.

When I saw you had installed Template:Fishing techniques on your articles, I thought I had failed to blank, or deprecate it. That was why I blanked it again, and installed the currently used template. I did not notice that you had recreated Template:Fishing techniques. I hope this clarifies the confusion. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

center

This is Wiki Fight Club.

Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight.

— Jimmy Wales

Welcome to WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing[edit]

Hello Theirrulez, and welcome to WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing!

Please see the navigation sidebar on our main project page for information about our project guidelines, resources, and pending tasks. You can post any questions at the project talk page. Thank you for joining - we look forward to working with you! – Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant issue[edit]

I have three questions, if I may. On the Kingdom of Dalmatia article, why did you:

You see, Theirrulez, its these little things which reveal an agenda. I am a busy person. But now that I am very much certain that your goal is not historical accuracy, but rather the Italianization of Croatian history articles, I will make certain that your actions that appear on my watchlist will certainly be checked for POV. Regards. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not bad, but you need to improve your trust of others. I used Governorhip of Dalmatia and Littoral Banovina, in order to guarantee a easy reading of timeline of Dalmatia history using links in the infobox: linking to Kingdom of Italy and to the State of SCS, as you did, would send the reader to two pages not exactly related with Dalmatia history. I used Governorship of Dalmatia because even if the Governorhip became official in 1941, Italian Provinces of Zara, Pola and Fiume were official since respectively since 1919, 1923 and 1924, and were widely described in the Governorship article. State of S,C,S wasn't recognized at all by international comunity and last just few days, so could be appropriate to add a link inside the text or in the see also section and choose to use the link to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in the infobox. I choose to use the link to Littoral Banovina for the same reason I chose Governorship of Dalmatia instead of Kingdom of Italy article: Kingdom of Yugoslavia is too generic and can't help reader's navigation trough Dalmatia history timeline. Littoral Banovina was the subdivision of Kingdom of Yugoslavia for the Dalmatian region and even if was officially created ten years later than the birth of the Kingdom it could fit for a link in the infobox, more than the article about Kingdom of Yugoslavia, too generic for a specific historical timeline of Dalmatia, I'm sorry you are obsessed by my edits, I always try to do my best seeking for historical accuracy. I hope next time you will not accuse me so openly, it's not nice. You are my first interlocutor on Wikipedia you know, but your approach still need to preserve a bit more your consciousness of other's good faith. Please, let me know what you think about the modifications I did, rimembering the only goal was to guarantee a continuous timeline for Dalmatia history trough infobox links. --Theirrulez (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Theirrulez, please check this book about the Dalmatian question La questione dalmatica riguardata ne'suoi nuovi aspetti: osservazioni 1861 Niccolò Tommaseo very interesting. regards.--172.129.224.126 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Theirrulez. You have new messages at Talk:Gazi Husrevbegova džamija, Sarajevo.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mafia move follow-up[edit]

You recently participated in a move request of Mafia. Since the final location of the page was not settled, please discuss it at Talk:Mafia (disambiguation) if you care. — AjaxSmack 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theirrulez for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done: declined, closed and archived by clerks - Theirrulez (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally some justice! An outreged wikipedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.16.9 (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

Hello. You appear to be involved in edit wars on Bleiburg massacre and Croatisation. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toddst1 for focusing your attention on these articles. I'd like togive you some further details about to clearify I'm not involved in any edit-war there.

Answer[edit]

  • Regarding the Bleiburg massacre article, I would note my modifications are very small and not substantial. These modifications (see the diff) were just an attempt to fix some statements in a better balanced and a less pov synthax.[1] You know, per policies nobody can't own an article. And I didn't see anybody reverting my small modifications but just one user (AlasdairGreen27). I also remind that user that I asked for a comment in the Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic (see the diff) in which he is actually involved and from which I got a clear answer by some aother involved users [3], and by the moderator Admin who stated, after his usual request for sources, that it seems problematic to simply label someone as collaborator given that the collaboration was complex, sporadic and changeable [4]. Reminded it, I would note I post an explicit but reasonable request to him to let me improve the article, looking for a more neutral re-writing of no more than two lines) despite his opposite view of the subject.
[1]Regarding the sources I added they fit perfectly what I modified. I demonstrated that even the most partizan and biased sources like Rusinow's don't give them the false label of collaboarationist without explain a deeper definition of what they was for real. Calling the Chetniks a collaborationist movement it's a bit tendentious statement. The Chetniks were firstly a royalist anti-communist force, fighting either against communist partizan and against Axis occupiers. Then in some fuzzy occasions it seems they prefer to wait or not to oppose Axis initiatives in order to gain advantage on the communists partizan.
  • Regarding the Croatisation article, please note there's another user (you know, I saw) DIREKTOR, who is fighting for cancelling a paragraph from the above mentioned article since several weeks ago (see the diff of his first cancellation) when I had never set foot on that article yet. The same paragraph still existed in the article two years ago [5], and without a proper section title even more time before (more than 3 years ago) [6]. Despite it was reasonable to suppose a discrete consensus about the paragraph, Direktor on may 18 cancelled the pagraph for the first time, asking for sources supporting it (please note the entire article is barely unsourced) when he could more simply add the tag "{{citation needed}}". I punctually improved the section he challenged, adding sources and re-writing some lines, but he continued for days to deny my modifications despite others users espressed in the talk page their consensus to leave the section in the article.
Thanks anyway for your mediation and monitoring efforts, I hope they will be useful for these articles.

--Theirrulez (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the looks of things, the edit war has stopped. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stopped? I stop my contributions, yes, since I've been reverted again... :o Theirrulez (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

Sorry, i didn't answer to you: i completely forget :). Nice to meet you too! I understand your feelings :) AndreaFox2 (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for your support at ANI, Theirrulez! Sir Floyd (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi. I see what's been up at the /List of sources page.

I'd say... that if that sort of thing happens, let it go. It's not worth edit warring over, because you can just append a note that says "See Talk: Faust Vrančić#Disputed sources", and start a talk page discussion about it.

There's no rule that says people can't change the rules whenever they feel like it*. We can assume they're working for the article, not against it. If they want to add live comments to the sources page, then that's the new rule. Roll with it; add your own. Then you're working together, instead of against each other.

Just be neutral about it, and maybe try to roll discussion towards the regular talk page, unless they're stubborn about it. I have an idea it's nice to keep a source list without personalities on it, but it's more important to keep the peace.

Once they realize you're willing to deal respectfully and collegially, (professionally?) with them, they'll be happy enough to use the talk page. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*There is one that says the opposite.

...and now it appears to have ended up at the admin noticeboard (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia articles[edit]

Hello,

yes, this is definitely what I plan to do in the next weeks or months, since most of these articles are woefully POV and insufficient. Would you be willing to give me a hand in finding sources, correcting informations, etc ? thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I may also have a look at Josip Broz Tito and SFR Yugoslavia if time permits. Please feel free to say what you think about my draft on Mihailovic (on the mediation page and elsewhere if you want), since I am looking for advice and help to improve it, so it can replace the current piece of shit (IMHO it could already do that, but I'd like to be a little perfectionist on this subject). Problem is, the Yugoslav articles will represent a heavy workload. A great deal of them look like they were tampered with by a bunch of insane trolls and clumsy POV-pushers (mostly Titoist nostalgics, I'd say, but sometimes on the opposite side). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ho, any article can be improved, IMHO and no one is supposed to "preside" over any article. The only thing to do is to have good sources and provide neutral information. There's no need to endlessly argue with cretins. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I haven't been following the article that closely so far, but if you ask for one, I certainly wouldn't oppose it. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit[edit]

Hi Theirrulez, I started copyediting the article (up to the "(fatto fin qui)" note). There are some points that I did not understand and I marked them between <*>; if you're not sure, you can write that in Italian and I'll be glad to translate ;).
The part I've not yet copyedited, however, seems a little more chaotic and, in my opinion, way too long. Would you feel inclined (disposto) to shorten that a bit? ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedited; it still needs work, however. Please, take a look to make sure I didn't remove anything important, thanks. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 07:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Contra principia negantem disputari non potest"[edit]

Thanks for adding sources to Contra principia negantem disputari non potest. Any idea why most of the sources seem to be in German or Russian? Just an artifact of the coverage on Google Books and Google Scholar, or was the phrase used much more in German and Russian traditions than in English? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Contra principia negantem non est disputandum" is preferable. I don't see German sources predominance.. take a look to this search: [7], and let me know, of course. Cheers, - Theirrulez (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think you have broken the mystery. You searched without quotation marks: Contra principia negantem disputandum non est. I searched with quotation marks "Contra principia negantem disputandum non est" and got one hit, in Polish, and gave up on that phrasing. It turns out that most authors put "non est disputandum" first. The "disputari non potest" phrasing turns up mostly German and Russian (and only a handful of hits) regardless of whether there are quotation marks. Lesson learned: flexible Latin syntax => don't search Latin phrases inside quotation marks! —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It.wiki[edit]

Well, some of users haven't welcomed me, but those that haven't were... I don't want to use offensive words, but those "unwelcomers" (opponent is one thing, unwelcomer is other thing!) had so narrow views that their work was so ridiculous. Community of users on it.wiki have sanctioned those users, since their behaviour damaged it.wiki.
Some of those unwelcomers were later blocked indefinitely on en.wiki, because they haven't shown a simple trace of attempt of cooperation.
I'm not that present on it.wiki as before due to several reasons.
My knowledge Italian has ... weakened over these years, since I don't use it a lot. Also, my Italian is better in "colloquial" form, than with scientific expressing.
Some users on it.wiki have complained because of quality of Italian in my writings on it.wiki. I didn't want to be sanctioned for my weakened Italian, so I've left.
In the meantime, I've become the admin on my homeproject, hr.wiki. I had and still have a lot to work. My help is needed there, so I dedicate less time to en. and it.wiki. Kubura (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing edit war[edit]

BTW, I stopped just short of issuing an WP:ARBMAC sanction restricting you to 1 revert per week on any Balkan-related article. Your repeated edit wars need to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for Balkan-related disruption continuing on Talk:Croatisation - blanking of others' comments. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ARBMAC Sanction imposed[edit]

This editor is now subject to extended 1RR restriction on WP:ARBMAC-related topics (1 restriction per week). This sanction has been recorded here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I suppose there's a mistake. Anyone can easily check I never blanked other's post. I only reasonably moved them in different section (immediately after my edit request) to avoid to develop the related debate in the middle of the motivation and the text of the same edit request (it could be confusing). I politely ask other editor to follow this structure and then I just cancelled some duplicated comments (in my last edit I cancelled, in total good faith) a duplicated comment present exactly few lines after the one I cancelled.[8] the comment after the subsection title "Comments on edit request" saying: "Its important to note that these sources are...", was present, duplicated, also inside my edit request!. It's definitely clear I didn't blanking any comments, and above all, assuming my good faith, it's more easier to understand my purpose in re-ordering comments posted inside my edit request (I clearly show my good faith and my simple goal here). My last edit, infact, reverted and mistagged as vandalism, is not vandalism at all because I just cancelled a duplicated post, page history always says the truth. Being blocked for that is a little surprising and I'm waiting to solve this for me embarrassing situation. Thanks in advance. - Theirrulez (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Seeing as this block is based on an WP:ARBCOM sanction, a regular admin cannot lift it. You will need to email [email protected]. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Astonishing - Theirrulez (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison[edit]

Buonasera sono Harrison. Ti sto scrivendo perché possiedo un account in inglese e dato che sono bloccato per un mese volevo precisare un pò di cose:

  • Ammetto di avere avuto un tono poco consono all'enciclopedia.
  • Ammetto di aver esagerato con Blackcat anche se ho detto cose assolutamente vere, poiché è dell'UAAR veramente.
  • Sull'IP c'è stato un disguido perché davo il consenso al commento di Parnajjide.

Tuttavia vorrei che mi fosse riconosciuto che:

  • Sono stato insultato da Blackcat come contrabbandare la verità, clericale, teodem oltre al mettersi d'accordo con sé stesso, bufale al cubo e altre cose.
  • Non sono stato io ad aprire io la pagina contro Blackcat come segnalazione anche se avrei voluto dopo il blocco.
  • Non sono un sockpuppet o troll di nessuno.
  • Vorrei contribuire alla voce o altre voci.

In merito al blocco non mi è stato concesso di poter replicare alle accuse. Non dico di togliermelo ma perlomeno ridiscutere e abbassarlo a due settimane. In merito agli attacchi che ho ricevuto dal segnalante. Questo mi auguro che me lo riconoscete. Non aprirò nessuna segnalazione contro Sergio però desidero avere l'opportunità di riniziare al più presto.--HarrisonIT (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buonasera a tutti e due. Mi fa piacere vedervi entrambi contribuire a en.wiki (for the English-speaking Wikipedians: "Hello to both! I'm pleased to see you both contributing to en.wiki, too"). -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VPC[edit]

— raekyT 11:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Renzo de' Vidovich[edit]

The article Renzo de' Vidovich has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's back...[edit]

...Ma bentornato (welcome back)! Glad to see you're back! How are you? Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama[edit]

Ciao! Nice words from you. I removed the panorama as the article is already studded with images, in this case it looked a bit redundant. The true reference if one want to see all images should be Commons; IMHO I think the article should provide just a few (not zero, but not a ton of them), without getting visually unreadable. Let me know your opinion and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: maybe you noticed I cleaned up Renzo de' Vidovich. I think it won't risk to be proposed for deletion now. Ciao e buon divertimento. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:[edit]

In realtà se chiedi a nickserv ti risponderà che non mi faccio vedere proprio su irc da un po', oltre che su it.wiki stessa! --Vituzzu (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scudo Repubblica di Ragusa[edit]

Ciao, mi pare che non sia la forma che viene contestata ma il colore. Ragusino sostiene che lo scudo fosse blu e rosso, mentre Bracodbk che fosse argento e rosso. Secondo le fonti citate da Braco pare che il blu abbia successivamente sostituito l'argento in omaggio agli austriaci.

Il fatto è che questa immagine non ci dice se l'altro colore fosse blu o argento: http://www.dubrovacki.hr/datastore/imagestore/original/1265297618Dravni_grb_Dubrovake_Republike.jpg

E qui sembra addirittura blu:

Questi sono quelli riportati da ragusino:

Prima dell'intervento dell'utente cileno usavano questo bianco e rosso (sicuramente sbagliato):

Questa mi fa pensare che i colori della repubblica fossero rosso e blu, purtroppo non ho trovato fonti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ragusan_family_crest.jpg

Può darsi che ci sia sotto qualcosa di politico: http://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/kako-se-boja-srpske-kraljevske-obitelji-karadjordjevic-nasla-u-hrvatskom-drzavnom-grbu-/406277.aspx

--Grifter72 (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In realtà le parti che qui [9] sono indicate come azzurre erano color argento. C'è qualcosa qui: http://books.google.it/books?id=xx488tDACuMC&pg=PA74&dq=araldica+ragusa&hl=it&sa=X&ei=77ZHT837EsSaOoaa9e8N&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=rosso&f=false

Di conseguenza anche qui avrebbero invertito l'argento con il blu: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Stema.dubrovcani.vlastela.jpg

Potrebbe essere corretta l'interpretazione di Braco. --Grifter72 (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Athletics[edit]

Ciao Their. Ho fatto una richiesta di portal peer review al fine di una canditatura ai Featured portals. Come puoi leggere nella pagina di richiesta, c'è già il "direttore" del portale (Ohana) che mi ha dato dei suggerimenti, se ti va di dire la tua, non so bene come funziona sta cosa del "silenzio assenso", certo che se in un paio di settimane le risposte saranno ancora zero, potrò passare diretatmente alla canditatura. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

There is new thread on arbitration enforcement forum that might be interesting to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#DIREKTOR Nemambrata (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Situazione vergognosa in cui è degenerata la versione italiana, in mano a pochi ceffi[edit]

Da troppo tempo su wikitalia la situazione è vergognosa e bloccano gli utenti che non si allineano al loro pensiero, e così capita che in appena 2 giorni buttano fuori utenti che da 8 anni danno onesti contributi. Ufficialmente lo fanno secondo le regole, con la scusa degli attacchi personali(ma le loro provocazioni e violazioni non contano!), per tenersi le mani pulite, ma la realtà e che le regole se le fanno e le piegano a loro uso e consumo. E la cosa peggiore è che poi si vantano di chi fa più espulsioni, e anzi proprio tramite questi meccanismi di bavaglio e di ricatto (mostrano agli altri utenti che o si allineano oppure anche loro sono a rischio) arrivano ai gradi più alti di wikitalia, i burocrati, e l'enciclopedia italiana è nelle mani di questi tizi. Che vergogna! Ant Priv 94.37.16.166 (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theirrulez&oldid=1091614559"