User talk:Giovanni Giove/Archive 1

Welcome
Hi there Giovanni, welcome to Wikipedia!

I'm happy that there are more people interested in Ivan Lupis. :) I would, however, advise that you put the general information about the noble family into a separate article (maybe Lupis family? link it from Lupis).

If you need anything, feel free to tell me. Good luck. --Joy &#91;shallot] 22:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. Let's move this discussion to Talk:Ivan Lupis. Can you copy your comments over there, or allow me to do it? --Joy &#91;shallot] 10:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Lastovo
Hi there, i left a response on my talk page, but I have since re-read your contributions. Most should probably end up making it in there, but my central reason was to revert them because they did have a little bias, but mostly because it didnt read well (grammar and flow). Please do the following quickly...

a) fix the grammer and flow. It doesnt read well. b) source all your claims c) add information where it is relevent. Also the Italian minority on Lastovo was never significant except for the 20 year interwar period. It needs to be mentioned, but not overstated.

I'll check tomorrow and we can discuss. Cheers, Uvouvo 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Giovanni, i have rewritten the pieces you added into the article. I have left all of your additions, just rearranged their order and some wording as it didnt read well. There are two places where i have asked for citations (one showing the census from 1920, and the second showing the movement of Italian people from around dalmatia to Lastovo. If you could source the books they came from that would be great. Uvouvo 05:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
You missunderstand the meaning of NPOV. It doesn't mean

'''I don't like what this article says, but I don't have time to change it. Let other people do that. Just want everybody to know that I don't agree with the entire article.'''

It means:

I tried to change, add or delete some parts of the article, I gave valid references, but some people keep reverting my edits.

There is a difference. That's why I'm removing the NPOV for now.


 * Please, report me to an administrator.
 * Or, you might first search my talk page where you will find that I did exactly what you are tring to do now, until told by administrator to stop.
 * It's your choice. --Ante Perkovic

di Gozze deleted
Nicolò Vito di Gozze was a copyvio from. It was deleted under WP:CSD A8. Feel free to repost in your own words, and don't forget a rock-solid assertion of notability, like a list of published works. Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

== Nationalism? ==

Giovanni, whome are you fooling? If you continue to deliberately spread your expansionistic ideas, I'll report you to admins! Think twice before you say something about nationalism. What do you think, that over here live only unliterate shepherds? And that you can sell your ideas about Croatian regions as you wish? Forget it! You've deliberately changed the native toponyms in Croatia (particularly in littoral areas) into Italian ones. Or, if you want it that way, you're insisting on Italian names of Croatian cities, and threat (with blocking)to anybody who wants to change that. I've changed those toponyms into NATIVE names, Croat names. And you call that - vandalism? If you can't live with the fact that Croats live here, that Croats are majority, and that Mussolini got kick in the butt over here, that's your problem! But don't lie other users here. If you want to impose "laws", like Mussolini's fascist laws in 1920's, which forbid giving "funny Slavic names" to children (these laws were especially brought for purpose of violent de-croatization and de-slovenization of majority population in Istria, Croats and Slovenians), than we're having a serious problem over here on Wikipedia. Yes, we've reverted imposed Italian names in 1943 in Croatia and Slovenia, as soon as occupied cities were liberated. It's no problem to do it again. Kubura 09:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

nazionalismo
ho letto il tuo messaggio nella mia discussione italiana ma su proposta dell'amministratore Gac, che ho criticato diverse volte, sono stato bloccato per un anno dopo aver minacciato di querela l'utente Fotogian: motivo decisamente opinabile e durata assurda di blocco! Nella sezione italiana posso collaborare ma non posso registrarmi quindi preferisco comunicare qui. Se leggi la mia discussione inglese puoi vedere che anche io son stato accusato di nazionalismo ma da utenti con i quali ho avuto contrasti notevoli: tra questi anche un veneziano ossia user:Ghepeu che sulla questione di foibe massacres e istrian exodus la pensa come un titoista slavo! Kubura è solo uno dei tanti e noi possiamo solo segnalare tali utenti agli amministratori che possono bloccarli. Penso che tu abbia la competenza per intervenire in talk:Josip Broz Tito: a questa discussione puoi dare un'occhiata dalla sezione intitolata Tag in poi? Se leggi alcune parti di questa pagina dall'inizio ti rendi conto che molti utenti contestano la faziosità di alcuni redattori iugoslavi che esaltano Tito come leader non dictator e gli attribuiscono solo meriti non ammettendo le sue responsabilità riguardo Bleiburg massacre, foibe massacres e Istrian exodus nonchè OZNA e UDBA: tali utenti sono, in particolare, l'amministratore croato Dijxtra con lo sloveno Zocky e i serbi Dcabrilo e Zivan56. Tali utenti, anche se non lo dichiarano, sembrano comunisti fanatici e Dijxtra mi ha bloccato per un giorno perchè ho definito Zivan56 un bugiardo. Dunque t'invito a lasciare un commento in tale pagina di discussione riguardo un articolo contestato che alcuni titoisti pretendono di trasformare in testo di esaltazione del dittatore come esige il culto della personalità e a intervenire nella redazione e discussione, se vuoi, di foibe massacres e Istrian exodus. Io detesto tutti i totalitarismi e tutti i dittatori! Ciao,--PIO 01:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've left a message for Kubura. I don't know how much good it will do, though - he's a very tiresome ultranationalist, I'm afraid. -- ChrisO 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources
Look at WP:CITE, and WP:FOOT. You can also look at how I created the citation for the article by Knez you linked to. Reference numbering is automatic; there is no need to try to keep things numbered. Argyriou 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbian origin
Maybe you didn't noticed in all that fury that preoccupies you, but there are no links connecting Ruđer Bošković to Serbs. So, please, stop returning wriong categories. --Ante Perkovic 14:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you admited that you don't know if his father was Serbian or not. If there was no nationality at that time, then why not put him under Bosniaks also? Or even Bantu. Please, if you are unfamiliar with the sbject, just keep away of it. --Ante Perkovic 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, You must know that all those Serbian categories are under category:Serbia, not Category:Serbs. Since he had nothing to do with Serbia (or Serbs, but leave it asside at the momment), I'm removing these categories for good. --Ante Perkovic 21:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope you're not saying that there weren't any Serbs in Herzegovina in the history... :) There were, of course. And there was a Serb family of Boskovic, whose descendants exist today as well. --Djordje D. Bozovic 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, you think that Serbs live in Serbia only? >:( Well, you are deeply, deeply wrong! I really can't believe that there are people who think that. Especially because you're from Italy, the neighbourhood. I don't want to talk about this any more! I can't! Please refer to some geography and history textbooks before you make such comments. :( --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In deed? Sorry, I'm just pist off (is that the expression?) because of such an enormous Croatian, Bosniak and Albanian nationalistic propaganda. :( --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry if I insulted you.
 * The nationalities actually were quite clear back then: all the Orthodox speakers of Serbo-Croatian were the Serbs, the Muslims refered to themselves as the Turks, and the Catholics were either the Croats or they used some other name - regional (Bosniaks [yes, they were Catholics, not connected to present-day Bosniaks!], Ragusans, Slavs...) or another one (Sokci, Bunjevci, Krasovani, Iliri...). That's how it was, really. --Djordje D. Bozovic 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Monte Cassino
Hi. I see in the Cassino article you have replaced the name of General Guillaume with that of Gen Juin. I didn't write this bit originally but as I understand it Juin was in command of the French Corps whilst Guillaume led the 4th Maroccan Mountain Division. Do you mind if I reflect this in the text, or do you believe otherwise?Stephen Kirrage 09:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Serbs and Serbia; nationalities in the past
Here's what Vuk Karadzic says about Serbs and Serbia: ''The one who does not understand this job could say that the name 'Serb' is from the present-day Serbia, just like for example Slavonian from Slavonia, Herzegovinian from Herzegovina, Montenegrin from Montenegro, etc.; but the one who knows some of the Slavonic history must know that the Serbs brought this name with them when they came into these lands, and the country got its name after them. Where is the southern part of the present-day Serbia (Kosovo and Metohia), there was the middle of the former one, and it spead from Danube to the Greek isles and from Adriatic Sea to Macedonia. And I think that the name 'Serbia' was made in recent times, since the Serbian Empire broke apart, because I don't know if one could find somewhere that some of our kings and emperors were called kings or emperors 'of Serbia', but 'of the Serbs'. Dobrovsky and Shafarik have proved that all the Slavonic peoples were called the Serbs once, and that this name is older than the name Slavs.'' He also wrote this (about the nationalities): ''It is really known that Serbs now live in present-day Serbia (between Drina and Timok rivers, and between Danube and Stara planina), in Metohia (from Kosovo across Stara planina, where is Dusan's seat at Prizren, Serbian patriarchy of Pec, and the monastery of Decani), in Bosnia, in Herzegovina, in Zeta, in Montenegro, in Banat, in Backa, in Srijem, on the right banks of Danube from above Osijek to Saintadrew, in Slavonia, in Croatia (and Turkish and Austrian krajina), in Dalmatia, and in all Adriatic littorial almost from Trieste to Bojana river. That's why I said in the beginning 'it is really known', because it is still not known how many Serbs there are in Albania and Macedonia. I was talking in Cetinje (in Montenegro) with two men from Diber, who told me that there are many Serbian villages over there, where people speaks Serbian just like they spoke, between Serbian and Bulgarian, but yet closer to Serbian than to real Bulgarian.''

''In these mentioned places there appear to be about five million people who speak one single language, but are divided in three by the religion: one can say that there is about three million people of the Greek religion, and: one million in whole Serbia (with Metohia), one million in Austrian lands (in Banat, in Backa, in Srijem, on the right banks of Danube, in Slavonia, Croatia, Dalmatia and Boka), and one million in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Zeta and Montenegro; and of the remaining two million one can say that two thirds are of the Turkish religion (in Bosnia, Herzegovina, Zeta etc.), and one third of the Roman religion (in Austrian lands and in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bar region). Only the first three million are called Serbs or Serbians, and the rest don't want to take this name, but those of the Turkish religion think that they are real Turks, and that's how they call themselves, although you can't find one of the hundred people to speak Turkish; and those of the Roman religion call themselves either by the places where they live, for example Slavonians, Bosnians (or Bosniaks), Dalmatians, Ragusans etc., or, as especially the writers do, by some old, who knows whose name: Illyrians; those first call them Bunjevci in Backa, Sokci in Srijem, in Slavonia and in Croatia, and Latins around Dubrovnik and in Boka.'' I hope you enjoyed in reading as much as I did in translating. :) --Djordje D. Bozovic 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Juin
I have removed your section about his war crimes because you give no source for that serious allegtion and I have found no site on the internet who agree with you. If you give some crediable sources I would be happy to restore the section myself Carl Logan 06:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Marocchinate
We have some objections for this articles verifiability. Can you help as source which part of this article is from which source? Thank you. Wandalstouring 22:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1. "For fifty hours you will be the absoulte masters of what you will find beyond the enemy. Nobody will punish you for what you will do, nobody will ask you about what you will get up". (in the article)

This is a direct quotation in the article. Who said it and where is it sourced? Please give it in the original language to verify the translation.

2. French authorities still don't recognize the crimes. (in the article)

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/990909.shtml

"Unfortunately for the Goumiers, their military success did not prevent their fearsome reputation from taking its toll as exceptional numbers of Moroccans were executed—many without trial—for allegedly murdering, raping, and pillaging their way across the Italian countryside." So there was immidiate punishment for the crimes. "The French authorities sought to defuse the problem by importing numbers of Berber women to serve as "camp followers" in rear areas set aside exclusively for the Goumiers." So the problem was clearly recognized by French military command and tried to solve.

3. http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/928175_comment.php

"I marocchini erano affetti da gravi malattie veneree che trasmisero alle donne e alle bambine violentate. Malattie che provocarono interruzioni e aborti spontanei nella maggioranza dei casi."

It talks about raping children (Happened either elsewhere during WWII), not grown up men. Where is your source on raping men?

4. biased source: http://www.dalvolturnoacassino.it/asp/doc.asp?id=001&p=4

"I gourmiers marocchini, 12.000 diavoli provenienti dalle montagne del Riff, fanno parte del Corpo di Spedizione Francese comandato dal generale Juin."

5. racial content: http://www.pacioli.net/ftp/maturita/iacomelli/marocchinate.htm

"Un'altra fondamentale novità che la denuncia e gli studi apportano alla vulgata su questi fatti è che non furono solo i marocchini a macchiarsi di tali nefandezze, ma anche algerini, tunisini e senegalesi. Nonché «bianchi» francesi: ufficiali, sottufficiali e di truppa. E qualche italiano aggregato ai «liberatori»."

6. contradicting sources (see the English source) http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_contemporanea/II_guerra_mondiale/monte_cassino_1944_scatenate_i_marocchini.html

"La sensazione di impotenza, la tolleranza mostrata dai comandi verso i marocchini, il riconoscimento ufficiale che pareva accompagnare la loro violenza selvaggia e indiscriminata, totalmente al di fuori di una possibile regolamentazione, sconcertò gli abitanti dei paesi liberati. L'impossibilità di una qualsiasi difesa dinnanzi al dispiegarsi di una ferocia animalesca (più volte richiamata dall'accostamento dei goumier alle bestie), così feroce da fuoriuscire dalla sfera umana (indemoniati e diavoli sono infatti definiti ripetutamente i marocchini), l'abbandono subito dalle autorità alleate in cui avevano riposto tanta fiducia, segnarono in maniera indelebile la memoria dei giorni di guerra. L'immagine restituitaci, e dalla documentazione archivistica e dalle testimonianze orali, è quella di un paesaggio infernale: «I soldati marocchini che avevano bussato alla porta e che non venne aperta, abbattuta la porta stessa colpivano la Rocca con il calcio del moschetto alla testa facendola cadere a terra priva di sensi, quindi veniva trasportata di peso a circa 30 metri dalla casa e violentata mentre il padre (...) da altri militari veniva trascinato, malmenato e legato a un albero. Gli astanti terrorizzati non potettero arrecare nessun aiuto alla ragazza e al genitore in quanto un soldato rimase di guardia con il moschetto puntato sugli stessi» (13)."

Koper, Isonzo
(N)POV has nothing to do with the name of these articles. I don't remember you announcing your move from Koper to Koper - Capodistria. The name of this town is not Koper - Capodistria, it's Koper or Capodistria! See this excerpt from WP:NC: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Markussep 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I would live in Sittard-Zitterd. Don't you see that's unworkable? And why did you have to remove my 100% correct and useful addition that Koper is the Slovenian name and Capodistria the Italian name? Markussep 20:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction, the Netherlands are bilingual, take a look at Leeuwarden for instance. That does not mean that the article title has to be bilingual. It has nothing to do with discrimination or oppression of minorities. You must be extremely sensitive if you're hurt by an article title in wikipedia already. I did not remove any reference to the Italian name in the article itself, on the contrary, I added the information (which you removed!) that Capodistria is the Italian name. How can you expect me to respect your opinion if you completely disrespect mine? BTW I saw on Italian wikipedia that there's only 3.4% Italians in Koper nowadays, must have been a lot more before 1945. Markussep 05:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel it's no use trying to reason with you. Wikipedia is not there to confirm people's identities, it's there to give information. There are two official names, not one bilingual name. Period. End of discussion. Markussep 12:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marco Polo
Please stop adding the protection notice to the article. While it may put vandals off, it does not protect the article – only admins can protect it. Please remove it yourself, as I don't want to edit war with you. Take requests for page protection here (as I already asked you twice, in the edit summary and my talk page) and warn vandals appropriately, and report any to be blocked if needed to WP:AIV. Thank you. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 13:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not add to articles - It does not semi-protect the articles, rather it transcludes a message stating the article is s-protected. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've answered. The vandalism shall be stopped. I beg you you to contact an administrator. Meanwhile leave the tag. Please. It is mo more possible to go on in this way!!!!--Giovanni Giove 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)--Giovanni Giove 13:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You adding the protection tag does nothing, like has been said prior you must request protection at WP:RFPP. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 13:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. -- Majorly ( Talk ) 13:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:3RR
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Francesco Patrizi. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Francesco Patrizi). &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 15:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

 * [[Image:Octagon-warning.svg|left|30px| ]]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 31 hours. Here and Here are the reverts in question.  Nish kid 64  19:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

False accusation
This man User:Nishkid64...

''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. Nishkid64 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)''

... claims that I was in edit war with you. As far as I know - it did not happen. Please, confirm or deny.

Best regards --GiorgioOrsini 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your honest response. I understand that we two were not involved into any dispute.--GiorgioOrsini 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm...it appears I misread your edits, Giovanni. I thought I saw you violated 3RR, but I guess I was looking at November 29th, which you had already been blocked for. Please accept my apologies for mistakingly blocking you for 3RR violations.  Nish kid 64  04:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Giorgio Orsini
Hi Giovanni,

I've left my note on the talk pages about Giorgio Orsini - as my response to the current development related to this article.--GiorgioOrsini 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Siderurgy
Please see History of Ferrous Metallurgy. This is as yet under construction, as I need to merege the steel section. I have chosen this name as Siderurgy is not a common English word; I have only come across it as French word (spelt slightly differently); no dount there is also am Italian one. Peterkingiron 17:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Useful
Thanks for the link--GiorgioOrsini 16:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Ivan Lučić
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Giovanni Giove! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 14:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 14:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop spamming Wikipedia. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing. Shadowbot 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shadowbot 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above accusation is false. The user was asked several time, to tell which kind of spam I've introduced according to him, but I had non answer. I've also tried to suppose if I had, for error, introduced some wrong links. I've just rerverte some unsopported edits. But I introduce non new links! --Giovanni Giove 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether you know it or not, you were inserting a link to a Google Cache page, which is apparently blacklisted on my bot. The bot should leave you alone now, I've fixed it. Shadow1  (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Marulić
It does not matter if Dalmacija was not a part of Croatia then--the fact is that Marko Marulić was an ethnic Croat who wrote in Croatian; borders of empires or states do not determine ethnicity. Marulić was a celebrated Croatian poet, if you check his page, it clearly states that he is a Croat. If King Tomislav was born in a time where Dalmacija was not part of the Croaitan empire, it still doesn't change the fact that he was a Croatian. Please do not let nationalism or any phobia of anything Croatian be the reason why you keep editing the way you do. --Jesuislafete 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Historical names
I added some comments on the talk pages of some medieval Croatian artist which worked in Italy. Please read them, because I think that that names of those cities should be changed for following reasons; - *1)under that names they are mostly know in english speaking world 	 - *2)those names are the names that were used in that time period (Zadar is for the last 1400 years known as Zadar), Quote from [] page; "Please, keep in mind that, per WP:NC, for the purposes of naming this article the names used for this artist by Latin, Italian, Croatian or Chinese-speaking individuals and authors (of the past, present and future) are irrelevant. Instead, we should consider only the names commonly used in English-language". Same things were talked in Klović pages, etc. We should stick to that deal.

-Also it would be nice that that articles don't have sentences like "now in Croatia" (because they were in Croatia and some time in the past), they were of Venetian Dalmatia in that time would be a better phrase. - Name controversy articles are preaty offensive for Croatian readers (those would be citizens in that towns) so other names under which somebody is known in diffrent countries is a more polite phrase. Hope this helps you coordinate your work with wiki rules. Ceha

Maurilic or Marulo is not Croat. He is Dalmatian. If you claim is Croat you have to tell why, because as a matter of fact: 1) he was not born in a Croatian state 2) he was not born in a region that was part of Croatia in a geographical contest (in the maps of the time you will find Dalmatia AND Croatia AND Slavonia. 3) last but non least he was not born in a region that can be considered 'croat' from an ethnic or linguist point of view. Of course you will not agree with this last point: if you told me why it's wrong, I'll tell u where u a wrong. Don't try to tell me again I'm a nationalist. You don't even realize how much nationalist YOU are In

1) What does it matter if he was not born in a Croatian state?? Neither were my ancestors, who were from Dalmacija In fact, my grandfather was born in the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. His father in Austria-Hungary. My other ancestors in whatever power was occupying them. Are you saying he is not a Croat because the land was not called Croatia back then? Borders DO NOT provide ethnicity, and just because a Dalmacija was not called Croatia, that does not mean someone can't be Croatian. 2) Croatia was dominated by various foreign powers since the fall of the last Croatian king Petar Svačić. If you think that Croatians lived on a tiny piece of land called Croatia by Austria-Hungary(that was divided so by them) then you know no history about Croatia 3) Marulić is recognized by his own Wikipedia page as Croatian. Here are other sites at the end of this that affirm he's Croatian. He appears on the Croatian kuna. Is the reason why he is called a Croatian writer is maybe because he wrote in Croatian and is considered the father of Croatian literature??

What you are trying to do is obliterate any Croatian connection from Dalmacija. That land is full of so much Croatian culture, it has given birth to many gifted Croatian writers and the development of literature, poetry, and the language; no wonder it is called the craddle of Croatian culture. If you hate being called a nationalist, then stop acting like one. I couldn't care less what you call me. Since Dalmacija wasn't called Croatia until 1991, I wonder why no other pages of Croatian people and intellectuals from Dalmacija before that period of time aren't called Croatian.

and here's that list I promised you. cheers http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9051198/Marko-Marulic http://caa.markovina.net/croatian-language-vol25-26.htm http://www.mcadams-croatia.net/biography.htm http://www.filg.uj.edu.pl/~wwwip/postjugo/texts_display.php?id=45 http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/ma/marko_maruli%c4%87.htm

p.s. Please, I really don't want to start an edit war. I hope you can see my reasonable points, and I can bring up more examples if you wish.

Hello
Regarding the changes in Giovanni Lupis, Elena Pucić-Sorkočević and Marino de Bona. I hope you agree with my recent changes with Lupis article. As for Elena Pozza-Sorgo I think we should go first with her current version name, it looks strange when you put her Italian name first and the article is named by her name in Croatian. As for da Bona I already made some points in my edits. Hope we can come to some compromise. Oh and also regarding people in Ragusan Republic, could we please avoid double linking? Like for example you again added double link for Mauro Vetrani, I don't think thats necessary. Regards Tar-Elenion 17:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and as for names in Ragusan Republic article and people from Ragusa, it is really irrelevant wheter we go with Italian or Croatian since they were bilingual. I think it's better to go with the name of the articles in Wiki, we can always point out in the specific articles their other name version. Tar-Elenion 17:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits and revert-warring at Republic of Ragusa
Please stop reverting and changing things without proper discussion. You are adding incorrect information to the article. Dalmatic is not a language and if you checked the link you would know it, also Ragusan was not a dialect of Italian language but of the same Dalmatian language. Second the official name in English is 'Kingdom of Yugoslavia' not 'Jugoslavija'. Third chakavian was never spoken in Ragusa/Dubrovnik, it's dialect was always been and is shtokavian. You have also removed several things from the article which are well sourced (the name in Croatian) and passages from known people. Once again, please stop or I shall report you. I considered you reasonable, don't make me change my opinon now. Tar-Elenion 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You did a Revert war against edits. I went on with my improvment. I did an excellent and well referencied job. I have introduced all your observation. No problem if you report me. But you will to tell why you have done so many massive reverts, of several well referncied edits.--Giovanni Giove 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted your POV and incorrect edits. The fact you have so many mistakes (both grammar and false links) shows that your edits were not so "excellent" and "well sourced". Also erasing and replacing Croatian with "Illyric" and "Serbo-Croatian" as well as your "Serbian, Croatian, and the other South Slavic languages were standardized only in XIX century" (Italian language was also standrdized in 19th century) shows your true intention. I have looked into your history and I see that you have been engaging in similar revert-wars for a very long time now. I have reported you. Tar-Elenion 22:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Trentino-South Tyrol
If you want, you can cast your vote also in Talk:Trentino-South Tyrol. --Checco 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

South Tyrol
Please also check out the poll going on at South Tyrol. Taalo 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Maraschino
What problem do you have that Zadar is a part of Croatia? Why do you revert any edits that have the word "Croatia" in them and replace them with "Dalmatia" or "Illyrian" or any other euphemism you can think of just so Croatia's name will not appear on an article? You changed the Maraschino article so it specifically will not have Croatia's name next to Zadar. That is extremely biased and uncalled for. Do you deny that Zadar is a part of Croatia? --Jesuislafete 09:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I repeat a furhter time: STOP WITH PARANOID CLAIMS. I've deleted the name Croatia just where it was not necessary. I'm not responsable if the present day Croatian official history is fulfilled of nationalistic propaganda and if some Croatian users want to export this propaganda in wikpiedia. Try to show where I am wrong. It seems that 'till now I was right in nearly all my edits. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 09:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. plus edit warring. Rlevse 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Block
Why have you blocked me? I was not involved in war edits, and I have not broken the 3RR. [User:Afrika_paprika]] did many mass reverts, against my referencied edits. I've defended 4 articles against the vandalism of a notorius troll. That's my right: Afrika is a multi banned user. It was User:AjdemiPopushi, a sockpuupet of him, to report me a a breaker of the 2RR. So I am clean and I did not "plus edit warring". Meanwhile I ws blcoked this usere did sever other vandalism against severe articles. Best regard.--Giovanni Giove 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ademji has now been id'd as a sock of afrika and indefinitely blocked, but this was not known and in the 3RR report filed. If I'd known that, the result would certainly have been different as there was definitely an edit war on the Ragusa article. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I went on what was known at the time and in the 3RR report.Rlevse 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was sure you was just doing your work. Please copy this message on my page. Not there is again the same problem, and the article should be sprotected. It is true; there is a war about Ragusa: that why I did several edits on each single points. All the edits must be referncied: that what I did. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove
Stop with your revionist/nationalist crap! Also Croatian Kajkavian dialect was never spoken in Dalmatia you moron, it is a central-northwestern continental dialect. Chakvian was predominantly spoken in Dalmatia with Shtokavian spoken in Dubrovnik and Dalmatian hinterland. --Mr.Blyak 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Blyak
I'd say if you haven't already that it's time to list him at WP:AIV. --NMChico24 09:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My talk page?
What was that? Also I have reverted your changes to Giacomo Micaglia, they are obvious POV as are those of Kubura. --Shipak 21:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
Dear Giovanni,

It would be more than welcome - if you could find some time in order to review the Ante Starčević biography - which I nominated as a GA.

Best regards,

--BarryMar 12:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Orsini
Hello Giovanni

I've made a small contribution to the Giorgio Orsini biography. It would be appreciated highly if you take a look, impove the existing text or suggest changes in order to make this biography more valuable. --Giorgio Orsini 01:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Micaglia/Mikalja
--Giovanni Giove 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Giovanni, please visit discussion page of that article and answer, prior to just reverting the page. It is just rude and stubborn, and as all Croat nationalist do. Are you one of them, but in the opposite direction?--Plantago 11:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a natinalist. All my edits are sourced. Discuss your own edits, please.--Giovanni Giove 11:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong target. My additions are: He is Jesuit (sourced). He is of Croatian origin (sourced). Illyric is name given to language for long time now called Croatian by Vinko Pribojević (sourced!), and accepted specially in Italy. I wrote original name of his dictionary in literature (what's wrong with that? -also sourced).
 * Now some things about your new additions to introduction to article: You really don't understand anything about languages on Balkans, don't you? To say that Shtokavian, Kajkavian and Chakavian are "ancient separate Slavic languages" is just wrong as you say that north-Italian is separate language from language talked in south Italy. They are just dialects. If you have any source for that, try to write that and document that on the right places, either Croatian language, or Serbo-Croatian language, wherever you like, and take thunder and fire on your head, but not in the article about this cosmopolitan Jesuit. Cheers. --Plantago 12:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, I would like to ask you to read Resolving disputes. Ciao, Plantago 13:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Giovanni, I've tried to clarify "Controversy" section further. Can you please check it out and give your opinion? --Plantago 09:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's going better, I will say my opinion ASA.--Giovanni Giove 11:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on the talk page
Responded on my talkpage.--Isotope23 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Un cordiale saluto
Leggo con piacere i suoi interventi nella "english wikipedia" e mi permetto di farle i miei complimenti. Un cordiale saluto. --Brunodam 17:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ricambio il messaggio. Purtroppo wikipedia é sempre piú terreno di liti parzializzate, dove la veritá storica viene oscurata e/o deformata. Ora ci sono anche hackers che rubano l'IP e screditano gli utenti loro non graditi facendoli passare per "sockpuppets". Insomma, wikipedia diventa una specie di "campo di battaglia" dove gruppi di nazionalisti (nel nostro caso serbocroati) fanno continuamente una campagna di disinformazione storica, con ogni trucco e falsitá possibile. Cordialmente --Brunodam 15:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ho letto alcune "disinformazioni" e falsitá nella voce Zadar della wikipedia inglese. Mi ha colpito il continuo riferimento (da parte dei nazionalisti serbocroati) al fatto che a Zara si parlava lo slavo fin dal 1177 (.."la venuta in Zara di Papa Alessandro III nell'anno 1177 fu festeggiata "immensis laudibus et canticis in eorum sclavica lingua", secondo M. Metzeltin 1991, ripreso da Teja 1949..."). In realtá questi canti popolani in slavo provenirono da contadini venuti dall'entroterra a festeggiare il Papa e non da abitanti di Zara vera e propria. Mi permetto di aggiungere un brano che puo servirle nelle sue "discussioni" su Zara.

La Dalmazia latina di A. Razza (Genova,1995)

"...Il 1000 fu un anno cruciale nella storia della Dalmazia: con la dedizione delle città istriane e dalmate l'egemonia politica di Venezia poté stabilizzarsi. Nonostante questi successi importanti questo predominio conobbe anche periodi di crisi nel Medioevo. Infatti la Dominante dovette far fronte non solo alla volontà autonomistica delle città soggette ma anche alle mire di espansione dei regni vicini; il suo apporto culturale e l'influsso politico furono sempre indiscussi e profondi.

Il problema primario è definire quali fossero i caratteri della Dalmazia in quel tempo: se fosse ancora latina oppure ampiamente slavizzata. A questo riguardo Z. Muliacic (1965) ritiene che nel XI secolo i due gruppi etnici si fossero ormai fusi insieme, mentre per Mirko Deanovic (F. Ursini 1987) questo progetto sarebbe iniziato assai presto, a partire dal VII secolo al tempo della grande migrazione slava.

Esistono tuttavia degli elementi che sono in contrasto con queste tesi: ammesso che gli Slavi si fossero stanziati già al loro arrivo sulle coste e si fossero altresì stabiliti nel contado circostante le città, convivendo pacificamente con le popolazioni latine e rurali, abbiamo tuttavia motivo di ritenere che fosse diversa la situazione nelle città latine dove furono mantenute le istituzioni municipali greco-latine, un'etnia omogenea e, conseguentemente, una lingua romanza che muoveva allora i suoi primi passi.

A questo proposito sono molto interessanti le testimonianze dell'imperatore Costantino Porfirogenito, che nel suo De administrando imperio, descrive la Dalmazia del IX secolo, dicendo che i Romani e, si badi, Romani non Romei, appellativo con cui si designava i Greci dell'Impero si erano mantenuti ad Ossero, Arbe, Veglia, Zara, Traù, Spalato e Ragusa; oppure quella del diacono Giovanni il quale assistette personalmente agli atti di sottomissione dei latini di Dalmazia durante la spedizione di Pietro Orseolo II e lo raccontò nella sua Chronica Veneta.

Parimenti significativo è un documento giuridico del 1072 dove i contraenti zaratini sono detti latini e quelli di Nona slavi.

La tesi che vuole le città dalmate abitate da una popolazione prevalentemente latina è confermata dai documenti municipali di una città, per così dire, campione, Zara. Esistono ventisette documenti (V. Brunelli 1974) che abbracciano un lasso di tempo assai ampio, dal 918 al 1096, e contengono una serie di nomi di cittadini quasi tutti di origine latina.

Lo scarso numero di nomi slavi ci induce a pensare che l'elemento slavo fosse in netta minoranza e, stanti queste condizioni, si può ipotizzare che in città non esistesse un vero e proprio bilinguismo, ma che le genti slave inurbate si assimilassero alla popolazione latina parlante il dalmatico.

Inoltre, dagli atti notarili dell'epoca (V. Brunelli 1974) si può ricevere un'indicazione di come fosse vitale il dalmatico, in quanto dal cattivo latino scritto dai redattori, traspaiono elementi riconducibili al linguaggio comune come: capitale 'capezzale', culcitrino 'cuscino', bergato 'tipo di tessuto vergato', candeola 'candela', mentre sono scarsi gli apporti dello slavo.

Anche nelle campagne dalmate esistevano, come già enunciato, gruppi sporadici di origine latina, dispersi nel territorio circostante e verso l'interno, che sopravvivevano con la pastorizia.

Queste genti, chiamate Morlacchi, Morovlahi o Vlahi per le loro caratteristiche fisiche, parlavano una varietà rumena e, per alcuni secoli, nonostante vivessero a stretto contatto con le popolazioni slave, mantennero la loro lingua: fino al XV secolo risultano attestati antroponimi come Petulel, Mezul, Dragul, Negul, Sargul, appartenenti al mondo linguistico romanzo-orientale, interessante indizio della sopravvivenza, almeno fino a quel tempo, dei dialetti morlacchi. Alcuni studiosi peró ritengono che i Morlacchi fossero discendenti degli Illiri romanizzati, senza collegarli ai Rumeni.

Tornando ai caratteri etnici e linguistici delle città dalmate, si segnala che un altro studioso, M. Metzeltin (1991), ritiene che lo slavo avesse uso corrente in città già nel XII secolo, tenendo come riferimento la venuta in Zara di Papa Alessandro III nell'anno 1177, quando fu festeggiato "immensis laudibus et canticis in eorum sclavica lingua" (M. Metzeltin 1991, ripreso da Teja 1949).

Pur accettando la bontà della testimonianza del cronista medievale resta da chiedersi chi abbia innalzato laudi e cantici in onore del Pontefice, se i religiosi o il popolo.

La visita del Papa a Zara non era stata stabilita, ma dovuta all'inclemenza del tempo e, in particolare, al vento molto forte di borea, che aveva costretto parte della flotta pontificia, in rotta verso Venezia, ad una sosta forzata nella città e parte ad un repentino ritorno al porto di Vasto.

L'arrivo del Pontefice fu un evento straordinario che finì per attirare moltitudini di fedeli dalle città vicine e dal contado (N. Luxardo De Franchi 1994).

Si pensa che i contadini slavi abbiano voluto salutare il Papa nella loro lingua ed invocare la sua paterna benedizione.

I canti festosi in slavo, risuonando esotici e strani, avranno colpito l'attenzione dei prelati al seguito del Papa molto più delle laudi in latino del clero zaratino.

E' molto improbabile, d'altro canto, che i sacerdoti della città abbiano voluto festeggiare il Pontefice "immensis laudibus" in glagolitico, ossia in paleo-slavo, perché ancora vigenti le severe disposizioni che la Chiesa Romana aveva impartito nei sinodi spalatini del 925 "ut nullus episcopus audeat in quolibet gradu sclavinica lingua promovere" (M. Kostrencic 1957) e del 1060 "nullus de cetero in lingua sclauonica presumeret divina misteria celebrare, nisi tantum in latina et graeca, nec aliquis eiusdem lingue promoueretur ad sacros" (T. Smiciklas 1904).

Pertanto è lecito pensare che il clero zaratino abbia accolto il suo pastore con canti ed inni in latino, altrimenti questo sarebbe stato un atto di grave contestazione e non un momento di festa.

L'Impero veneziano nell'Adriatico, poté affermarsi completamente solo nel XV secolo, quando il Regno d'Ungheria entrò in grave crisi.

L'autorità della città di San Marco si impose solo sul litorale proprio per il carattere marittimo-commerciale della sua politica, che la portava a disdegnare conquiste nell'entroterra, perché inutili e dispendiose....."

Cordialmente, --Brunodam 23:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Zadar and Maraschino
Please note that edit warring on these pages will not solve this issue, but will merely escalate it. Further unhelpful comments such as accusing another user of "vandalism" aren't helpful, and will merely anger the other user. Please always remember to assume good faith. Dispute resolution is important in such situations, and I strongly recommend discussing the issue on the talk page of the article, before inputting further changes or reverts into the article. Thank you. -- Dark Falls''   talk 11:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you cease your edits in Zadar, and discuss the issue on the talk page instead. Many editors have expressed their distaste over the censorship of Croatia from the article, despite it being an Croatian town, not an Italian one. This is backed by many sources on the talk page. Please also back your statements with reliable sources, and keep them as neutral as possible. Failure to constructively communicate regarding this, and continuous violation of 3RR may result in an block, per the blocking policy. Thank you. -- Dark Falls''   talk 01:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you consider leaving the article on this revision for now? If so, and if Zenanarh agrees with this, it would be appreciated if discussion is continued on the talk page, and the article is left in that revision, with no more changes, until dispute ends. If agreeable, reply on my talk page. -- Dark Falls''   talk 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am wondering if you could consider leaving the article on this revision, as Zenanarh does not agree with the current one. It seems to be the most neutral revision I could find... -- Dark Falls''    talk 00:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why such words?
Stop using words like "your personal opinion". Don't undervaluate other users' contributions, just because they oppose your contributions. Especially if opposers contributions are argumented. My contributions aren't my opinions, I've referenced them. See how many external references are in my messages on the talk pages (mostly on the talk pages of the articles Jakov Mikalja and Republic of Dubrovnik). You are avoiding procedures and playing dumb. Read well the sources I've posted. Don't lie by calling such contributions as "personal opinions". Links are there. Such ignorance is forbidden behaviour. You've said: "Your personal opinions are meaningless here.". Beside your blatant lies, now you're even more belittleing opposers' contributions. Consider this as you're being warned about your behaviour by tenth time (at least): on the talk page of the article Jakov Mikalja: My messages:I gave you explanations and warned you that you shouldn't push certain info just like that on 5th April, on 8th April,  on 12th April,  on 31st May (giving right also to Plantago's remarks, but - you've childishly removed  the line "...Giovanni Giove's changes" on 31st May). Again I patiently gave you explanation with links and REMINDER  and  and  on 1st June. Patiently I've tried to explain you language and dialect matters (you have terrible knowledge about Croatian language) on 10th June. I've warned you about your bad behaviour (belittleing the works of small nation) on 10th June, even more patiently giving you new references in your mother tongue  on 10th June (but you childishly - more like spoiled brat, you say "it doesn't help", very same day .). I still tried to explain you something same, 10th June. Again I tried to explain you something, warning you again on your persistent ignorant behaviour on 14th June, with AGAIN posting you the links that are arguments (you haven't proven wrong)  on 14th June. Again, I remind you where is certain data posted and more precise request  on 20th June, where I've asked you to give us answer on some things (instead answering, you childishly removed the part of my request?????  on 21st June, in the part where I point out that you haven't proven my arguments wrong), so I warned you. I've restored that part on on 23th June. Again, I've warned you on your behaviour on 26th June. Plantago's messages: User Plantago also warned you and gave you explanations on 24th May, but you've childishly said "end of discussion", "I've referenced"  on 24th May. After you message showing total ignorance, Plantago warned you again on 24th May. He gave you another explanation on 29th May (I believe that message  from 27th May, from user 89.172.194.7 was from user Plantago; it wasn't, Plantago denies it ). But, you did even worse. You've removed on 30th May the message that wasn't vandalism, playing some kind of sheriff-prosecutor-judge with explanation "Removed comments of a banned user. (who are you to do and that and fire accusations like a gunman??). Plantago again pointed you where you make mistakes about language matters and what you should do  on 5th June, and also tried to give you an information  on 6th June. Plantago warns you about your behaviour ("are you on some kind of crusade?" and patiently asks you to discuss on talk page  and  on 6th June. And even more patiently, Plantago tries to explain you thing again on 6th June. Mir Harven's messages:User Mir Harven got into discussion with warning you on your behaviour and ignorance on 11th June (but you've childishly react,  same day). Dr.Gonzo's messages: User Dr.Gonzo joined the discussion with warning you on your behaviour and ignorance on 14th June. Gonzo warned you again on your deleting of Croatian references on 18th June. Your reactions (besides some mentioned above): But, you've played dumb on 9th April (but despite that, I've patiently gave you explanation  on 12th April). But, you got worse, you've ignored my explanations, with persistent POV-ing on 24th May, and  on 26th May. After, you inserted a message totally out of context (we were talking about something else, although, on some other pages you've told something else) on 31st May, and showed your ignorance of data given in references again  on 31st May. Again, you ignored all language matters that you've been previously informed and warned about by posting on 2nd June (you obviously do not read talk pages neither external references where you've been pointed to). Then, you've done some strange contribution on 6th June (what was that supposed to mean: "Micaglia->Micaglio, Mikalja->Mikasa, definiva slavo->definitiva salvo"? Childish work?) Still, you again have shown your childish and ignorantish behaviour. You again shown ignoring of others on 17th June (Can you present some original documents of the time enforcing Mikalja) (what do you want us to do? To rip the original pages off and bring them to you?). Even worse, later you've removed  the warning that Mir Harven wrote to you on 19th June, again calling counterarguments as "personal attacks". And again, you've shown that you don't read at all the references that others've posted over  FORTY  (40!!!) times before on 19th June, showing racist attituded toward Croatian sources (Provide a source to show that Micalja was used during his life....  deliberated falsfication that Croats do against the Italian persnolities...). You've persisted in your selfish POV-izing behaviour, by calling my contributions as "personal opinions", as well as behaviour of belitteing the others (your...opinions are meaningless here) on 24th June, again on insisting of a term that evades the use of the term Croatian as sole. A reminder:Seeing that we're getting nowhere, and that you gave wrong information about your attitudes about Croats, I've posted one of your previous messages on 17th June, so the other parties included in discussion know whome they are dealing with. It's not personal attack, it's not discrediting, these were the things you wrote . User Dr. Gonzo restored it after your deletion on 17th June, as well as Jesuislafete on 18th June , I restored the deletion on 19th June with few additions. Jesuislafeter restored it on 21st June with explanation ("There is nothing here attacking you personally, it is a justifiable explanation and proof of your behavior"). Your hiding of your true intents: But, you've deleted the material on 17th June under childish excuse ("personal attacks"), deleting even the code for bolding of the book in Italian, as well as another user's message. You've redeleted it again the same day and on 18th June  with use of bad language ("stop the bullshit"),  and on 19th June. You did the redeletion again, on 21st June. Our patience is running out. Your bad behaviour is going for almost a year, on this article we are arguing almost three months, only on the talk page, I'm not mentioning the arguing through the main text of the article and through the comments given, when making changes. Kubura 13:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Find something better to say than "reverting vandalism." I'll report you if you keep using deliberate wording like this against people who edit wikipedia pages to try to make them better, and not push a POV. I have noticed you have removed many parts of Zadar's history, especially to do with Croatia and it's union with Hungary. You removed the references to the early kings, and then go as far as to call the arrival of the croats as an "invasion," when they have already been migrating in the area for at least a couple of centuries. stop trying to push your ideas and learn how to compromise. i would like to keep the page on zadar informative for other users who wish to learn about its history, but that can't happen if you keep removing text and replacing it with your own wording and calling it "neutralizing." you refuse to allow anyone else to edit pages, and when they do, you assume bad faith and use every word you can think of, including, and not limited to: nationalist POV, vandalism, sock puppet, vandal, etc. it would be nice to see zadars page include more information, but not for you to edit out what you don't like. please try to act mature about this, and perhaps we can work together to fit in the appropriate facts so the page can become even better. --Jesuislafete 20:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You just vandalize my referencied edits. If you think that the Croatia's Kigdom is important, do the proper edits. Don't forget source. Try to be present Neutral POV (that what you have not done with your unsupported massive reverts). --Giovanni Giove 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you haven't explained us your bad behaviour. You haven't mentioned where have you put your "sources" (except Italian revisionist sites). You haven't proved our (and others') arguments wrong. You havent't explained your behaviour, described above. What does your not answering on the messages above mean? That you give us that I and others mentioned opposers are wright? So I (and other serious users) can properly edit the mentioned article? And still, above is just the case of the article Jakov Mikalja. We have more cases like this one, in many other articles. You won't get away with such behaviour. Answer when a user nicely asks you to. I'm trying to solve a dispute here. I asked you twice and  on the talkpage of article Jakov MIkalja. You still haven't answer me on my question. Don't just say "it's referenced". Yours only answer is still like that, even after I've told you that you can't contribute like that. Kubura 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove, you've again made self-willing changes, without discussing it with other users. You've continued to POV-ize, and you've also removed the tags that showed current condition of the article "disputed", "POV" and "original research". Despite numerous explanations regarding the language, you've continued ot push your story and original research  and after the corrections explained on the talkpage, you've persistently ignored that and restored your POV version, after I've explicitly warned you for the SECOND time. You've done after that these changes/engaged in editwarring and  and  and  and, , ,. Now you're warned for the THIRD time. Kubura 08:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Giove, you've again made the changes, without discussing it with other users. Now you're warned for the FOURTH time. . Your only change on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja article was removing the tag "controversial". And, after all, explain this. You blatantly ignore opposer's sources, even if they are now in Italian. You've engaged yourself in edit-slaughter (not edit-war, for that takes at least two). You've done these changes on article Jakov Mikalja, without discussing it with other users on the talkpage. , (this change doesn't deny our sources - that source is superficial),  (original research),,  (map with misinterpreted title, as well as it's based on politically compromised linguistic "agreement", because of it was based on political and police coercion). Kubura 09:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Some info on the use of Italian
You have a strange habit of turning Croatians into Italians only because they wrote in Italian. It seems you aren't aware of some facts. Italian was a lingua franca for a long time among the Croatians (and other nations) on the Adriatic coast. It's like French in the 18th century Europe: Giacomo Casanova wrote his entire memoirs in French, but nobody even dreams of calling him "Jacques Casanova" (or "Jacques Maison-Nouvelle", LOL). I hope that helped. --Zmaj 09:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That the usual Croatian believing. If you think you are right, provide proper reference, meanwhile I don't want to spent time to comment this nationalistic claims.--Giovanni Giove 11:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to listen to reason, that's just too bad, Giovanni. It seems you have a bone to pick with Croatians. Well, I'm here to correct all your errors. I'll be your guardian angel, so to speak. See you around! --Zmaj 11:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with Croatians and I listen all the reason of this World, but I am not responsable if Croatians still refuse the matter of fact, that in Coastal Dalmatia there was an Italian component. That is the problem, not me. -Giovanni Giove 12:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't play dumb. We know very well that Croatian Littoral was for a very long period under the rule of Republic of Venice, and that Habsburg Monarchy/Austria-Hungary was very inert when was supposed to allow Croatian language to have status of official language in Croatian Littoral (it did after almost a century of requests of majority population, the Croats; in Dalmatia in 1882., in Istria much later)... And don't forget the influential and ruling racist theories in anthropology and racist political attitudes from those times - theories and attitudes that found Slavs as "lower race", "weaker race", "feminine race" (Bismarck), "non-historical people" that should end in garbage (Marx). The unification of Italy and Italy's territorial pretensions and wars with Italy forced Austria to change its policy of suppressing the local Slav majorities (Croats and Slovenians), by preferring and supporting the Italian and pro-Italian population. And neither that was enough. Later, in order to buy Italy's friendship and alliance, Austria did political (neglection of wrights of Croats and Slovenians in Istria, Triest and Görz/Gorica/Gorizia... area) and trade concessions (like Wine Charter) to Italy, that forced thousands of Croats to emigrate abroad. Also, I've mentioned you on many pages (see talkpage of R. of Dubrovnik), that aristocracy used other languages in order to distinguish themselves from lower classes - it was the case all over Europe (in Croatia, aristocracy, depending of area, used Latin, German, Hungarian, Italian). And that very same aristocracy many times declared itself to be part of some other nation (not the nation whose language they used), although it weakly spoke the language of its own people (or not at all). Kubura 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As to Job for you
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. This guy knows a lot about Croats and their history.

--Giorgio Orsini 17:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't he deals with "Regional law from the 10th January 1926, nr. 17 called "Restitution in Italian form of the surnames of families from Trento", signed by Vittorio Emanuele, Mussolini and others? The law was publicly declared in official papers in 15th January 1926, n.11. And there was more laws like that. How many Slovenians, Croats, Germans had to italianize their surname? Kubura 08:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Giovanni. I posted this on Croatisation, but then I realized it had nothing to do with the topic, so I'm moving it here:


 * ...and being illiterate, according to your habit. A spell-checker isn't that hard to find, you know. --Zmaj 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just saw your user page. You're of Istrian ancestry? Me too, from Poreč. Isn't it amusing? So close and yet so far... --Zmaj 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm really fond of Italians. I just don't like it when they try to appropriate Croatian stuff. But I guess it's one of those things.

That's all, I guess. Keep your flag flying! We'll fight for what each of us perceives as the truth and we'll see what comes out of it. Next time I'm in Venice, I'll drop by. Unarmed :) --Zmaj 00:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

= Dispute is over= All the above kbytes of words are surpassed, as a matter of facts, Wilkinson's lines are quite clear in describing the therm 'Illyric'. I suppose the dispute is over. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 19:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, who is Wilkinson? And, when did he live? What does it have to do with Mikalja? If you have trouble with Croatian, Illyrian, Serbian, Serbocroatian, South-Slavic diasystem, Slovenian, Carynthian or any other language of interest, so use pages of these languages. Be so kind and stop vandalizing this page, otherwise I will go to report it, and I mean it.--Plantago 13:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

=Giovanni Lucio==

I've asked User:DarkFalls to help us with the article. If he can't, I'll look for someone else. --Zmaj 10:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

= Your edits to Marko Marulić ==

It has come to my attention that what you are doing to this article is clear vandalism. Observing your previous articles and your constant edit warring as well as constant disruption on Wikipedia I am asking you to stop. Also you have already broke the 3RR rule on Marko Marulić article and if you continue I will report you. Have a nice day. --No.13 14:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Calm down. My edits are sourced, and you have reverted them with non discussio. About Micaglia, I never did 3 times a brutal reverts so... Try to give a proper reason to your edits. This is a better way!--Giovanni Giove 14:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is you who should calm down. Your edit is not sourced nor it is in good faith. Additionally you have broke the 3RR rule on Marko Marulić article and that is why I have also reported you. Hopefully you will be sanctioned for you disruption. I hope you learn something from this. --No.13 14:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked you for edit warring (and breach of the 3RR) on the above linked article. – Steel 16:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did ask you not to edit war Giovanni... When you get unblocked, please take part in the discussion on the talk page of Giovanni Lucio and Marko Marulić, and work towards a conclusion. As seen here, edit warring and working against consensus, will only cause a longer block, and won't be constructive. -- Dark Falls   talk 11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

= Know this ==

Every edit you make I will be there to see it and revert it if needed. I came here with the main interest in football articles but because of you I will now change my priorities. Be sure that I will do anything to get you off Wikipedia. I am sick of your nationalistic crap. --No.13 13:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not me to be a nationalist. Learn history, possibly not in your Yugoslavian books!.... your Rv his childy and useless. You will never get me off of Wiki. I just impose the truth, not what I like.
 * I have learned history to know enough that no one ever mentioned Marulić as Italian poet. Your blantant revision of historical facts at Micaglia article is also mind boggling, Micaglia writes himself "Illyricus=Croata" and you disregard it as it is nothing, your sources go against you for heavens sake! You are already treading on dangerous grounds and your goals are blantantly obvious. I promise you I will get you, you are nothing but a little vandal troll. --No.13 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you learn Yugoslavian history at school. But I've growth up in a democracy, and I am open minded, so I had the chance to read Italian POV as well your Yugoslavian POV, and I've judged on my own. I was not growth up with the nationalistic theories of a Communist regime. Marulo/Marulic was an Italian poet too, I've already inserted the sources... (even if you have deleted them)  Of course there in Yugoslavija this matter of fact was quite well hidden, like many other facts. No comment on the HDZ theories imposed in the 'democratic' (LOL) Croatia. Weak up! Tudijman is dead now!  ....open your eyes! stop to regard Gotovina ad an heroes, he is noting else that a dirty criminal. Your dear little vandal troll:-))--Giovanni Giove 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are going way over the line, please continue, I am looking forward in complementing your excellent pedigree in admins eyes. If you continue like this you won't last long I can tell you that much. --No.13 14:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As u like. Meanwhile your behaviour talk instead of you. Meanwhile do wht you have neever done, to shoe that my edits are wrong:-)) Do not forhet to buy a good English bool before;-) Bye.--Giovanni Giove 14:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this, Giovanni ? Are you giving the examples of violent italianization today and the way it functioned in history? Kubura 05:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

= Vandalo ==

Ciao Giovanni, ti segnalo un altro vandalo nazionalista slavo che è il croato user:DIREKTOR. Il 12 luglio ha scatenato una guerra editoriale vandalizzando le voci foibe massacres, Istrian exodus e Tito. Ho segnalato sto tizio a un'amministratrice e ho lasciato un messaggio nella sua discussione intitolato warning ma se non lo vedi significa che lo ha rimosso quindi lo troverai in cronologia-history. Ti faccio notare che nell'articolo democide nella seconda scheda-lista a destra al penultimo rigo sta il dato Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944–1987 1,072,000 ossia i morti ammazzati dal dittatore slavo quindi se qualcuno contesta dev'esser informato riguardo tale dato. Vedo che altri slavi ti lasciano messaggi con provocazioni: certo che ne stanno molte teste di cazzo! Ciao, LEO 12 luglio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.92.89 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 July 2007
 * See that little "en" at the beginning of the URL above my anonymous friend? That means "English".  Try using it while you are here.--Isotope23 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per i nazionalisti serbocroati sembra normale la disinformazione in perfetto stile titoista. Fanno rabbrividire i commenti e gli scritti dei vari DIREKTOR, Kubura, Kmaj, Jesuislafete, Paxequilibrium, ecc... E questi (con questa forma di ragionare) dovrebbero entrare nell'Europa unita? ....meglio se ne tornino alle loro solite guerre balcaniche! Di questo passo porteranno le loro guerre ed il loro odio etnico-nazionalista dentro wikipedia.--Brunodam 03:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't cry for entering into EU. Chi piange per entrare in EU, Brunodam? Maybe we cry to enter into political association that hasn't condemned revisionist and chauvinist anti-Slavic statements told (this year) by an top-positioned political authority from one of its member country? Kubura 07:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sinceramente, mi sembrano tutti fanatici (basta leggere l'ultima insensata "sparata", appena scritta, di Kubura) . Povera Europa se questi serbocroati vi entreranno col loro odio. Io ho gia' cambiato la mia opinione su di loro (leggendo i loro commenti e scritti): prima avevo simpatia per loro e difendevo la loro entrata in Europa, ma dopo tutto questo fanatismo comincio a dare ragione ai critici del titoismo e dei suoi fanatici nazionalcomunisti. Non a caso sono ancora a massacrarsi etnico-nazionalisticamente in Bosnia, Croazia e forse tra poco nel Kosovo! Comunque, egregio Giovanni Giove, le rinnovo la mia simpatia per il suo comportamento verso di loro. --Brunodam 23:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Following advice from an italian wikipedia admin (who is my friend) I am writing in english my two last messages to Giovanni Giove:"For the serbocroat nationalits it seems normal to write misleading fake informations, as used to be done by the Tito propaganda. It is shocking to read the comments and writings of Direktor, Kubula, Kmaj, Jesuislafete, Paxequilibrium, etc... And these fanatics (with this form of thinking) should be admitted into the European Union? They should better go back to their usual balkan wars! They are bringing to wikipedia their nationalistic hate and their etnolinguistic wars."
 * "Sincerely, they look to me to be all fanatics (it is enough to read the illogical sentences, just above written by Kubura). I am sorry for Europe if these serbocroat nationalists will be admitted, because of their hate and lack of democratic fairness. I have been forced to change the positive opinion I had initially toward them and their admission to the European Union, but all these fanatisms have forced me to believe that the critics of the fanatics of Tito are right. It is not a case that they are still doing ethnic massacres in Bosnia, Croatia (and probably soon even in Kosovo). Anyway, dear Giovanni Giove, allow me to repeat my simpathy for your writings against them."
 * Last but not least, I hope that this group of nationalistic fanatics (who gets partialized help from some administrators, who are their friends) will not represent the "only" serbocroat wikipedians around: I am sure that there it is a silent majority in the former Yugoslavia, that accepts the western ideas of fairness and democratic historical review (in a bipartizan point of view). Only fanatics can deny the italian (or latin, dalmatian, venetian) roots of Zara, who was the center of the italian irredentism in Dalmatia after the end of the Republic of Venice in 1797 and until 1945 had more than 90% of the population speaking a romance language! Cordiamente--Brunodam 00:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't translated "Comunque, egregio Giovanni Giove, le rinnovo la mia simpatia per il suo comportamento verso di loro. ". I know very well what it means, but write in English, this is en.wiki. If you want to discuss about the history of Zadar and its population, I and others'll gladly discuss with you on the talkpage of that article. Don't burden Giove's talkpage. Se vuoi, discuteremo con piacere sulle pagine di discussione delle voci Zadar e History of Zadar. Kubura 09:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You TOO don't burden the talkpage of Giovanni Giove! L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunodam (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 July 2007

Brunodam, I've had to insert this much material. For the abundance, blame Giovanni Giove, he was the one that over 70 times ignored the messages of others. And I had to put him that on his nose. Because he ignored the messages of others. But you're burdening the Giove's talkpage with messages that are ordinary fun wishes. Kubura 13:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh this is rich :D, these boys think they can use their nation's diplomatic success as an argument for winning disputes on a personal level. How can you even answer such pathetic childish insults Kubura? They are obviously think that they ARE their state, something like Louis XIV, I believe... :D amusing DIREKTOR 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

=Civility==

I don't know anything about the actual edits, but please use a more civil tone in your edit summaries when making edits. Summaries like "Rvv FALSIFIED&UNDISCUSSED&UNSOURCED pushing POV by DIREKTOR, imposed with the FALSE pretest of "grammar errors". Restored NEUTRAL&HIGLY REFRENCIED VERSION" are not helpful. ugen64 13:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just wrote what is happened. --Giovanni Giove 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You, Direktor of lies and deceits in perfect Tito-style, are a crazy fanatic nationalist! L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunodam (talk • contribs) 15:34, 29 July 2007

Whatever, Brunodam, whatever... I'm at least not a RAVING lunatic. DIREKTOR 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

=Your removal of grammar corrections and links==

Hi, Giove. I'm writing about the Zadar article. I don't know what's the current dispute between DIREKTOR and you, but in your edit war, you didn't revert only his changes. You also reverted this, this and this edit. Those edits, made by three different users, consisted of grammar corrections and links. To destroy other people's work because of your edit wars against other users is unacceptable. Please return those edits. --Zmaj 14:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

= Il titino Direktor ed altri forum ==

Bravo, Giovanni !!! Rispondi come si deve al Direktor, che ha molti interventi in altri forum contro gli italiani in istria e dalmazia. Questo titino usa spesso diversi nomi e scrive sempre di essere parzialmente dalla parte nostra (magari dicendo falsamente di avere nonni italiani). Ma in realta' si dimostra un maestro di falsificazioni ed inganni contro di noi! Purtroppo sembra agire in gruppo, pagato a tempo completo da organizzazioni titine (se fosse veramente medico (o studente di medicina) come dice, come farebbe a lavorare/studiare se se la passa continuamente a scrivere nei vari forum ed ora anche nella en. wikipedia?). Ciao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.201.144 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 29 July 2007

My studies are over. I did not post one untrue fact on Wikipedia, including, of course, my Talkpage. Not that its any of your business, but I finish my exams on time and am a very good (4) student, fluent in 3 languages (including your own). Thank you for your concern, though, and for the epithet "Titino", I will certainly try to live up to it, Pippo. DIREKTOR 01:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ma quali studi ed esami? Di domenica? Sei proprio un falso titino in tutto. Ti conosciamo bene in altri forum.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.169.116.50 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 July 2007

That's your problem, Pippo, you do not realise that "Titino" is for MANY a positive thing to say. During Tito's period our nations were very prosperous and militarily more powerful than Italy (FACT). DIREKTOR 01:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

= Question of ethnicity in the Roman (not Italian) Empire ==

Giovanni Giove, no offence, but we seem to have an misunderstaniding here. What you say about the languages is true, absolutely, but we are not talking about languages. Please note: yes, all of Italy was romanised, all of the Mediterranean was romanised, but that did not change the ethnic composition. According to your thinking, all Romans are Italian. This is not true. The Greeks are the best example. They were all Romans (at the later period of the Empire, of course, everybody was a Roman then) but they were ethnic Greeks. The same applies to the Illyrians. They were Romans, absloutely, but they were not Italian in origin. There is a difference. Ifthere was no difference, than Italy would have a rightful claim to the entire mediterranean shoreline and France. This is of course not so. The people living in those areas before the barbarians would be Italians, which is laughable. The Kelts you mentioned are another example: They became Romans but they remained ethnically Celtic Romans, like the gauls... Savvy? Perhaps now we can clear this thing up, eh? By the way, I support Tito for uniting southern Slavs and greatly improving our economy. Not for what he did to Italians during the war. DIREKTOR 01:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

= Be careful with your edits == You removed a protected template from a protected page with this edit. Please be more careful in the future. Simply reverting to an earlier version when there are multiple edits in the middle usually isn't a very good idea.--Isotope23 talk 17:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

=Mediation of Zadar== A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Zadar, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. --Dark Falls  talk 07:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ricambio il saluto. Mi sono iscritto anch'io alla "mediation" su Zara. Ho molto lavoro all'Universitá dove lavoro e mi limiteró ad appoggiare ogni suo intervento. Cordialmente. (Hi. I will be in the Zara "mediation". I have a lot of university work and for this reason I will only partecipate occasionally in the discussions, but I will fully sustain your points of view. Regards) --Brunodam 03:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

=Request for Mediation== This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

= NPOV tags ==

It will take more than a couple of names you consider NPOV to put an entire article's neutrality in dispute. I hope you realise this. DIREKTOR 14:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a wast of time to talk with you. You will understand in the propre moment and in the proper way.--Giovanni Giove 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Errrr, what? You are not making any sense. Listen, before placing these tags you need to state more clearly your reasons in the talkpage. Many people worked hard on these articles and I believe they (and I) deserve a more thorough explanation. DIREKTOR 15:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, YOU. YOU have removed soruces,YOU have imposed POV with no refrences, YOU have altered inserted sources, anyway I don't care to talk with you. You will learn how to respect the rules in the proper way. With no respect.--Giovanni Giove 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting my changes, they are all sourced and well established. Raguseo 21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Zadar/Zara issues
Lets talk argumentatively and civilized-like. Listen, there are sources confirming Zadar/Zara (and the rest of Dalmatia) had a Croatian majority in the age of nationalism. I'm not saying Italians (and Italianized Dalmatians, and Croats) in Zadar/Zara did not go through a period of achieving self awareness in the Age of Nationalism. But please realise that the claims you are making are very controversial. Before you can write that Zadar/Zara had a LARGE Italian majority in the 19th century, you simply have to find an unbiased, non-ex-Yugoslav ,non-Italian source. Can you do this? with hope of creating a constructive relationship, DIREKTOR 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Zara had a large Italian majority according to the Austrian census (find it on your own), as it WAS properly wrotten before YOUR deletions. That my source, present your one.--Giovanni Giove 22:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

THAT WAS A CENSUS ON THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE, NOT ON THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION, THE TWO ARE NOT NEARLY THE SAME BY ANY DEMOGRAPHIC STANDARD. You have no source on ethnic composition in the 19th century, I do. If you revert that one more time, that will be unmistakeable vandalism and YOU WILL BE REPORTED (not just by me) TO NICK AND PROBABLY BLOCKED, AGAIN! I tried to talk to you man to man to avoid this and will make one last attempt: Can you find a source actually on ethnic composition for Zadar/Zara in the 19th century (that confirms the Italian majority claim)? Please, to avoid lengthy discussions simply answer "yes" or "no"... please? DIREKTOR 01:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a census according to the spoken language, and so? Language was properly connected with ethnicity in XIX cent., despite the ridiculous theories about "pro-Italians", and "Italianized Croatians", that Croats like so much when they like of arguments. Provide valid sources for this "ethnic composition". Finally I remember you that Zara was assigned to Italy in the peace conference in Paris, because it was concluded it had a large Italian majority (...even if you will deny even this, with usual childish pretests). Last, but not least, read some trip diary in Dalmatia, and read the impression of the old English gentlemen about the ethnicity of Zara and other Dalmatian cities.Giovanni Giove 09:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Continue this discussion on the talk page of the article Zadar. Kubura 12:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just one thing Kubura. I REPEAT: THAT WAS A CENSUS ON THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE, NOT ON THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION, THE TWO ARE NOT NEARLY THE SAME BY ANY DEMOGRAPHIC STANDARD. Italy got Zadar and Istria because of the Treaty of London, not because of anything else, WHATSOEVER. A spoken language cannot be considered a valid source in this case, because very many people spoke Italian in Dalmatia back then, that were not Italians, because of the 400 years of Italian rule. I hope you see that what I say here is logical. Not every man speaking Italian is Italian, capisci? Ask any demograph and he will tell you this. DIREKTOR 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Gentle reminder
If you post a request for comment, that does not give you the right to edit the comments posted therein. Do not edit other people's comments in a way you see fit, in fact, do not touch them at all. DIREKTOR 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please report it to WP:ANI. I'm initiating an request for ARBCOM to review the editor actions of numerous involved editors at many of these articles tomorrow.  When RFCs are being disrupted by edit warring I think this situation has officially moved beyond the point where editors can reasonably work through this on their own.--Isotope23 talk 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration request
You have been named as a party in an arbitration request here. Please consider making a statement there. Regards,--Isotope23 talk 16:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask for sources, please
This is the last straw, Giovanni Giove, do you have anything to support your claims? Anything AT ALL (not from radical right Italian sites)? This is the Encyclopedia Britannica we are talking about. If you choose to ignore once more legitamate demands for sources, I think this farce of an RfC can finally end. I'll do my best to bring this to the attention of the ARBCOM. DIREKTOR 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No.13
Giovanni, the fact that someone is a sock puppet does not allow you to delete that person's comments on the talk pages. If you don't believe me, ask an administrator. --Zmaj 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed another thing: in Marko Marulić, you reverted the edits of 6 different editors; in Giacomo Micaglia, you reverted 8 different editors. That's unacceptable - you can't destroy the work of dozens of people because of your grudges. --Zmaj 14:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you're not cooperating, I've contacted the administrator DarkFalls here. --Zmaj 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines says: Do not strikeout the comments of other editors without their permission. You can't do that even if they are sock puppets. Can't you understand that? You're just creating problems for everyone. --Zmaj 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Banned user are no more editors. About the creators of problems... just look into a mirror. Stop to bother me and contact a moderator (you know the proper name).--Giovanni Giove 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Croatisation
Statement about assimilation of Italians in Dalmatia between 1850 and 1914/18 is under very good question. Census data from article Kingdom of Dalmatia for year 1880 are: It is if nothing else misleading speak that when school has started to use Croatian language and not Italian is assimilation. Croats have been 77 % of population and it is normal that in school and other public places language is Croatian and not Italian because they are only 5-6 % of population.--Rjecina 18:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 371,565 Croats
 * 78,714 Serbs
 * 27,305 Italians