User talk:Luigi 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of PIO.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

Hi, I presume from your edit that you are knowledgeable about Andrea Antico. Would you please present your evidence that Antico was not of Croatian birth, evidence of sufficient weight to overrule the scholars who contribute to the New Grove, and to justify your removal of cited material from it? Thank you. Antandrus (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

* First: Andrea Antico is the name of the Italian Community of Montona/Motovun!
* Second: show me ONE WORD wrote by Antico in croatian!
* Third: here[1] you can read: "(...) four motet partbook-sets
  variously issued or reissued by the Italian engraver Andrea Antico between 1518 and 1521 (...)"
  --Luigi 28 (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

---> Prof. Josip Andreis ("Music in Croatia", Zagreb, Institut of Musicology-Academy of Music, 1974) took over the 'Croatization' of the name of Andrea Antico from the Zagreb scholar Lovro Zupanovic, but admitted his claims are non generally accepted even among other music historians in Zagreb. In fact, the "Muzika Enciklopedija" (Zagreb, 1971) mentions Zupanovic's claims (under the entry 'Antico') more as an oddity than an established fact. See also: Bojan Bujic, "Music & Letters", Oxford University Press, LVI (34), 441 (1975), p. 441.

Now, I'm waiting for your apology (and sorry for my poor english)--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] RE: Your message

Ciao Luigi, non c'è alcun bisogno di scusarsi per il cattivo inglese, nemmeno il mio italiano è ottimo. Ho ancora la sensazione che si dovrebbe discutere sulle modifiche piuttosto che litigare con altri utenti, ci risparmierebbe un sacco di problemi. Ti prego di citare fonti attendibili per ogni modifica. Grazie per i tuoi contributi.

PS: esiste una versione in lingua italia di wikipedia, si trova all'indirizzo http://it.wikipedia.org. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Grazie mille per il tuo messaggio. Purtroppo da quando ho iniziato a scrivere qualcosa sulla Wiki inglese, sono stato "bersagliato" da due utenti che mi hanno preso per un altro (questo PIO che non conosco). Mi hanno cancellato varie volte ciò che scrivevo, senza nemmeno una spiegazione. Comunque sia, ho iniziato a scrivere anche nella Wiki italiana, sempre con lo stesso nome: "Luigi" (che è il mio vero nome) "28" (che è il giorno in cui sono nato, nel mese di settembre). Adesso ho inserito una fonte per quasi ogni singola parola che ho inserito: credo di essere l'unico utente di Wiki che se non fa così ha subito un falco che gli piomba sulla testa per cancellare tutto quanto! Studio da molti anni la storia dell'Adriatico orientale, e questo sarà in prevalenza il mio campo di intervento. Ancora grazie e ciao.--Luigi 28 (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Luigi, I'll always assume good faith, but to say the least it's odd that your first ever edit was to restore a fact tag that PIO had added [2], and that on his way out of the door, PIO/Agazio was telling us, without being asked, that he had no connection with you. See User_talk:Agazio. And that Istrian exodus got protected to prevent PIO editing it from his IP, and that you were along within 24 hours of the PP expiring to add census data to it [3], which, strangely enough, had often been PIO's favourite topic [4]. Now I know that you don't have the same IP as PIO, as a check user has been run, but... AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm not Pio. I don't know mr. Pio. My REAL name is Luigi, like my nickname. I'm Venetian. I repeat: if you want, I can send to you my telephone number, so you can hear my voice. I haven't the same IP as PIO, because I'm not that PIO! Take it easy.
2. I wrote about Istria and Dalmatia many, many time in my life. My name in the Italian Wiki is the same (Luigi 28). I have more than 350 books about Istria, Fiume (Rijeka) and Dalmatia. My grand-grandfather was from Lussino (Losinj), my father-in-law came from Fiume (Rijeka), where he's born in 1918. His family was authocthonous in Fiume (Rijeka), from XVIIth century.
3. Do you have a SINGLE source about this fact: <<Alleanza Nazionale has often claimed that Italy paid too much for her defeat in WWII, repeating that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy">>? I'm Italian and I'm sure that I've NEVER read that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy". NEVER! But I'm waiting for your source. Than, if you (or everyone else) don't have a source, maybe (MAYBE!) this fact can be erased, right?
4. My census data is completely correct. I have here three books regarding the Austrian, Italian and Yugoslav censa: G.Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell‘Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936, Unione Italiana Fiume - Università Popolare di Trieste, Trieste-Rovigno, 1993; O.Mileta Mattiuz, Popolazioni dell‘Istria, Fiume, Zara e Dalmazia (1850-2002). Ipotesi di quantificazione demografica, ADES, Trieste 2005; La Comunità Nazionale Italiana nei censimenti jugoslavi 1945-1991, Unione Italiana di Fiume - Università Popolare di Trieste, Trieste-Rovigno, 2001. What are YOUR sources about censa?--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigi, I don't even know what it means to say "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy". It's such poor English as to be open to various interpretations. Does it mean "stolen by Italy or "stolen from Italy"? I have no idea. The reason that I removed the fact tag was not on its merits, as I don't even understand the sentence, but because I was reverting the edit of a banned user who was working from his IP, thinking we would not recognise him. Thus, it was rather unusual, if you are not PIO, for your very first edit to be to restore his fact tag, especially where the sentence makes no sense. As for your other points about census data and so on, well, I have never said your data is incorrect. I simply pointed out that it's a topic that a certain other (former) editor is also very interested in.
By the way, is this you [5]? Just wondering. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1. "Dalmatia is stolen to Italy": is IN the voice "Italia irredenta". If you think that is unclear (for me is not only unclear, but WRONG!), erase it! 2. Yes: this was one of my first messages in Wikipedia.--Luigi 28 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I have no idea what you're trying to say under "1."
2. Yep, you're PIO alright. Hi PIO! :D --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Voglio dire che la frase "La Dalmazia è stata rubata all'Italia" non l'ho mai sentita dire qui in Italia. Hai una fonte? Se non ce l'hai, bisogna cancellarla.
2. Tu sei folle.
3. Io VOGLIO L'INTERVENTO DI UN AMMINISTRATORE!!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigi, may I ask again if you are the same Luigi that made this edit [6]. Yes or no? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ad I write again (look above): YES. It was one of my first messages in Wikipedia.--Luigi 28 (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, 'Luigi'. Therefore, it was also you that wrote this [7] and this [8], where you got confused about which IP you were using, and this [9] and this [10] and this [11] and this [12] and all these [13][14]. There's also a remarkable similarity between this [15] and this [16] and this [17] where you were 'Nemo', and this [18] where you were Agazio. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm only the first two!!! I'm not Nemo, I'm not Agazio, I'm not the others!!! Ragazzi, tu e HERR DIREKTOR siete dei cacciatori di nuvole!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one thing: my name is not 'Luigi' but Luigi, and my last name is Vianelli.--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure they are not all you Luigi? If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "It tells us they are all the same"?? Are you fool or simply ignorant? It tells that all the messages coming from the same provider here in Italy have the same provider!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you CRAZY? Do you think that I didn't know who I am? MAKE ALL THE CONTROLS YOU WANT! Esistono delle regole in Wikipedia o è solo una giungla dove due Sherlock Holmes come TE e HERR DIREKTOR fate il bello e il cattivo tempo? For me this affaire is unbelievable!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

LOOK: I'm this one: [19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]
--Luigi 28 (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem? I haven't problem with myself! This is YOUR problem!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re

Look PIO, the sources you added were biased, thoroughly. Is it too much to ask that you find some English and/or Croatian sources. It should be easy enough for a Croatian city... Italian sources like to Italianize any and all names that could in any way be associated with an Italian.

For example, have a look at Bošković. "Bošković" is a typical South Slavic name, the suffix "-ić" (pronounced: "-ich") being present in almost half of all Croatian and Serbian names. The suffix "-ić", while it has no meaning whatsoever in Italian, is actually the most common suffix generally used to create a diminutive. You will also find it in Russian names. The text of the surname ending with "-ić" usually has the name of an ancestor's father. Example: let's take a typical South Slavic name, "Ivan Marković". Here "Marković" means that an ancestor of "Ivan Marković" was called "Marko", and that his sons were afterwards known as "Marković" because of that. "Bošković" simply means that an early ancestor of Bošković was called "Boško" (a common Slavic name), and that his offspring were, for one reason or another, known henceforth as "Bošković".
Here's another, more famous example: take the Serbian and later Yugoslav royal House of Karađorđević (pronounced: "Karadjordjevich"). A famous ancestor of theirs was Karađorđe, and they were afterwards known as the "Karađorđević" family. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: WHAT KIND OF SOURCES DO YOU PREFER?!? I can send to you Internet sources (Croatian!!! From the Historic Institute of Zagreb!!!!) or some books (also Croatian!!!!). WHAT KIND OF SOURCES DO YOU PREFER?!?!?
I don't care about the Italianization of the name. I don't care about the ethnicity of Boscovich. You don'know NOTHING about the old City Mayors of Rijeka (Fiume), that's simply the FACT.

The names of my family are also:
1. Smoquina
2. Barbalich
3. Mrak
4. Iovanovich
Do you think that I don't know something about the names of Fiume/Rijeka? The name of one of the founders of the National Party in Dalmatia was Bianchini/Biankini: an Italian name! The name of one of the most important irredentisti in Zadar was Ghiglianovich: a Croat name! So, I don't care about the spelling of the names or about the tipycal South Slavic or tipycal Italian names. One of the officials in the Italian fleet in the Battle of Lissa/Vis was the guardiamarina Ivancovich from Parenzo/Porec: a tipycal South Slavic name. Well: he was an Austrian officier, who left to go in Italy and fight for the Regia Marina! You have many, many problems of interpretation of the historical facts!--Luigi 28 (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you constantly talking about the mayors of Rijeka?! Did I revert your last edit? Let's forget that, shall we? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 08:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

HERR DIREKTOR! I'm talking about:
1. Tipycal names
2. The Mayors of Rijeka (Fiume)
Have you seen ALSO the first point?

I'm talking about the Mayors of Rijeka, because YOUR words were: "the sources you added were biased, thoroughly.".

A question for you: why the name in the voice "Losinj" is also in Italian, and the same is impossible for "Cres (town)"?

PS I'M NOT PIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, you're Luigi. Your Wikipedia name was PIO, though... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

HELP!!! Two fools are gambling with me!!!--Luigi 28 (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


("Gambling with..." LoL!) Ok, if you're not User:PIO, please try to answer the following four questions (in English) without trying to avoid it:
1) Why do you edit the exact same articles as User:PIO ands his socks? You do, that is beyond dispute.
2) Why was your very first edit on Wikipedia the restoration of a fact tag added by User:PIO and his socks?
3) Why did User:PIO state taht he has nothing to do with you when nobody even asked him about you, mentioned you, or pointed you out to him?
4) How come you added PIO's census data to the Istrian "exodus" article within hours of the removal of the semi-protection against PIO?
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1. I would like to see the exact list of articles edited by PIO
1. Than, you can report the exact list edited by me
2. I don't knew that PIO added a fact tag.
3. I don't know why User:PIO stated that he has nothing to do with me. I know that I have nothing to do with User:PIO
4. I added the census data, but - if now I read correctly - not the same of User:PIO. I wrote that I have three books about the Austrian/Italian/Yugoslav censa. If I would to add a tabel with that censa in Istrian "exodus" article, maybe do I have to write to you before?
--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're just editing, its all just an (incredible) cosmic accident, isn't it... I'm sorry I doubted your word, PIO. Edit all you want for the time being. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You think, you know, you write, you judge, you are my personal trainer, Herr Direktor! I repeat: I'm ready to check all my messages, all my IP, also with the checkuser. Then, when mr Wikipedia will find that I'm not a sockpuppet, you'll write for me a 2-page letter to apologize. I'm going to sleep. Goog night and good luck.--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:WBOSITG, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noticeboard thread

Hi Luigi,

Courtesy notice that there is a thread about you on the Administrators' Noticeboard. If I may give some gentle advice -- you may remember me from the Andrea Antico article, where you accused Martin Picker, the world expert on Antico, of committing a "forgery" -- your Wiki career is likely to be a long and profitable one if you strive to contribute good, sourced, WP:NPOV content to articles, rather than arguing and edit-warring with other editors at every occasion. Looking at your contributions, I see that the Antico experience is repeated elsewhere. Are you here to help us build an encyclopedia, or to fight with people? Honestly. If you are truly writing from a neutral point of view it should be impossible to tell where your national sympathies lie; is this true? Do you believe that you are editing from a neutral point of view? Most respectfully, Antandrus (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Antandrus, I have to repeat with you that for every single word I wrote in Wikipedia I can show one, two or three source(s) (more books than links). If you see, every time (with only two or three excepions) I wrote something, in few minutes another one User:DIREKTOR reverted my work, every time (except you) without any kind of explanation, except: "You are a banned user". For me, this is a real, incredible, personal war that two users play against me. I've never, never banned in my life from mailing lists, groups, clubs and so on. Thank you for your message and best regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PIO (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Affondamento Santo Stefano.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Affondamento Santo Stefano.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info

Luigi, I am here to recommend in the strongest possible terms that you do not publish personal names of other Wikipedia editors on this site without their permission, as you did at the SSP page. This is harassment. This matter is entirely separate from the merits or details or arguments in the case. Feel free to argue your case (I've already said that enough is enough, but you seem not to agree), but do so without breaking Wiki rules. If you do this again, I'll take it to AN/I. OK? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That info may have been on his page once, but he removed it. That means he doesn't want it spread around the site or anywhere else. Leave this subject alone, or I'll go to AN/I. Clear? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. And the answer to your question is 'Yes, I do'. Good night mate. I'm off to bed. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And the reasons that I am sure you are PIO are that a) almost all of your edits, with very few exceptions, are to insert Italian POV into articles about Dalmatia and Istria (adding Italian names, removing information that people who then became notable in Italy were born in Istria or Dalmatia and so on); b) your intense personal animosity towards DIREKTOR, just like PIO and LEO before you; c) your version of Wikipedia does not seem to have a 'preview' button, just like PIO's, leading you to clutter the recent changes log with countless minor tweaks; d) you see Wikipedia not as an encyclpedia, but as a battleground, just like PIO did; and lastly, of course, you have the same IP as PIO.
Nothing personal. It's just that Wikipedia has rules, and we all have to play within the rules. One of them is that banned users can't reappear pretending to be someone else. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
a. My Italian POV aren't POV. I have my ideas about Istria and Dalmatia, but all my edits are sourced. Well sourced, and this is a fact. b. I haven't nothing to do with this DIREKTOR: he reverted all my edits, so the thruth is: HE has intense animosity towards Luigi 28. c. My version of Wikipedia are like the versions of thousands of Wikipedians. d. The battleground is yours (you and mr DIREKTOR) against me, without any kind of explanation except: "You are banned". Boys: here in Italy the controversies are very different: you must prove your ideas with other ideas! e. I don't know anything about IP, because I like only read and write, but I wish that the truth comes out with this checkuser: I'm not the banned user PIO, and this is another fact!--Luigi 28 (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a note regarding sources, since you mention it. You are not aware perhaps that under WP:RSUE you should use English language sources wherever possible, because this is the English Wiki. Where no English language sources of the same quality exist it is permissible to use foreign language sources, but you should provide a translation of the relevant part of the text as a footnote. If you just use an Italian language source with no effort to find an English source or translation, especially in controversial articles such as Istrian exodus, there is a good chance this material may be challenged and removed. Just so that you know. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, your sources are biased. We can't allow you to simply add controversial info with sources of doubtful verifiability, and in another language. After all, are we men or are we boys!?  ;) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Boys, the voice Istrian exodus today has 23 notes:
1. In Italian
2. In Italian and in Slovene
3/17. In English
18. Not found
19. In English
20. It's a map
21. In English
22. In Italian
23. In Italian
24. In Italian
25. In Croatian
26. In Italian (my source: the Treaty of Osimo)
27. In Italian (my source: a legal expertise about properties in ex Jugoslavia)
28/31. In English
32. In English (my source)
If you go in the talk page, you can find the explanation and translation of my sources (26, 27 and 32) in English[28].
Now: you wrote your regular false, about my sources. But you have to reverte the 1., 2., 18., 21., 22., 23., 24. and 25 edits!
Now I can respond your question: I'm a man.--Luigi 28 (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Luigi,

I would ask you to strike through your comment accusing me of lying. I would also suggest that it may be better if you toned down the belligerent nature of your posts. Thank you in advance, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will ask you for the second time to strike out the accusation of lying. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this [29] enough for you?--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No. It is not. I did not say that your edits were reverted as you claim "So: When User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that my edits were reverted, because: You are not aware perhaps that under WP:RSUE you should use English language sources wherever possible,..."
What I wrote was a piece of advice about sources. Only that. Please read it again. It had nothing to do with reverting any edits you have made. I simply drew your attention to standard policy on the English Wikipedia, nothing to do with any reverts made so far. Please strike out your allegation of lying and correct your claim that I was talking about why your edits were reverted.. Thank you in advance.
I am getting very tired of your aggressive comments. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. It is an encyclopedia. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • From my very first edit you call an admin for a check: I'm your battlefield, of course.
  • You wrote: "What I wrote was a piece of advice about sources".
  • The Wikipedia:RSUE says: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.[30]"
  • While you wrote: "If you just use an Italian language source with no effort to find an English source or translation, especially in controversial articles such as Istrian exodus, there is a good chance this material may be challenged and removed".
  • What you wrote isn't a piece of the advice about sources!
  • The truth is:
  1. In the voice Istrian exodus I used two italian sources and one English source, and in the talk page I translated the Italian sources in English.
  2. I and you were speaking about my sources: I wrote: "all my edits are sourced. Well sourced, and this is a fact. b. I haven't nothing to do with this DIREKTOR: he reverted all my edits"[31]
  3. Your reply: "(...) there is a good chance this material may be challenged and removed".
  • I propose:
  1. You write that my edits in Istrian exodus are correctly sourced and you made a mistake.
  2. I strike out my allegation of lying.--Luigi 28 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Report

PIO/Luigi, you need to focus your edits strictly on evidence, not on complaints. You won't avoid a block this time if you keep depicting Alasdair and myself as "evil" persons. Even if I breached my restriction, that would still be irrelevant to the report. I advise you to remove the non relevant stuff from the page such as the list of times I called you PIO, discussions about the quality of your edits and so forth. In a sockpuppeteering report that stuff won't matter at all, all it will do is make you look like a fanatic or something, and force the Admin to got through loads of irrelevant stuff. By all means, correct your grammar, but remove all that stuff, post it on your talkpage if you want to discuss it. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not PIO.--Luigi 28 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of a thread at AN

I have opened a thread at the Administrators' Noticeboard that directly concerns you. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_for_more_eyes_on_and_a_speedy_close_to_Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets.2FPIO_.283rd.29.
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What?

I didn't understand what you tried to say... please try a different wording (keep it in English).
I did not revert your edit, I simply made a minor modification. When I say minor, I mean that the information you added is still there. Why did I remove the Italian name? Because there is absolutely no excuse for its being there. Kastav is not and was not populated by a majority of Italians, and it was never in Italy. The only possible reason for the addition of the Italian name is to satisfy an irredentist POV towards Istria. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Report #2

Let's try this again:

  • The report is an accusation of sockpuppetry. It has nothing to do with me calling you PIO, or reverting your edits.
    • On a page about an accusation of sockpuppetry, you are NOT supposed to add every little "bad" thing about AlasdairGreen27 or myself, not because these things are not true, but because they are not important for the sockpuppetry report.
  • Please remove the non-relevant info from the sockpuppeteering report, as it is extremely disruptive for the resolution of this matter. If you are not PIO, then a resolution of this matter would be in your interest.

--DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Simply said: only add info that has something to do STRICTLY and ONLY with sockpuppetry.
I am not saying you should not write a real defence, I am saying you should only write stuff that matters. An average Admin that comes to read a sockpuppetry report most certainly and absolutely will NOT care about a list of times I called you "PIO". He will also NOT care about my reverts of your edits, because this is NOT a report about edit warring, this is a report about sockpuppeteering, and only sockpuppeteering.
Do NOT add info that has nothing to do STRICTLY with sockpuppetry. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 14:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Please, tell me: who wrote this words: "Luigi, like PIO, sees Wikipedia not as an encyclopedia but as a battleground, almost exclusively editing articles about Istria and Dalmatia, removing references that Italians may have been born in Istria or Dalmatia"? Is this a relevant info for the sockpuppeteering report? Also my defence. Another question: who wrote this: "If the question is 'incredibly smart or incredibly stupid', I'd go for option B". I'm not PIO (and YOU know it) and I'm waiting for the check.--Luigi 28 (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


"Luigi, like PIO, sees Wikipedia not as an encyclopedia but as a battleground, almost exclusively editing articles about Istria and Dalmatia, removing references that Italians may have been born in Istria or Dalmatia."
This quote refers to your alleged similarity with PIO, it is related to teh sockpuppeteering report.
"If the question is 'incredibly smart or incredibly stupid', I'd go for option B."
This quote is not from a sockpuppeteering report, this is from a User's talkpage. If you think its a personal attack, talk about it somewhere else. I am discussing your completely irrelevant edits to the sockpuppeteering report.
Finally, please stop telling me you're not PIO. I obviously do NOT believe you since I filed a report against you, and I am NOT about to start believing you if you write it one million times (see WP:SHOUT). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


I still do not understand why you add irrelevant information on a sockpuppetry report? I have explained above that it is, indeed, irrelevant without question. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


You won't answer? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

PIO, I've been writing this all day: "the personal war that I and mr Aladstair are conducting against you, only because we think you're PIO" has nothing to do with the sockpuppeteering report, and should not be posted there. Admins taht work on those kind of reports do not and will not care about "the personal war that I and mr Aladstair are conducting against you, only because we think you're PIO". The only thing they will care about is strictly and only this: evidence that you are, or are not, User:PIO's sockpuppet. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Mother tongue Italian"

Provide a reference (direct link) for the "Mother tongue Italian" category of your census table. It is highly unusual, I doubt any census office actually wrote that up. I also suspect you got it from some "exiles"/irredentist website. If it remains unsourced when you're blocked, I will remove it. The rest of the stuff is ok, even though I doubt you spent 72 hours writing it up. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)