User talk:Crisarco

Quick apology[edit]

I'm sorry for the sock template. Heh, I saw you were created today an d that your only edits were reverts of me so I jumped to conclusions. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing" redirects[edit]

Please stop attempting to "fix" the redirects on articles about Croatians.

View the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTBROKEN.

In many, many articles on Wikipedia, it is both acceptable and necessary to link to redirects, and in this case, articles about Croatian subjects have links to the Croatian name.

What you are doing is more harmful than helpful, is disruptive, and could be viewed as vandalism.

Again, I must ask you to cease. Thanks. 124.179.205.147 (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended[edit]

[Redacted LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)] You have been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Ragusino, but per the note on your It-WP talkpage I should be grateful for your comments upon your and my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but my English is not so good... I've been registred since 2007 on it.wiki, I'm not Ragusino because he just edits in order to promote his nationalist POV, edits such as this can show I really don't share his POV and his use of wiki. About "Republic of Dubrovnik/Repubilc of Ragusa" dispute, "Republic of Ragusa" is a historic name, I did not "the same edits as Ragusino" but the edits I thought are quite good: "Republic of Ragusa" is a historic name, in fact the name of articles on en.wikipedia is Republic of Ragusa. For example the capital of Byzantine Empire (estinct state as the republic of Ragusa) was Costantinople and not Istanbul! Consequently, the city name is Dubrovnik, but the name of the state disappeared in the eighteenth century is Republic of Ragusa (view the namepages). I can undestand this sort of war make so noise that it seems almost impossible to understend the truth but I'm here to give you all the necessary infos to resolve the dispute about my actions. --Crisarco (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. The name "Republic of Dubrovnik" has been used for just a tad longer than 200 years, and the only reason why the Republic of Ragusa has that title is that there are some 100 more hits with it. That is the same exact nonsense POV Ragusino and his buddies push. Redirects are there for a reason. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think LessHeard can judge even without your subtitles, by the way your words suggests you rightly belive I'm not Ragusino, so why did you say I'm a sockpuppet of him? --Crisarco (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the conventions of the Italian Wikipedia, but the English language project commonly uses the terms that are familiar with English speaking (as a first language) editors. While the article may be termed Republic of Ragusa, as that is historically how it self referred, the common term would be Republic of Dubrovnik - which is how it is referred to in other related articles. When you were changing other articles from Dubrovnik to Ragusa, were you not concerned why they were using the Dubrovnik term? In undertaking the task of making these changes, had you announced your intention and asked for input? While I am inclined to believe you, given your background at It-WP and your response, I would ask for a couple of assurances before unblocking the account; can you confirm that your response to being reverted on WP is to request the reasons and not revert back, and when in future you see what appears to be series of errors that you raise the issue at a relevant talkpage and determine whether there is a mistake or if there is a reason (perhaps particular to En-WP) for the existing edits? Under receiving this undertaking I will unblock.
Lastly, and this is not part of any undertaking, I would advise you that acting under the assumption that User:DIREKTOR is a troll or vandal is not productive; he is an editor who contributes to an area of some differing nationalist sentiment, and has been previously sanctioned for being overzealous in his editing and commentary. Presently, he is regarded as just another editor. If you have any difficulties in your interactions with him then you can always ask me to intervene.
I hope this is helpful, and I look forward to your reply. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the italian sysop I asked for mediate (I think you can understand who is this) told me the same thing, so I think that "Republic of Dubrovnik" was pushed on various articles without any historical reason or source but I have no intention to do unuseful editwars which are not allowed on it.wiki too. I'll try to open a discussion about the use of this redirect in a few days. Thanks. --Crisarco (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have now unblocked the account, and all the autoblocks I could find. If you have any difficulty note it here - I shall watch this page for a few more hours. Again, if you find some difficulty in editing the Adriatic nations articles then please feel free to ask for my assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mi aiuti?[edit]

Ciao Crisarco, hai visto come Avversario mi ha fatto astutamente bloccare su it.wiki? (in seguito alla discussione relativa alle modifiche da fare a sulla voce Vladimir Luxuria) Sono stato bloccato per un mese, ma dalle accuse che mi sono state mosse se potevano mi avrebbero lapidato. Il tutto in 20 minuti, io ero al lavoro quindi non essendo al pc non ho avuto neanche modo di argomentare a mia difesa: mi hanno detto di tutto, che non rispetto il consenso, che sono un troll, che son un sockpuppet di Grifter72! e adesso eccomi qua: migliaia di contributi alle spalle buttati al cesso da un'abile segnalazione. Ti prego quindi di una cosa senza annoiarti ulteriormente: ho già scritto a user Talk:Piero Montesacro, ma tu che su it.wiki sei attivo, potresti avvertirlo del mio desiderio di contattarlo? Credo di avere gli argomenti perdifendermi, per spiegargli ciò che è successoe e credo di avere il diritto di intervenire su un blocco così brutale e repentino. Ti ringrazio in anticipo, sinceramente --Theirrulez (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Alpha30[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked that account, since it needs to be clear that they will not attempt such nonsense again before they will be permitted to edit again. Should they return to editing with that account, however, I would strongly remind you that their foolishness here may not be used against them while pursuing dispute resolution. For a matter of record, could you note the translation (general rather than specific if it contains bad language) of the non English content of the "block notice" that Alpha30 placed? You may place the translation under your notice on my talkpage - in case there are further issues regarding it that I am unable to comprehend. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versione italiana[edit]

Piena solidarietà da parte mia, da troppo tempo su wikipedia italia la situazione è vergognosa e bloccano gli utenti che non si allineano al loro pensiero, e così capita che in appena 2 giorni buttano fuori utenti che da 8 anni danno onesti contributi. Ufficialmente lo fanno secondo le regole, per tenersi le mani pulite, ma la realtà e che le regole se le fanno e le piegano a loro uso e consumo. E la cosa peggiore è che poi si vantano di chi fa più espulsioni, e anzi proprio tramite questi meccanismi di bavaglio e di ricatto (mostrano agli altri utenti che o si allineano oppure anche loro sono a rischio) arrivano ai gradi più alti di wikipedia, i burocrati, e l'enciclopedia italiana è nelle mani di questi tizi. Che vergogna! Ant Priv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.16.166 (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]