User talk:GiorgioOrsini

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GiorgioOrsini.

Welcome!

Hello, GiorgioOrsini, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Also, please do not create articles with duplicate content, as you have done here (duplicating Juraj Dalmatinac). If you believe the name of the article should be changed, please discuss this on the artcle's talk page. Thanks, Dar-Ap e 21:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of which name is correct, cloning the article is not a solution. If you want to change the name of the article, the best way to do this is by presenting a convincing case on Talk:Juraj Dalmatinac. Best, Dar-Ap e 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have replied on my talk since you seem to want the conversation all in one place. Please let me know if I'm wrong. Cheers, Dar-Ap e 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Giorgio Orsini

Hallo Giorgio,

unfortunately I know very little about him, and not under that name, but as Giorgio da Sebenico. By the way, near my house in Rome there is a Via Giorgio da Sebenico, and this road lies in the quarter named Villaggio Giuliano, where many refugees from Istria and Dalmatia live since sixty years. The roads there are entitled to famous italians from this territories. In order to get references about him, you can find them under the Volume VIII of the Series edited by the Società dalmata di Storia Patria. That book is dedicated to him. Regards, Alex2006 12:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Croatians

Hello. I was told there are some issues on the page List of Croatians. To me, it looks like a lame edit war. It should be noted that such wars are futile and completely pointless. Furthermore, if prolonged may result in either party's editing privileges being temporarily revoked (even if WP:3RR isn't violated). Thus, I kindly request that you both stop further warring (I didn't go into the actual merits of the problem yet) and attempt to resolve the issue peacefully on the talk page. Cheers & happy editing, M isza 13 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. If you thinks so - there will be no solution. I provided the facts confirming that a number of names of prominent Italians is 'translated' into Croatian and listed there. That way the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia is gravely undermined. I'll stop what you called 'edit war' and advise you to get valid information about people listed there. Moreover, the French actress Brigitte Bardot is listed as a Croatian. It is laughable to read that article. This time you are actually helping these 'editors' whose 'expertise' is to 'naturalize' foreign names.--GiorgioOrsini 02:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Avoid

The IP in question just "happened" to edit the same pages as you, and only those, and "incidentally" agreed with you on every topic... Come now. Dahn 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sometimes I am simply forgetting to login. To contribute anomymously - is quite legal. By the way, my IP address is 192.***.*.** and the one you see is the proxy server IP address. So, even if you see that IP address - do not assume that is always me. Your remark above is equally offensive and primitive as the previous one. --GiorgioOrsini 15:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You dealings with User:Factanista

Hello again. I have been notified by Factanista of your removal of content on several pages (see User_talk:Misza13#User:GiorgoOrsini_again). While the issue of the {{totallydisputed}} tag on Travunia is a matter I'll have to dig further into, I'd like to discuss the removal of Croatian names from the articles Giovanni Luppis and Benedetto Cotrugli. It is my impression that if someone was born/related to a place that is now in Croatia, their croatian names have their place in the article. If you think otherwise, please convince me (and others) instead of edit warring. Also, feel free to reply here only (for the sake of keeping discussions in one place), since I've put this page on my watchlist. Regards, M isza 13 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to 'think otherwise, please convince me (and others) instead of edit warring.' as you say above. A man is born under names given by his parents and they are not matter of 'translation' into other languages. If you like to support falsificates - do not discuss it with me - I have no idea to persuade you into the opposite. For those who think like you - Archimedes was born in Magna Graecia in the town named Siracuse - now in the southern Italy. Paraphrasing you - 'It is my impression that if someone was born/related to a place that is now in Italy, their Italian names have their place in the article'. So, I would say Archimedes, the Greek is actuall Archimedeo, the Italian. Happy now?

Abot that highly cultural business (blossoming on the east Adriatic coast) of translating the names of the famous Italians into Croatian names, and therefore, considering them as Croatians - here you have an excerpt in Italian [1]

Quando non si riesce a falsificare il cognome, si falsifica almeno il nome e allora il pittore fiumano dell'Ottocento Giovanni Simonetti diventa Ivan Simonetti; sempre a Fiume l'illustre medico Giorgio Catti diventa Djuro Catti, Giovanni Luppis si trasforma in Ivan Lupis o addirittura Vukic e si potrebbe continuare a lungo. Quasi sempre, però, si segue la regola della contraffazione totale, di nome e cognome, in modo da cancellare ogni traccia di italianità. Allora capita che il grande filosofo e poeta rinascimentale italiano Francesco Patrizio da Cherso ( 1529-1597) venga via via trasformato dalla storiografia croata in Frane Patricije-Petric nel 1927 (M. Dvomicic) e in Franjo Petric nel 1929 (F. Jelacic); resta Francesco Patrizzi per I. Kamalic, nel 1934, ma viene scritto Franje Patricijo da Nikola Zic nello stesso anno; poi è Franjo Petric-Franciscus Patricius per Ivan Esih nel 1936 e Franjo Petris per S. Juric nel 1956 e Franciskus Patri-cijus per V. Premec nel 1968; per altri ancora il cognome si trasforma in Petric, Petrisió e Petrìcevic, infine il cosiddetto «padre della filosofia creata» è diventato stabilmente Frane Petric dopo che così lo chiamarono V. Filipovic e Zvane Crnja nel 1980. In suo onore vengono tenute le «Giornate di Frane Petric» a Cherso, le giornate di un uomo inesistente.

About famous Italian High Rennaisanse painter, Andrea Meldolla (whose glorious Croatian 'name' is Andrija Mendulic)- as per art galerries, art auctions, history of art records

http://www.bmagic.org.uk/people/Andrea+Schiavone

Also known as: Andrea Meldolla Schiavone Nationality: ItalianBorn: 1522 - Dalmatia Died: 1582

A painter and engraver, Andrea Schiavone worked in Venice, he was influenced by the style of one of the most important Venetian artists, Titian (c.1487-1576). His pictures are colourful and boldly painted, but they are considered uneven in quality and awkward in handling and composition.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1O2-SchiavoneAndrea.html

Schiavone, Andrea ( Andrea Meldolla) ( b Zara, Dalmatia [now Zadar, Croatia ], c. 1510/15; d Venice, 1 Dec. 1563). Italian painter and etcher. His nickname Schiavone means ‘Slav’, reflecting the fact that he was born in Dalmatia (then under Venetian jurisdiction), although his family was originally from Meldola, near ...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:QvYPIDijEucJ:secure.britannica.com/ebc/article-69555+Andrea+Meldolla+italian+painter&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=31&client=firefox-a

Tintoretto, and Veronese—but, with the exception of Andrea Meldolla (Schiavone), Venetian painting continued to be dominated by non-Mannerist ideas

bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/1/76.pdf

Andrea Meldolla, c. 1510/15-1563, called. The Slavonian, son of the Italian commander of a garrison post near Zara, Dalmatia, etcher. and painter, supplier ...

At the end - I guess that I've a nice chat with you - and there will be no need for any of your further answers/questions, and, therefore of my further explanations. Ciao!--GiorgioOrsini 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 31 hours

You have been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring with multiple users on a number of articles. Consider this your warning. I have fully protected the pages in contention, and you will not be able to edit them until you agree with Factinista and Giovanni Giove on how the content of these articles should be written. Nishkid 64 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You were edit warring. See WP:EDIT WAR. "Some consider the term to describe two or more contributors' repeated reverts of one another's edits to an article. Others subscribe to a much broader definition, encompassing any situation in which two or more authors repeatedly edit an article (especially particularly contentious excerpts) extensively." Also, don't be a DICK, okay? (in reference to your comments left on Sandstein's page). You may have been honestly reverting some other person's edits, but it's still a textbook example of an edit war. Nishkid 64 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have got my response on your talk page. Please, answer there - not here!--GiorgioOrsini 00:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I can know, I did one revert one Francesco Patrizi article, and two reverted on Giovanni Lupis. I don't know what to say.--Giovanni Giove 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orsini

I suggest you to have again a look to the Giorgio Orsini article and talk page.--Giovanni Giove 18:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful

[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Giovanni Giove (talk • contribs)

xoomer.alice.it/histria/

21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

Votestacking

Giorgio, cut it NOW. Going around contacting only Italian users is vote stacking, and is severely punished.--Aldux 16:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what is problem? All I am asking them - is to get their opinion. Is it forbidden and why???--GiorgioOrsini 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPAM, especially the part on canvassing. Contacting editors for a vote move selecting them by their nationality is disruptive and pollutes the correctness of the poll. I'm happy to see you now removed the messages.--Aldux 17:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what i've got from the link you gave it to me:

Votestacking

Votestacking is sending mass talk messages out to editors who are on the record with a specific opinion (such as via a userbox or other user categorization) and informing them of a current or upcoming vote. In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly unacceptable to send mass talk messages to editors that expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.

I'm afraid that your interpretation of this rule in this case is completely subjective. Sending just three messages of quite neutral meaning are not 'mass talk messages'. I do not know anything about their nationalities. All I respected here - is their knowledge of this subject!

Also, about canvasssing - your point of view is an exagerration. If claiming something - give a clear statement and the proof of your statement - not a very generic claim.--GiorgioOrsini 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Antico

Hi Giorgio,

Do you have any information on Antico's ancestry? Everything I have been able to find indicates only that he was born in Motovun (Istria) -- giving nothing about his parentage (or native language), whether the were, for example, Venetians (which would have been a definite possibility). The extensive article in the New Grove says he is of "Croatian birth" but stops there. Since you removed him from the list of Croats with the comment "Antico is not Croatian" I figured you knew something definite. By the way, his fellow printer Jacques Moderne (active in Lyon) was also from Istria. Thanks! Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done

I'm back from holydays. I've seen that in last two weeks you did an excellent work. Let's go on in restablish the historical truth. Greetings.--Giovanni Giove 10:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure is mine!--Giorgio Orsini 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello, I would like to offer you some advice. I recently made a few minor corrections to the Andrea Meldolla article, and as is my habit I kept the article on my watchlist for a bit after doing so. I noticed that you'd blanked a section, and figured the edit for mistaken and reverted it. After noting that you had reversed this edit again, I had a look at the talk page. It appears that you have been reverting without any form of discussion for quite some time, which is generally frowned upon. You haven't technically violated WP:3RR, but you have been edit-warring (at least eight of those same reverts from an offhand count!) I would like to suggest you discuss changes rather than engaging in an edit war. Seraphimblade 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do apologize if you thought the advice was intended to insult you, I certainly meant no offense. Just noticed that you'd had previous problems in that area, and hoped to help you avoid any future blocks or issues. I had a look through the discussion as you stated-however, please note that simply stating that one has a position is not license to edit war to put it in! The best way to do things is through consensus and sourcing-the section you are removing does appear to be backed by some sourcing, but if you can provide better sources which indicate that it is wrong, you may certainly indicate that the claim is disputed. However, removal of material which really is sourced is generally frowned upon, and may be considered disruption. Seraphimblade 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your comment on my talk page

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. Spylab 14:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giulio Clovio

Hi there,

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. . I would not take into consideration whether you do it over 24 hours or not, as a last resort I would even have to consider a block. The point is that edit wars are disruptive. Please discuss any edits with the other contributors of the article. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to warn you that you are abusing your admin account rights. All my reverts are already covered by very extensive discussion on the talk pages. The point is - I've removed pseudo-historical claims : a) Kingdom of Croatia did not exts after being conquered by Hungarians 1189 - ask about it a qualified historian of the medieval Europe b) Clovio's Croatian origins is forgery coming from today's Croatia. The message, as left on my talk page I could understand only as a grave ofense.--Giorgio Orsini 03:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain me in what way I am "abusing my powers"? Forgive me if my words were harsh. You have basically been reverting on a serial basis for the last two weeks. Edit wars are disruptive by nature. It does not matter whether you think you are right or not. Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with the dispute resolution procedure which I recommend you follow. Please take such disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration rather than continuing to edit war. Regards, Asterion^talk 07:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

I just tried to be nice and friendly. I do not understand why're you taking it so harshly. --PaxEquilibrium 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afrika paprika

Done. I've also blocked Sock Buster (talk · contribs)—if I am mistaken about him, please let me know. Khoi khoi 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that comment

Giorgio, copied from Evv's talk page:

As you both have I expect seen, I have reverted it back, because (I think) this is procedurally correct (especially in that it should not be Giorgio who removes it), and "without prejudice" as it were - no support for the statement is intended. Whether the comment being anon. makes any difference, I must admit I don't know. I'll copy this to G's page. Johnbod 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now remved it again .Johnbod 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ante Starcevic

Hi Giorgio

You should not ent the GA Review. It is still in progress. So, I reverted your last change.--BarryMar 16:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For chrissake - why you ended the GA Review????--BarryMar 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Job for you

See [3]. He's going to vandalize all the article I wrotten. Now I have to stop, meanwhile have a look. We can work on him toghether (poor man:-) )--Giovanni Giove 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing - as soon as I find time for that. Also, I notifyed NovaNova asking him to start editing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatisation

--Giorgio Orsini 17:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment/sockpuppetry

Based on the checkuser report, you have been blocked for 72 hours for harassing another user by using a sockpuppet account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaše

Georgio, was it you that put a POV template back on this article? Do you intend it to apply to the whole article? Can you not just edit the bits that you think are unfounded, so that the template can be removed or moved to a specific section or sections? (I raised this with you on the article's talk page but maybe you don't look there.)

For some reason you like the idea of using a dictionary definition. I know of no other encyclopedia, dictionary or other work of reference that relies on another dictionary for its definitions. Why that particular dictionary? And should we perhaps list the definitions from several dictionaries?

In any case the dictionary is wrong in two ways. Perhaps you are not familiar with the territory that was once Yugoslavia? In the minds of many readers, "Croatia" will be assumed to include Dalmatia and indeed Istria, as it does now. Until the end of WW2 Istria was part of Italy. Dalmatia was ceded by the Ustaše to Italy. For these reasons alone it is wrong to say the Ustaše "ruled Croatia." Another point you don't seem to have realised, though it is explained within the article and on the talk page, is that the ISC (NDH) included the whole of B-H and part of Serbia. So you will begin to see that "Croatia" is a poor description of where the regime ruled.

The dictionary is also wrong to say the Germans "supported" the Ustaše, as this word implies that the Germans had a subordinate role, and might also imply that the Germans supported the Ustaše objective of eradicating the Serbs. A better way to express the relationship would be to say that the Ustaše ruled under German "protection." It was after all an illegal state in international law, which could exist only because it was protected by the Axis powers.

I will be making some corrections accordingly. Please don't undo them unless you have proper sources (by which I don't mean dictionary definitions!). Kirker 18:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism" of Neo-Nazism

Hi GiorgioO, you reversed my copyedits and "fact" templates, and labelled the change rvv. Huh??? I may be new around here but I don't see how what I did was vandalism. If you want to dispute the changes, fine (although some actual feedback is requested, rather than just reverting), but I'm baffled by the accusation here. What's up? With respect and reasonableness I hope, but also bafflement, sincerely, SociableLiberal 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

indefblocked

It appears, from looking through your contributions, that you are incapable of working well with others, and it appears everyone has finally gotten sick of you. See yesterday's WP:ANI discussion. – Steel 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Steel is heavily biased and that accusations as given are baseless. My all contributions are strictly supported by valid references and claim that 'everyone has finally gotten sick of you' is generic, baseless, and offensive. So, I demand removal of this block and fair review all of my contributions. --Giorgio Orsini 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please substantiate your accusation that I am "heavily biased". – Steel 14:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed that I am a POV-pushing editor. Please, give a sound proof of your

claim - using just two examples of my edits. Also, I very successfully cooperated by many people and all my edits are strictly referenced and based on extensive reading of the references I supplied. I fought any baseless claim, I admit sometimes harshly, but honestly. Give a full explanation of the 'everyone has finally gotten sick of you' claim and allow me to defeat it - on just one example - including Spylab, too. Also, go from accusation to accusation of this accuser and give a sound proof for each of them that they are based on sound facts. That is obligatory to any judge who passes any verdict.--Giorgio Orsini 15:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be important to point out that all the complains came from Croatian users. I've the same problem: I wrote about Dalmatia, I am used to insert proper references to my edits, but ever facing the evidence, several Croatian users accuse me to impose POV, to 'hate' Croatia, and so on. The problem is that Dalmatia was an ethincally mixed regions, but Croatian official history says the is 'just Croatian'.... --Giovanni Giove 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that all Wikipedia editors who have had problems with your behaviour are Croation, or have some kind of bias related to Croation topics. Spylab 18:37, 8 July 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

Heavily biased - based on sidelining with Croatian nationalists and their false accusations. Also, Steel did not elaborate his/her reason as I requested. Also I see that Steel marked and blocked NovaNova as my sockpuppet based on false reference on Checkuser. The latest checkuser on both accounts was done confirming just opposite - unrelated. Therefore, this is a blatant case of the admin license abuse

Decline reason:

Wikipedia is not a battleground. Making edit wars between national lines is completely unacceptable. Sean William @ 18:43, 8 July 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Sean William statement is false. I've never made war between national lines - I just battled forgeries posted inside biographies of the Italians who lived in Dalmazia and were citizens of Venetian republic. All my edits are supported by valid and verifiable historic references. Sean William is blindly siding with the accuser. There is not a single example that might confirm any accusation related to my nationalism. Also, it is quite clear that Croatians publicly lobbied Steel to block me - see the history of their conversation on the Steel talk page

Decline reason:

"Battling" is edit-warring. You're not getting unblocked, stop asking. Shadow1 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2007 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My "Battling" was not a plain edit warring - it is battling for the Wikipedia article integrity and credibility. I do not understand why not a single administrator is not ready to offer a single example proving their accusations??? --Giorgio Orsini 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am protecting your talk page to prevent further abuse of the unblock template — Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:02, 10 July 2007 (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.