User talk:Ghepeu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Uncle Tom's Cabin 3 Alizé 4 please read the discussion and be fair 5 Nature review responses 6 Bengal famine 7 Juana Smith 8 Your recent reversions 9 Battle of the Hydaspes River 10 Reverts of Spanish Civil War 11 Falange 12 Italian Election Reverts 13 User notice: temporary 3RR block on José Calvo Sotelo 14 Ciao Ghepeu 15 Image Tagging Image:Walter Reder.jpg 16 Un saluto 17 l'Ungheria scandalizzata (per Giorgio Napolitano) 18 Editing articolo su Napolitano 19 Welcome back :) 20 Millet Section 21 PdCI @ The Prodi II cabinet 22 Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War 23 Precisazione 24 Fanatico 25 PIO/Jxy 26 -pio 27 Democratic-Republican Party 28 Goumier 29 Marco Polo 30 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 31 Democrats of the Left 32 reverting 33 Foibe 34 Marco Polo 35 Third Punic War 36 Isarco-Eisack 37 Zara/Zadar matter 37.1 Emotional? 38 Request for comments 39 St Mark's Basilica 40 speedy 41 intenzione 42 RfC - Marco Polo 43 Organisation of the Marco Polo subsection 44 The Korčula "thing" 45 Marco Polo talkpage 46 I was wondering why 47 Fair use rationale for Image:Land and freedom.jpg 48 Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

[edit] Welcome!

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to the wide world of registered user-dom!  ;)

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Don't worry if you're unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia. Be bold!

The most useful page for newcomers is the tutorial. Once you are used to editing text, you may want to take a look at the picture tutorial. If you do a lot of copyedits, the Manual of Style will be very useful.

Nobody is expected to be familiar with the details of Wikipedia policies or etiquette right away. However, two basic guidelines that help make Wikipedia successful are: avoid bias and be civil. Every contribution helps Wikipedia develop great articles, while the very best become Featured Articles. Much more information can be found at the Community Portal.

When you want a laugh, drop by the unusual articles list. As I see from Darfur conflict, you already know that when on a talk page or vote page, you can sign your edit with your username and date stamp by typing four tildes (~~~~). If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - BanyanTree 16:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this note :) as I wrote, I've been reading and using wikipedia since last year and I made some little edits, mostly reverting vandalism or fixing obvious typos because I'm not so good with English... GhePeU 18:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nice job editing and improving the Giuliani Sgrena article, keep up the great work! 66.218.23.115 22:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the two articles on the Holy Apostles - I didn't realise the basilica article existed when I wrote Church of the Holy Apostles. Adam 23:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Tom's Cabin

I've made a major revision to the Uncle Tom's Cabin article, adding a large plot section and a section on Criticism and Stereotypes. Please let me know what you think. Best, --Alabamaboy 14:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alizé

I wrote this article at the request of a user. I don't think it needs to be redirected, as none of the information in it is duplicated at trade wind. 21:23, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

• You know, Ghepeu, a little communication would be nice. I created the article Alizé because someone asked for it. I told you that, but you went ahead and re-reverted it anyway. Since the info did not exist in Trade wind, and since a number of named winds have their own articles, there is absolutely no reason this needs to be handled as a redirect. I would really like to know why you didn't put a note on my talk page telling me why you felt a redirect was necessary instead of just trying to have your own way. If there is a disagreement, I am happy to discuss a solution, but I don't respond well to unilateral actions. Denni☯ 01:41, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

[edit] please read the discussion and be fair

I modified the page Italianization.I hope in the new format will be more accurate. --proturism 03:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC) The slavic are not natives in Dalmatia == --proturism 03:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Neither the Italians if we think that a population who lives in a region for 1300 years can't be considered autochtonous. GhePeU 11:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not alone.With istroromanian the real natives of this area (by the way a lot of them forced to become slavic), with ragusan and morlach(black wallach)(vanished by slavic), and with italian.Of corse the istroromanian, ragusan, morlach and italian are the people who are the real autochtonus inhabitants of Dalmatia and Illiricum like have their ancestors the roman. Of all the Romance languages, it could be said that Romanian(and istroromanian like a dialect of romanian) is the most archaic one, having retained, for example, the inflected structure of Latin grammar.That prove the slavic are not the real native of this area.--proturism 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nature review responses

Please don't simply say "this article has been fixed". Say, "the article was corrected on [link-to-diff 15 Dec. 2005] and now reads such-and-such". This way we know exactly when it was corrected and what it now says—don't force people to take your word for it or to hunt down the revised statement themselves.

Thanks! —Steven G. Johnson 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I've modified your edits to link the diffs, which can be found after a little effort by binary-searching the history log. —Steven G. Johnson 20:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bengal famine

Hi. Thanks for tidying up the famine article, and so quickly at that. Have a good Christmas. Imc 17:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

My thanks too! Jayanta Sen 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juana Smith

You nominated the Juana Smith Article for cleanup. I restructured and/or rewrote most of it and subsequently removed the cleanup tag. It's not a masterpiece but it should suffice for the time beeing; that is, until someone with that specific historic knowledge ventures to impove it further. Have a look at if and complain if you see further need for change. Wefa 05:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent reversions

Hi Ghepeu,

I appreciate your efforts to fix vandalism, but your recent rollbacks of the Dunkirk, Operation Dynamo, and Reichsgau Wartheland articles all removed deliberate edits of mine with no explanation. All of them moved material between existing entries to prevent duplication: nothing was simply deleted. If you have specific concerns with these changes, please mention them on the discussion pages for the articles, which I created when necessary. Best regards StephenMacmanus 02:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Ditto - I reversed your reversals in relation to Sicilian and the Romacne languages. Sicilian is recognised by Ethnologue and has its own wikipedia - one of us is definitely POV - and it's not me! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 06:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Sardinian is mentioned (300,000 speakers), Occitan is mentioned (2m speakers), but Sicilian with 10m speakers can't be mentioned - mmm, POV city, here we come. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Your reasoning still makes no sense - the evolution of Sicilian is quite different to Italian and it is not a dialect of Italian, your assertion that that is the case is simply POV. I repeat, the Wikipedia Foundation considers Sicilian to be a language, so I am quite entitled to treat it as such, and I repeat everything you are doing is 100% POV. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 21:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Hydaspes River

Hi, The edits I made to the article are not speculative. It's a well known fact that Alexander's battle with Porus was one of the hardest battles he fought even though Porus' army was relatively small. Also, the battle had a psychological effect on Alexander's men effecting his ambitions. Alexander once dreamed of capturing all known land. The battle with Porus definitely weakened his confidence. Thanks --Spartian 22:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts of Spanish Civil War

Hi, I reworded the article to remove the duplication between the paragraphs. As for the stuff you remove, it is 100% factual, and deserves mention in the article, as it puts the events into greater perspective. Ksenon 19:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Falange

Hi, Gepheu. I just added an image to the Falange page, but I am working from a computer that seems to be with some kind of "filter" embedded, so I also cutted all the " m" words, mangling unwillingly the page. Could you please restore all the " m" words?. Thank you. Randroide 11:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)Randroide

[edit] Italian Election Reverts

I've requested semi-protection on the Italian general election, 2006 article. Just thought I'd let you know. Plus you're over three reverts on that article today.  ;)
Kelvinc 18:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block on José Calvo Sotelo

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 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ciao Ghepeu

Ciao Ghepeu, come va? I am relatively new to Wikipedia and have noticed today that User:203.111.75.195 has been deleting a huge portion of my comments. In fact he has deleted all of my comments from the discussion section here: [1]. I notice that you reverted his vandalism several times. Thank you very much for this.

However, how can we stop him from deleting my comments? I am perfectly happy with deleting the "Attention" comment I made about him, but I would prefer my arguments to stay there because I worked very hard in typing them up and voicing my opinion on the matters.

I hope to hear from you soon, all the best, Euganeo 01:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Walter Reder.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Walter Reder.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Thuresson 20:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Un saluto

Ciao Ghepeu,

dal tuo nick pensavo tu fossi francese :) Mi è venuto in mente di guardare dopo aver letto che avevi controllato it.wiki per la questione della laurea di Napolitano. Fa piacere avere dei compatrioti in forza alla truppa :) --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 07:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(riporto qui la tua risposta, in modo da non "sbrandellare" la discussione su più pagine)
.. io invece visto il nick non avevo dubbi sulla nazionalità :) C'è più di qualche italiano che scrive regolarmente su en.wikipedia.org, speriamo che gradualmente la copertura del nostro paese migliori! rispetto ai polacchi, ad esempio, siamo dei principianti :) GhePeU 13:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Eheheh… io non faccio testo: dal mio "nick", che è poi il mio vero nome, si indovina il CAP! :) Ma c'è per caso qualche pagina con le statistiche di nazionalità? Vedo che sei molto informato… --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 14:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, allora continuiamo qui. No, non ho statistiche, è una sensazione. Per farti un esempio, guarda Polish September Campaign e tutti gli articoli collegati, oppure Władysław Sikorski, Partitions of Poland, Duchy of Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth giusto per citare i primi che ho trovato cliccando a caso. La quantità di materiale di buona qualità (anche Featured) sulla storia della Polonia fa impressione. GhePeU 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... ho dato un'occhiata, appena ho un po' più di tempo ti rispondo via mail. Grazie per la correzione dello pseudonimo del poeta ;) Da dove m'è uscito 'sto "Carlo Pignatelli" proprio non lo so: ho visto dopo la tua fix che si tratta dello stilista, ma io neanche sapevo si chiamasse Carlo! (E' un campo quello della moda che non potrebbe essermi più estraneo). Da dove salta fuori il lapsus, quindi, proprio non so dirti. Comunque alcune fonti internettiane parlano di un "non identificato politico italiano". Chissà di chi si tratta... L'articolo mi pare stia venendo abbastanza bene, cmq. E' una piccola cosa che non va oltre qualche saliente dato biografico, però non è malaccio. --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 00:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ohi, ripercorrendo la edit history ho visto che quello pseudonimo non è nato sotto una buona stella :-) Parte subito male, come Tommaso Pugnatelli e sarà corretto solo 9 edit dopo! Poi arrivo io e dall'intreccio di versi lo passiamo direttamente al punto croce... diciamo che qui su Wikipedia non gli è andata molto bene. Però, dai, c'è anche da dire che "tutto è bene quel che *si* finisce bene". Facezie a parte, una cosa che volevo verificare è la questione di Giorgio 'o sicco e Giorgio 'o chiatto. Quando l'ho letta ho interpretato che quelli fossero nomignoli "da comitiva" ricevuti in gioventù, e prima dell'ingresso in politica (e che quindi loro si conoscessero praticamente da piccoli). Per come è stato inserito ora nel testo invece pare invece che sia stato coniato *all'interno del partito* o comunque quando già erano in politica. Vedrò se riesco a verificare ;) Ciauz. --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ciao. Ammetto che non ho controllato esplicitamente ma ho sempre dato per scontato che i soprannomi fossero nati all'interno del partito. Amendola infatti aveva 18 anni più di Napolitano, e negli anni '30, quando Napolitano era bambino e poi adolescente, Amendola era in esilio a Parigi oppure al confino, quindi nella mia mente ho scartato implicitamente l'idea che si conoscessero prima della Resistenza e del 1945. Da qualche parte dovrei avere "Un'isola", l'autobiografia di Amendola che si ferma all'inizio della guerra, appena ho tempo potrei controllare se accenna da qualche parte a Napolitano. GhePeU 09:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ciao, penso proprio tu abbia ragione. Ovviamente se riesci a fare una verificuccia nell'autobiografia tanto meglio, ma mi pare che il tuo ragionamento sia ben fondato. Andava bene anche chiacchierarne nella mia talk page, dato che il subject era cambiato ed era molto chiaro; il disclaimer in effetti l'ho aggiunto da poco (mi pare ieri, ma sto dormendo così poco che non ne sono sicuro :)), quindi mi aspetto un certo periodo "di transizione", anche (o soprattutto) da parte di chi mi ha già scritto prima. Opinioni sull'articolo? :) --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 11:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] l'Ungheria scandalizzata (per Giorgio Napolitano)

Ciao Ghepeu,

mi risulta che si usa cancellare dalle pagine di discussione le osservazione inutili, irrelevanti e provocatorie (quello che si chiama in inglese "trolling"); a me non importa tanto se le dichiarazioni del nostro amico ungherese rimangano o meno, ma mi sembrava meglio cancellarle per evitare un'eventuale risso virtuale senza profitto a nessuno. Auguri, Palmiro | Talk 14:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Mi sembra giusto, saluti - Palmiro | Talk 14:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing articolo su Napolitano

Che fai mi freghi le parole? ;) Stavo editando anch'io... avevo de-corsivizzato "DS", capitalizzato "Italian" e fatto un altro paio di modifiche. Vado a fare il diff e risulta che ho cambiato due parole! :) Scherzo eh, ovviamente. Pare che siamo abbastanza in sincrono sulle cose cmq! --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

E' che non c'è più molto da cambiare :) al più si potrebbe tradurre la sezione sui "rapporti con gli altri esponenti politici" che c'è nella Wikipedia Italiana, e magari vedere se hanno aggiunto qualcos'altro nelle sezioni precedenti. Comunque l'articolo mi pare decente, non sarà il massimo ma è molto sopra la media di quanto si trova sui personaggi italiani (a parte poche eccezioni). GhePeU 17:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ciao, mi domandavo come mai hai "invertito" i corsivi su CNN e sul titolo Sul colle sventola bandiera rossa. Il motivo per cui gli altri "authors" sono corsivizzati è che sono nomi di giornale; CNN per quanto ne sappia, e per quanto vedo dal relativo articolo, andrebbe senza corsivo. Il motivo per cui "Sul colle sventola" era in corsivo invece è che è un titolo non inglese. Son io che mi perdo qualche guideline? --Gennaro Prota ^(talk) 14:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Credo di no, è stata una svista. Credo di aver scambiato la formattazione quando ho convertito il link a {{cite-web}} e poi ho corretto gli altri di conseguenza. GhePeU 19:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back :)

[edit] Millet Section

I believe the some christian resources covers that concept as you claim christian protected ethnic/religious minorities, however that is a misconception. The origion of this misconception rises from the wrongly associated "minorities" concept and its associated word "minorities". Millet was a general term which this sentence can give you the clue "Sultan refering to parlement; My tr:milletimin parlementers." I hope this will clear the misconception and you would revert your change. Thanks.--OttomanReference 19:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many many misapprehension about Ottoman Empire, that I will try to negotiate. But do we have to deal with likes-dislikes, too. What is your objection, you do not like it because it does not fit to your "what"? Are you gonna delete everything you do condeme to be "paean"? You need to think on this, because you are trying to get rid of my improvements on things which I have a better background than you have, instead of working with me to improve the article. Thanks.--OttomanReference 21:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is easy to fix, you do not need to get rid of whole section. Thanks though, hope this version will cover your point. --OttomanReference 23:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PdCI @ The Prodi II cabinet

Immaginavo fosse un errore non voluto... Ho semplicemente visto quella sigla senza significato e l'ho corretta, nemmeno avevo fatto caso a chi ne fosse l'autore. Per il resto, vai tranquillo ;). --Angelo 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War

I don't want to enter into an edit war about a minor point. But, as a matter of fact, the Soviet Union sent troops with a state supported commision, just as Germany and Italy did. With the probable exception of Portugal, they where the only foreing countries officially involved. The numbers are distinct but there is no other difference. I've provided an academic acceptable source for my stand, so i beg you to defend your opinion with backable statements--Wllacer 15:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precisazione

Penso di aver semplicemente aggiunto precisazioni neutrali e considero la tua rimozione decisamente faziosa! Dunque ripristino la parte riguardo i primi infoibamenti del 1943: appunto preciso che gli storici sono di pareri differenti! Anche i tuoi precedenti interventi sono stati inutilmente polemici contro di me: addirittura avevi rimosso Istrian exodus che avevo inserito tra le voci correlate! Poi che fastidio ti può dare la parola carnage sinonimo di massacre è proprio impossibile da capire! Cerca di essere meno impulsivo perchè sto valutando il testo e così agendo non dimostri di essere collaborativo!--PIO 14:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fanatico

Sei semplicemente un fanatico. Da come ti esprimi sembri un comunista: appunto un imbecille come tutti i comunisti! Negli articoli inserisci tanta di quell'immondizia comunista che ti devono bloccare: sotto i governi di quella che chiami left in Europa sono stati massacrati milioni di persone! Leggiti il libro nero del comunismo europeo! A rovinare la reputazione degli italiani ci pensano il governo attuale e le teste di cazzo come te che lo hanno votato!--PIO 16:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PIO/Jxy

Don't let this guy stop you from editing, he has lost all his credibility on the Tito talk page. I have made some comments on the page you mentioned and I agree with your reverts due to the site being a non-reliable source. --Zivan56 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -pio

To the best of my knowledge, this is the page you seem to be looking for[[2]]. However, I think we should wait a little more to see if we can bring PIO to mainstream, fully constructive editing. Ultimately he means well, and I don't think that a threat of blocking would solve the situation. It rarely does. I've seen some users who manage to mask their inherent POV quite well, so as to manipulate articles without being noticed. He, on the other hand, is explicit (often candidly so) in trying to revert what he perceives as a Yugoslavian/Titoist bias from some Slavic and Left-wing Italian sources. At times, he happens to be somewhat right on this very particular issue, which doesn't at all justify edit warring or slighting personal remarks, of course (although he himself has been the target of much badmouthing from other users). I guess it's more a matter of tact and Wikiquette. A self-righteous approach from either part won't solve a thing here. Let's observe his next moves and try to demonstrate that we can always find some common ground.E.Cogoy 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic-Republican Party

Thanks for your addition to the Democratic-Republican Party article. Drop in for a visit any old time. Griot 18:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goumier

Hi, I'm sorry but I have reverted to my last. It's not enough to say that something is "well-known". Members of all armies in wartime commit rapes and murder civilians. We need a reference which suggests that it was unusually common for Goumiers to do such things in Italy---otherwise why single them out? The reference which was there proved to be inadequate (once I translated it). A reference from a scholarly book or a government, university (et c) WWW page would have more credibility. Thanks. Grant65 | Talk 17:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo

Hi there,

Re Marco Polo... You should be fair and accept that there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that he was Croatian. The sources that suggest this are not Croatian so why do you say it's nationalistic is beyond me. Just be fair ok... Jagoda 1 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs 16 June Movement Italian Chamber of Deputies Italy of Values Francesco Rutelli Battle of Maychew Kyogoku, Hokkaido Roma Victor All-Ukrainian Union Fatherland Piave Neo-prohibitionism Three-legged race Stephen Fleming Communist Party of Peru - Red Fatherland Chin State Battle of Dogali L'Unità Fatherland (Kazakhstan) Jamal Zougam Fatherland Party (Norway)

Cleanup Italian war crimes Front Mission 2 University of California, Merced Merge American Dialect Society Mormon fundamentalism List of battleships of the Regia Marina Add Sources Battle of Changde Australian Associated Press Kataragama Wikify Siddi Tina Anselmi Latin conjugation Expand Kriminalpolizei Battle of Utica Elections in 2004

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democrats of the Left

I agree with you: DS's ideology is primarily democratic-socialist. Checco 20:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reverting

"Although the series of wars, which included a Carthaginian invasion led by Hannibal, nearly prevented the rise of the Roman Republic, the First Punic War ultimately marked the beginning of a sixty year period of Roman expansion which would leave them in control of most of the Mediterranean basin. The victory by Rome was a turning point which meant that the civilization of the ancient Mediterranean would pass to the modern world via Europe instead of Africa."

Before you revert the deletion of this section in the First Punic War, please tell me why you put it.

Hannibal (Barca) was nonexistant. His families rise was a result of the Mercenary War, Roman breach of contracts, Hamilcar's invasion of Hispania (after being appointed strategus in the Mercenary War), etc.

Rome had been expanding all the time and just prior to this war they had captured the Greek cities in Southern Italy. What changed was the Roman governance of the territorial gains, but it is questionable whether this belongs in the header about the war.

There was no such thing as a real cultural border between Southern Europe, Northern Africa and the Asia Minor, all were hellenized, Punics and Romans.

Wandalstouring 14:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foibe

Perche' hai annullato il mio edit sulle Foibe? Avevo reso piu' neutrale una posizione contrversa. Per quanto posso sapere c'ero riuscito. Tu in questo modo poni in un ruolo piu' credibili la teoria delle reazione spontanea. Visto che ci sono, non so piu' come fare per gli edit war su Marco Polo e altri articolo, effettuato da alcuni utenti nazionalisti croati, ho provato a contattere un moderatore, ma senza risultati.--Giovanni Giove 22:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo

What exactly do you find "Croatian POV" in the fact that his family had ties and possibly originated from Curzola and Sebenico? --Factanista 23:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Punic War

Source that Scipio Nasico or let it be because otherwise your edits are vandalism. Wandalstouring 12:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Isarco-Eisack

could you express an opinion with regard to this move request? Icsunonove 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zara/Zadar matter

Hi Ghepeu. With no intention of starting a potential conflict, I would like to bring to your attention the history of the name of the city you know as Zara. Specifically around the time of the Fourth crusade. As you know the name of the article concerning these matters is "Siege of Zara". That is the correct name, but please note the precise reason: A name of a battle or such major historic event can be changed from its proper historic name to the popular English one. At the time of the Fourth crusade, as I'm sure you are aware, the city was under Hungarian (Croatia-Hungarian, to be exact, Croatia and Hungary were in a personal union) rule, its Romance population used, for the most part, the Dalmatian language, and its Slavic population used Croatian (chakavian dialect). Therefore, in 1202, the city's population, as well as it's rulers, called it Zadar (Croatian) or Iadera (Latin) or Jader (Dalmatian). No historian (especially Italian) of the period would write Zara, either (Adam Bishop explored this more carefully), but Iadera, in Latin (or would use the Old French variant, not Zara). The name of the siege actually derives from the (early) 18th century, when the Latin texts were translated. The city was then Venetian, so the name Iadera was translated Zara. Because of this, the traditional English name for the siege IS the Siege of Zara, however, the city itself should be called by its proper contemoporary name, used by it and by its rulers: Zadar (or Iadera if you prefer). Regards, DIREKTOR 22:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional?

Doge Enrico Dandolo quickly exploited the situation and offered a rather unorthodox method of payment: the crusaders were to capture the (Christian) Dalmatian city of Zadar (known also as Zara by the Italians), wich had proven too well fortified for the Venetians. Upon accomplishing this, the crusade was skillfuly diverted to Constantinople, another potent Venetian rival, which was sacked in 1204 by a surprise assault. The Empire of Byzantium, the "bullwark of christianity" (as it was often called), was ironically reduced by crusaders in Venetian employ and was never restored to its former strength. The Venetians, who accompanied the crusader fleet, claimed much of the plunder from the city as payment including the famous four bronze horses wich were brought back to adorn St. Mark's basilica. As a result of the partition of the Byzantine Empire which followed, Venice gained significant strategic territories in the Aegean Sea (three-eighths of the declining Byzantine Empire), including the islands of Crete and Euboea. The Aegean islands formed the Venetian Duchy of the Archipelago.

1) It was an unorthodox payment.
2) It was called the "bullwark of Christianity" more than any other single state. It was not the only state to be known by this category, but IT WAS KNOWN AS THE BULLWARK OF CHRISTIANITY.
3) It is a military fact that the fall of Constantinople reduced the strength of the Byzantine Empire more than any other single event. It fragmented the state for several decades.
4) The Crusaders were in Venetian employ, they were in their debt and were repaying it, so to speak.
and 5) Zadar (Zara) DID prove too well fortified for the Venetian Republic. Its walls were famously strong.

Perhaps you are offended by the undiguised historic fact: the Venetians weakened the defences of Christian Europe for trading benefits and several useful ports. Not to mention the money. A most negative effect in the big picture, motivated by greed. These facts are VERY well known and need no specific source. They are referenced in other linked articles on Wikipedia itself.
I hope you will not so arrogantly ignore my effort at civilized discussion. That would start another war, something I certainly do not wish. DIREKTOR 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

Please read ARBCOM Dalmatia and post your comments. Thank you. --Giovanni Giove 15:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Francamente ti dico che non mi importa di imporre POV italiani: non sopporto i nazionalisti italiani... ti puoi immaginare quelli croati!! Sto cercando un modus vivendi per poter raggiungere una versione condivisa, cosa impossibile visto che la nostra controparte nega la pure e semplice esistenza degli italiani in Dalmazia. Visto che hai conosciuto DIREKTOR ti sarai fatto un'idea. Se ti pare di la tua. Stame ben.Giovanni Giove 15:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Mark's Basilica

Ciao, Ghepeu! (Sono italiano ma no de Venexia) I am expanding "St Mark's Basilica" as requested at the article. As a new Wikipedian I would like someone to read a first draft I put in the discussion page... Would you? GRAZIE! --Stefano Remo 19:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] speedy

You cannot use speedy for all those subjects you think un-notable. You can only use it for those subjects where there is no rational expression of notability whatever. DGG (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intenzione

Leggendo questo messaggio dalla prima frase sai la ossessiva intenzione di DIREKTOR -We can always use support against radical Serb (četnik) and (especially) Italian theses in Wikipedia-: sto tizio agisce in gruppo contro supposte e immaginarie tesi italiane. Dunque DIREKTOR è un troll. PIO, 11 set 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.33.90.209 (talk) 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC - Marco Polo

A comment about the RfC in Marco Polo woul be welcomed. Saludi.--Giovanni Giove 11:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation of the Marco Polo subsection

I have listed the problems with the current wording [3]. Let's see what we can do to avoid edit-warring... DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Korčula "thing"

It may seem to you that you are, or deserve to be, a notable scientist or historian, but would you please stop forcing your own opinion in this matter. You may consider it "childish", but since it is an accepted theory (because of the lack of any info on his birth, among other things), it will be treated as equal in the article. Your source does not say that most sources accept the venetian theory, it basically just says that that particular source believes him to be from Venice. DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your're right, that article is a strong vote against that theory, but I'm not gonna spend a whole day searching the web for counterweights so that you just might accept this single fact: this article does not say or prove that "most sources accept the Venetian theory".

Also, the inhabitants of that picturesque island were certainly not Venetians (Italians), therefore the local contemporary name would be "Korčula". I propose we use "Curzola/Korčula" to accomodate everyone and prevent further conflict(s).
(Romanic Dalmatians were extinct by the time of the 11th century, with the exceptions of Jader, Ragusa and Spalatum.)
DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marco Polo talkpage

Please discuss on the Marco Polo statements matter. (Despite it not being your usual practice...) DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I was wondering why

Your user page was linked from Virginia DeMarce (edit talk links history)... but I see we share a lot ... a whole lot, really, of the same reading interests. Since you're into the Gazettes, I can use help pounding the series into better shape. Any help you can give putting up characters or story synopses (e.g. just started here and here ) would be nice. Then again there's always a major character whose profile can be improved!

I'm continually getting diverted with template matters and can't seem to hit the one story a day coverage I'd hoped to hit. Then again, there's been the battles, writers, and odds 'N' ends to organize on the fly. Nice to meetchya! // FrankB 22:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Land and freedom.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Land and freedom.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 15:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Wikipedians for a User Study

Hello. I am a graduate student in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of Minnesota. We are conducting research on ways to engage content experts on Wikipedia. Previously, Wikipedia started the Adopt-a-User program to allow new users to get to know seasoned Wikipedia editors. We are interested in learning more about how this type of relationship works. Based on your editing record on Wikipedia, we thought you might be interested in participating. If chosen to participate, you will be compensated for your time. We estimate that most participants will spend an hour (over two weeks on your own time and from your own computer) on the study. To learn more or to sign up contact KATPA at CS dot UMN dot EDU or User:KatherinePanciera/WPMentoring. Thanks. KatherinePanciera (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)